How does Beterbiev do in the 1940s

No way. The guy lost to Gunnar Barlund who was around the same size as Beterbiev and couldn't put away Savold who again was the size of Beterbiev and kod 11 times. No logical reason to favor him

He doesn't have anything to suggest he was an amazing puncher by the standards of his day in which many top heavyweights were the size of Beterbiev

 

Lost to Burland two years before receiving his ranking. He beat Savold, Mann and Galento after the Burland fight so he got better.
He put away Mann who was bigger than Beterbiev.

 

What has Beterbiev done to suggest he can beat a 6'7 260 lb giant with some semblance of skill ? He's a pressure fighter who relies on his normally superior physicality to overwhelm his opponent and then get him with hard punches. That's absolutely not going to work against someone as utterly gigantic as Baer, who would make him look like a prepubescant kid.

 

The logical reason to favour him is he has a massive size advantage, a clear style advantage, and a huge punch.

There is literally no reason outside of recency bias to chose Beterbiev. At no point has he ever proven he could beat a 6'6 power puncher.

 

It was about your statement that Buddy Baer would obliterate Beterbiev within a few rounds. I wondered if you saw the same outcome for Marciano against Baer.

 

Is Beterbiev the exact same fighter though? Does he have the same career trajectory?

 

Would you say the same about Marciano? If not, what do you see as the crucial differences?

 

Yeah I answered that in my post. Marciano would probably win but I can't give a confident answer based on his resume

 

Why do you see such a drastic difference in how Marciano and Beterbiev would fare against Baer?

 

Bigger than Beterbiev and proven against bigger fighters. Also helps that he's in the top five-ten HWs of all time.

 

Buddy Baer is a lot better than Marciano.

 

Marciano is not in the top 5-10 HWs of all time. Beterbiev is actually more proven if you break it down.

 

Pretty much all physical aspects go to Marciano. He has a better workrate, better stamina, hits harder, stronger, better chin, etc.

He's a better infighter, better at closing the gap, probably harder to land clean on, and is much better at imposing himself on his opponents. Beterbiev's balance is better, as is how he structuring of himself, technically. Better form in punches, placement of feet, hand placement for the guard, etc. Beter might've had faster hands and feet than Marciano, when he was younger, I'd have to rewatch them both but it's definitely not by loads. I'd also argue Marciano has a higher ring IQ, but I'll probably do a different post about that specifically.

But if you want to see why there's a clear difference between them imo; watch how Beterbiev treats Bivol in the 12th, then compare it to how Marciano treated Charles in the 15th.

Different calibre of fighter.

Not the same but similar. In terms of style it's bad for both of them, and I could potentially see Buddy Baer taking a 10 rounder against a younger, up-and-coming Marciano. But it's quite a leap imo to go from that to him beating a championship ready Marciano over 15.

I'd have thought the crucial differences were obvious. One is a heavyweight world champion who has beaten multiple all-time greats and top heavyweight contenders. The other has never beaten a heavyweight in a professional fight.

In the same way one would never favour Beterbiev over Joyce or Zhang, idk why anyone would favour him over Baer.

 

lol, ok. Break it down for me.
How many defenses of the heavyweight crown has Beterbiev had up to this point?

 

How does a person come to this conclusion?