Ezzard Charles vs Max Baer

Before writing off Baer remember he has wins over Ernie Schaaf, Max Schmeling and Tommy Farr.
Charles probably wins this, but an in shape Baer could take him out or win a decision.

 

Remember when Ali lost to Frazier, who Foreman breezed through in two rounds? Foreman must’ve killed Ali next, right?

 

This isn't about the triangle theory, it's about their best wins at HW.
Schmeling has Louis and Sharkey, Charles has a 36 year old Louis and a 35 year old Walcott.
Charles has nothing at heavyweight to match a win over a young Louis, and his best victory in the weight class isn't better than a win over Sharkey.
Schmeling was a harder puncher and a bigger threat, of course we can argue about the version of Schmeling Baer faced (the same that lost to S. Hamas) but otherwise, there's no reason to think that Charles is a superior fighter.

 

No reason? Check their pound-for-pound standing. They are several galaxies apart, & I think my history here acquits me of ever under-rating Schmeling. Charles beat a peak Walcott twice, each of those are at least equal to a win over Sharkey (I’d argue, superior). Charles spent years & years at LHW, so it’s natural his HW CV is going to miss opportunities that a career Heavy like Schmeling can grab.

The things Schmeling could do better than Charles is a very, very short list.

 

Compared to the average heavyweight of the era, I would still say he hit hard and he was big for the era

This content is protected

 

Oh I’m sure Louis could still crack.

 

When did Baer ever throw Left Hooks with cunning deceit?

 

Schmeling’s eye was closed from Louis left jab. Also, 1 victory doesn’t make an entire career. Was James Buster Douglas better than everyone because he beat Tyson?

Schmeling had some god awful performances in his prime, getting iced in 1 round by flapper girl Gypsy Daniels, he got badly outboxed by vacationing street car conductor Steve Hamas, fought a draw with porous plodder Paolino uzcuden, and he got destroyed in 10 rounds by the incredulously crude Max Baer who back handed him like sally.

Charles in his prime was near immaculate going something like 35-1 from 1946-1951 (Walcott defeat) with one controversial loss to Elmer Ray.

during this time, he knocked out Archie Moore Elmer Ray Jimmy Bivins Joe Baksi and he decisioned Walcott 2x, Louis, Maxim 5x, Moore 2x, Bivins 2x

Schmeling rides the coat tails off one great victory, and make no mistake about it Charles handled a 36 year old Louis pretty easily

 

Charles outboxes Baer convincingly over 15 rounds. Baer's right is always dangerous but 'The Cobra' avoids most of them.

 

When we're talking on a peak head to head sense, and Schmeling wins out against a superior version of Joe Louis, it makes all the difference.

I was in no way talking about either men's career, reputation, technique, p4p ranking or any sort of thing other than simply both Schmeling and Charles, h2h, at heavyweight. I'm sorry if I confused you by saying "better at heavyweight" which is very broad.

 

Ezzard easy decision

 

I was not talking p4p, i was talking h2h at heavyweight and their resume at heavyweight. Walcott's prime in 1949 is questionable btw, keep in mind he cleaned the division, fought Maxim in June 1947 and then fought Louis 6 months later in December of that year. He then had another 6 months until the Louis rematch in June of 1948, got knocked out and then took a year off until he fought Charles in June 1949. Walcott went through the top rankers while he aged 31-33, fought Louis at 33 and 34 years old, then after a year of inactivity fought Charles at age 35. For the second Charles fight, Walcott had just lost to Rex Layne, and was by now 36 years old.
Now as we are talking about how Charles compares to Schmeling as a heavyweight/ H2H fighter to see how he could handle Baer, Ezzard hasn't proven himself a good deal superior, or superior at all, to Max H2H. I know it's unfair to expect Charles to have a victory over a young Louis, he himself was a child at the time, but without a comparable win, I wouldn't call Charles a better fighter than Schmeling, again, in absolute terms, not pound for pound, in which case Charles is greater than Louis himself.

 

I realise we’re talking about a straight fight at Heavy but the pound-for-pound point is still relevant because the cosmic gulf between them would require Charles to be a Bantamweight for it to become irrelevant. They are narrowly apart in size & massively apart in ability.

 

I know but you are talking about overall accomplishments whereas I am talking about how they compare at heavyweight.
How close these two are in weight is irrelevant, Schmeling briefly competed at ligtht heavyweight in Europe at an early age. Most of his body of work is at heavyweight. Charles has a whole slew of accomplishments before he even got into the HW division, but that didn't stop the heavyweights from giving him tough fights. Ray beat him controversially, same as Layne and Walcott. None of these guys are even remotely close to Charles p4p yet they beat him, albeit not convincingly (aside from Ez-JJW 3).
That's the argument, Schmeling isn't anywhere near Charles resume wise but he has the size, speed and skills to be comparable to him, and the better wins at heavyweight (Sharkey, Louis).