[GIF] Max Baer showing skill and reflexes with a triple jab, followed by a sharp combo, and a slip

The line you said this thread should have isn't the same as:

"Here Baer showing skill and reflexes, while throwing a triple jab, followed by a sharp combo and slip"

Decent skills isn't the above, and frankly I wouldn't use decent more like average/pedestrian. There is nothing that stood out in that clip that I'd be trying to illustrate with the narrative the thread title had. I appreciate Rez around here, and appreciate his work and views. Nothing wrong with him posting this as it may have shown somebody something they never saw. As I said before though, I just believe they don't show proper context to a career or even that particular fight.

 

Yes, I think all clips like that don't show the entire picture or even a relevant picture to be honest. This includes the one you responded to.

 

Heavyweight boxing, more than any other division, is flexible on which styles are successful, and it is very particular to the talent of the boxer. Perhaps because of the wide range of sizes (190 to 260+ pounds, 5'10" to 7') precipitates this. Just look at Wilder, a guy who can bide his time just well enough to find the moment to impose his particular physical advantages. It's not rocket science but neither is it without skill. In Baer's case, if you are looking for better examples of his orthodox skills I would look at his defense which could be fairly clever (again, he largely bid his time for the opportunity to impose a finish). Examples of his triple jabbing or whatnot are not exactly overwhelming.

 

Anyone notice how Baer is similar to Connor McGregor?
Strong pursuit skills when a guy is hurt
Likes to troll and roar at the guy
Acts loose to show dominance but then tries to clip the guy sharp on the button

I'd objectively rate him as good to great
Not full on great, but neither just a "good" fighter
He's the kind of guy that could break open good fundamentals and make you look stupid
But the guy who has superior skills could put him down and in his place

Wouldn't be a piece of cake though, thus why I'd not agree with people saying he is sloppy
You can actually be sloppy when out of range of the opponent, especially if it is to taunt or display the fact that he can't come and get you
Obviously some of Baers actions are designed to goad the opponent

Baer and Foreman are equivalent in many ways I agree with that
And furthermore it is indeed true that tightening up defence and fundamentals can erase wild advantages that come from nature
For example I tried to do a lot of Mayweather Jr shoulder rolls but found my punching turned into weak sauce
So I pulled back on that defence in order to regain the punch power
There are tradeoffs you can't easily avoid and calculations you have to make

Marciano had problems
The interesting thing is how he managed to overcome them
He had a giant reach disadvantage so developed his style with the knowledge he could never outcompete anyone elses jab
HUGE SACRIFICES were made in order to set up a style that scooted past the jab to land killer blows
Say what you want about him but the guy epitomises the ability to get inside when you really don't want him to

He takes away the jab, which is the most useful punch in boxing, and then you have no way to set up your cross
And before you know it you have to trade in a place where you KNOW he is superior

Boxing in this way is like chess
In chess there are closed games and open games depending on pawn structure
Closed is where the pawns rest shoulder to shoulder in diagonal lines unable to take each other
Therefor the pawns block the center of the board permanently and the only way to fight is with the knights

In chess if the game is open knights are inferior to bishops, but, Marciano in knowing this he forced every game he ever played to be a closed game, and so with his knights came to obliterate his opponents bishops

This is using position to your advantage and is a highly advanced skill, not only in chess but also in boxing

When it comes to Baer, he like wilder or foreman, wants the fight to be open and loose
He forces his opponent out of closed positions into fighting his game
And to do it he even will gambit certain things
Like lowering his guard to bait coming in

Is it genius? No... But it is part and parcel of being in a more open match
You want to bait opponents into wanting to come at you so you can pick at them as they try to apply pressure they themselves didn't want to apply but were forced into

Shaping the fight is a very overlooked skillset

Though I will be honest,
The more I train, the more I try to get solid fundamentals
Good guard, good jab, good footwork, and minimising mistakes
But it is VERY VERY HARD TO DO
You cannot expect every fighter to RISK losing their dynamite advantage over others to follow a quest for perfection they might not even attain
Only the best of the best can reach for the basics at such a high level and somehow maintain dynamite

I aim to, its my dream to be a brilliant foundationally solid fighter, but
It is important to have no illusions about such things
Thusly, I awe at guys like Marciano for his work ethic and ability to close up fights

I don't think Marciano was the best ever. I hate those titles.
I think he was industrious with what he had
And I respect it

All greats are good to learn from but you gotta look at it in context and think "why is this working?"
Thats when you go AHA!
And find pearls of wisdom

Of course faking that everything is good when it isn't is silly too xD
And I respond to your post to acknowledge that point of view
Though I don't agree that the right way to go about it is saying they outright suck
Of course they don't and results prove that

 

I think you’ve been duped by Reznick’s strawman argument then. Even though some of us consider the 30s to be a very weak era overall, nobody around here has ever portrayed Louis, Schmeling, Farr, etc. as caveman like or amateurish. As far as I can tell, the only prominent 1930s heavyweights who get portrayed as “caveman” like are Baer and Galento. Carnera and Braddock also get portrayed as having poor mechanics and a variety of flaws. These criticisms aren’t some new modernist attack on the era—as far as I can tell they are completely consistent with how contemporary sources also viewed those fighters 80+ years ago.

For whatever reason, Reznick seems to feels that he is less biased then and/or understands boxing better than the countless reasonable people who’ve held these views. So he ends up trying to argue that Carnera was a better all around fighter than Riddick Bowe, that Galento threw his punches with the same technique as David Tua, and that guys like Baer and Braddock had far better skills than anyone realizes. In doing so, he’s often posted footage that fails to support his claims and in some instances actually undermine them. I could be wrong, but I’ve always sensed that he does these things because it bothers him that some of us feel that certain old school fighters would have had a much tougher time being as dominant in subsequent eras. Whatever his motives, disagreeing with his revisionist takes on these fighters hardly means that we’re casting their more skilled contemporaries as caveman-like or amateurish.

And for the record, far more of the leading heavyweights of today (or the past 15 years, really) get criticized around here for having poor skills and/or mechanics, and the people making these criticisms often paint with a much broader brush.

 

Never said that I was humble or balanced.

I think you're great at figuring out how to make entertaining, enjoyable highlights, and you're great at portraying visuals and setting a mood that people really enjoy with your music, editing, and great production value. But I think that you are confusing this with being able to use footage to accurately portray or draw conclusions about fighters and their abilities and skill sets. They're completely different things.

 

I'm a sucker for chess analogies but I have a different take on this one. Marciano reminds me more of a certain type of very good street chess bullet/blitz player-- the aggressive kind who wears his opponents down with attack after attack, forcing them to commit blunders or run out of time. In chess as in boxing, it works very well against overmatched or unprepared opponents, but it's not as effective against stronger opponents (like many of the talented bigger heavyweights of the past 50 years) who are better equipped to deal with the attacks and pressure.

To me, Baer and Foreman are more like ordinary chess players who for whatever reason get to start a game with material advantages (due to their power and durability advantages). They're definitely still beatable by smarter and better-trained opponents, but that advantage can be extremely difficult to overcome. They make a ton of mistakes and even blunders but seldom end up paying for them.

 

Good description.

 

We obviously have different opinions about what is a slip and what is a straight pull back and especially why one is better than the other (if you want to call one a sidewise slip and the other a pull back slip, I've no big problems with that, it's just words after all - the essential thing is what move is the better), nothing new there, but I see no problem with you thinking I'm wrong or saying so. When I don't think the discussion is going anywhere I pull out of it, that's the sole measure I take.

 

No, I didn't see that one. Personally, I see no reason whatever to post a video about how bad a fighter is - if it's not in reply to an earlier discussion, perhaps - but, hey, even when people go negative like that their entitled to their opinion. I think I've only taken objection to racist slurs and threats on this site.

 

Very good post.