If you give him PEDs and about a year or two to adjust, yeah I believe he could. He wasnt really that good in his era tho I dont really care about his size, i think its moreso just representative of the fact that this era sucks. He would be humiliated by anyone in the top 3, but outside of that the heavyweight division is as deep as a kiddie pool
To be clear this is about if Buddy Baer was actually Buddy Baer. If you give PEDS or "modern training" that's no longer Buddy Baer of the 1930's and to me defeats the whole point of the question. What's the point of asking how Buddy Baer would do if the answer is "He would EASILY be top ten.. if he was given magical potions and became the true king of England after taking the sword out of the stone!" I don't get this logic and it only happens in heavyweight threads. No one feels the need to give someone like Johnny Bratton spellbooks and time to adjust to the era. They just answer the question that was actually asked of them.
Clumsy and slow aren’t traits unique to some 1930s’ heavyweights, there are plenty of modern heavyweights who seem to have retained those qualities in the ‘evolution’ of the heavyweight division. They’re not all athletes at the cutting edge of sports science as lots of people would have us believe. You may have been making just a comment about Baer himself but there does tend to be this general fallacy that is applied when talking about modern heavyweights when comparing with those from years back. And why do you think light-heavyweights would beat him - just from a speed perspective?
I like the Baer brothers a lot, but back in them days the talent poll was limited when comparing to todays fighters, especielly at the higher weight divisions. If you watch the old footage of old time heavies, they are slow and ponderous. Buddy looked like a big slow amateur in the ring.
53 ko wins in 66 fights obviously don't translate to a 92.98 ko percentage... more like 80 or thereabouts.