Ingo vs Baer

Both these guys were playboys who didn't like to train.Baer seems to have the physical edge,but watching his fights,not a whole lot of technique.I just picture Baer wanting it a little more,and knocking out Ingo,while trailing by points.

 

I misread Schmeling's record he was light heavy champ of Germany the year he lost to Daniels, my mistake.

Schmeling did not become ranked in the top 10, till after he beat Uzcudun at the END of 29,in fact I don't think he was in the top 10 till 1930.

Erskine was a cagey boxer who had no power .A Euro level fighter
Schmeling was a world class fighter from 1930 till 37 ,he was ranked inside the top 4 for 7 consecutive years.

Erskine had a very brief rating at the bottom of the top 10.
The issue is Johansson was never much more than a Euro level fighter.
Whereas Baer was a world class fighter for around a decade.

 

This fight would be decided by who had the better chin, and that would be baer.

 

Yes exactly...if it only were to go 4 rounds before Baer coldcocked Ingo, Max would be behind in points at the time.

 

I dont see Ingo losing to Braddock....

 

How about if he didn't train and both his hands went on him during the fight?
I don't see Baer being coldcocked by Brian London

 

"Johansson was never much more than a Euro level fighter. Whereas Baer was a world class fighter for around a decade."

I think this is over-the-top. Johansson knocking out the world champion and the #1 contender does not prove him world class at all?

As for Baer being so world class and Ingo not, Baer was rated by the Ring from 1930 to 1934, and again in 1938 and 1940. This is a long period but only 7 times rated. Ingo was also rated 7 times, in consecutive years from 1956 to 1962.

*I think the big difference between me and other posters here is that I am just not as big on Baer. His record through the Uzcudun fight in 1931 is fairly ordinary, with seven defeats. He then has his big run, with 14 straight wins, 8 by knockout, to the championship. Until the Schaaf fight in late 1932, there is nothing that outstanding, just decision wins over Risko, Levinsky (2), and Heeney, all of whom were losing to plenty of other people.
He won impressively over Schaaf, and in 1933 and 1934 scored his big wins over Schmeling and Carnera.
That's about it. Here is the rest of his career:

1935--Lost decisively to Jim Braddock, a fighter with a so-so record. Slaughtered by Joe Louis.

1936--Goes on tour fighting third and fourth raters in hick towns. The Ring does not rate him in the top ten.

1937--Loses to Tommy Farr, the first contender he has met since Louis.
Ko's Ben Foord-Foord is on this run-lost to Walter Neusel, lost to Tommy Farr, ko'd in 8 by Baer, lost to Schmeling, lost to Neusel again, ko'd in 9 by Eddie Phillips. Phillips, a Brit lightheavy, actually did better on balance against Farr and Foord than Baer.

1938--Defeats Farr in 15, knocking him down twice. This is the third loss in a run of five consecutive losses (Louis, Braddock, Baer, Nova, Burman) for Farr. Ko's Hank Hankinson in 1-Hankinson's last few fights--Johnny Whiters ko by 1, Tiger Jack Fox ko by 1, Phil Brubacker ko by 1, Chuck Crowell ko by 2, Max Baer ko by 1.
Baer jumps to #2 world rating by Ring Magazine for 1938.

1939--Lou Nova stops Baer in 11. Baer ko's two nobodies. Ring Magazine drops Baer from ratings.

1940--Baer ko's Galento and Comiskey. This is a strong comeback and puts him back at #1 contender.

1941--Nova stops Baer, finishing his career.

In all fairness, there is not all that much to get excited about after 1934.

 

Baer was an enigma. The Baer who kayoed Schmelling and Carnera puts Ingo to sleep in five rounds or less. The Baer who lost to Braddock and Lou Nova twice just might taste the canvas himself. You don't play around with someone like Ingo who has dynamite in that right hand of his.

 

We are picking them on their best nights.

 

Schmeling was badly weight-drained against Daniels.

 

Baer was an ATG puncher,but not a great Champ ,we agree on this.
Ingo had only 2 losses on his record,true ,but they were both kos ,and he only had 28 fights.Meeting 4 men that were rated ,and 1 Champ.
Baer had quite a few losses [13] , but he fought when he was on the slide,and met 5 champs and 14 rated men, in 80 fights and ,I would suggest that many of the contenders he met were superior to,

Erskine
Richardson
Cooper


I would pick
Farr
Levinsky
Schaaf
Galento
Risko
Uzcudun
Nova

Over that crew.
And,expect Ingo to have correspondingly,many more losses on his record if he had 80 fights ,continued when he was over the hill,and suffering with broken hands.

 

Are you lacking the ability to take in information?
Ingo was NOT in the game any more after he won the championship.
You can say he was over the hill at 27 due to lack of training and interest.
All his bad fights came after that and he was not out cold by London, i have seen the fight and he is up before the count but the round ends right after that.

 

I agree with this. Baer and Johansson, as one poster pointed out, were quite similar in their career arcs. Both looked good coming up toward the title. Both scored back to back impressive ko's to become the #1 contender and then champion--over Schmeling and Carnera by Baer, over Machen and Patterson by Ingo--and both were expected by some to prove to be imposing champions.

But once each became champion, the accourtrements of the championship--wine, women, and song, Hollywood, night clubs--took over. Both flopped badly in his first and only title defense. Both looked ordinary in their ex-champ days even though each was relatively young when he lost the title.

Both were playboys who blew much of their careers.

 

Your list of opponents outlines the dispute rather starkly.

Erskine
Richardson
Cooper

Ingo ko'd all of those men--record 3-0 with 3 ko's.

I would pick
Farr
Levinsky
Schaaf
Galento
Risko
Uzcudun
Nova
over that crew

Baer was 6 and 6 against this group with 1 ko victory and 2 ko defeats. His only stoppage was a retirement by Galento, and Galento claimed a broken hand. In fairness, Schaaf was saved by the bell in their second fight.

And in fairness to Ingo, if he could blow out Machen and Patterson, it is certainly possible he does okay with this group. Galento was slow and fat. Levinsky an ordinary mauler. Uzcudun and Risko ordinary and past their best. All lost gobs of fights through their careers. Ingo might have lost now and then to these seven men, but I am not convinced he could not do better than split even against them.

 

Are you lacking the ability to be objective Swede ?
Was Ingo over the hill in the Olympics, where you mentioned his Silver medal?
How come he didn't get it presented on the day?
How come he didn't get it till 30 years later?
Johansson kod a complacent , overconfident Champ ,in doing so he hit with 2 rabbit punches,and got away with it.
Is it possible the reason Floyd won the rematch was because he was more focused ?
Is it possible that Patterson,who had gained 8 lbs of solid muscle in a year , trained with desire and determination ,and ,that he showed up focused, and on top of his game?
Is it possible that if both men were at their best Patterson would win 9 times out of 10?
The London fight saw Ingo on the floor, the count was at 4 when the last bell rang saving Ingo from a ko.
I understand you think Johansson was terrific lets face it , boxing wise, you have had precious little to get excited about in Sweden.
The fact remains Ingo's team were planning on him making further challenges for the crown after he lost to Floyd the 3 rd time.
This does not jibe with your contention that he was finished after he won the title.
The difference was Ingo tried to do it the easy way by avoiding the top men ,instead taking on ,Bygraves,Snoek,and Richardson.
Have I seen the fight with London?
Yes, I grew up watching Ingo,Floyd etc.