Joe Louis's resume is very poor

Sport's generally progress so yes there is a thing called a weak era, the skill level Walcott/Conn/Schmelling aside simply wasn't too high

Baer had the physical talent and power, but lacked skill

 

glaringly so. his fundamentals were TERRIBLE on film and unless the cameras back then were so bad they removed punching technique, movement, defense, combinations and balance then his skill set was pretty bad at the top level

 

Heavyweights tend to get away with 'unskilled' fighting a lot more than lighter boxers.
Everyone knows Baer was crude, but I was watching Ali-Frazier 2 the other day and that was pretty crude stuff too. Not as crude as Baer, of course, but considering how highly rate those two are it was very crude.

 

Ali made it crude. He could fight dirty too.

 

Baer was a mediocrity.he benefits from a nice backstory and unforgivens rightful observation about heavyweights.

Compare him to some middleweight\welterweight etc pure punchers and his ability was about on par with slammin sammy nesmith, bobby joe young or or Roy Gumbs-someone of that ilk.A guy like Don Lee orFully OBel looks like an efficient Zarate\Louis'esque killing machine next to Baer.

This might only be tangentially relevant, but still it had to be said.Though it also has to be said Louis did him in like a fighter of his ability should with an unskilled plodding banger.No overconfident or technically flawed slip ups there.

 

When Max Baer had his head screwed on right, I'd favour him to beat plenty of guys who have a lot more skill and polish to them than he did.

 

I wouldn't.Not unless they had glaringly bad punch resistance, stamina or some other terrible flaw.

I refuse to ask fighters to show substantially more than they actually did in the ring.Baer never showed he was capable of beating the kind of heavyweights that would exemplify that to me.

Now, i think he could beat a good amount of fighters who had a notch or two more skill and polish than him, sure.Power is a great equaliser.But a lot more? nah he's not marciano.Too many other flaws other than a lack of boxing skills.

 

Well, he beat Schmeling, and Schmeling was a clever fighter.
The Baer who beat Schmeling would be hard to beat over 15 rounds, especially for smaller guys like Walcott and Charles, Patterson, Moore etc.

 

My own take is that Schmeling had next to no foot movement. He had no choice but to be right in front of Baer. Fighters like Walcott and Charles could punch, and also could step around a bit. I think most likely they outpoint Baer easily.

Baer beating Schmeling was partially due to Baer's strengths, but also partially due to Schmeling's weakness in footwork.

 

Charles maybe outpoints Baer, definitely a strong possibility of that. But 15 rounds against a determined Baer, he might well get caught.

i think JJ Walcott's become a bit over-rated though, in a head-to-head sense. He had some nifty flashy footwork and moves, but he liked to stop and dig some punches in, and he could be caught and KO'd or roughed up. Abe Simon knocked him out. Rex Layne outworked him. He struggled with Elmer Ray. An old Joe Louis knocked him out.

 

You can do this with anybody. Schmeling was blown out in 1 round by Gypsy Daniels. He lost to an aging Jack Sharkey who was never able to beat a top fighter again. He lost badly to Steve Hamas in their first fight. He was stopped by Baer and crushed by Louis in their rematch.

In comparision, the postwar Walcott was erratic but gave fewer really bad performances.

The 1936 Louis was young and talented, but the 1948 version had more savvy and was fifteen pounds heavier. Schmeling never beat a 213 lb fighter, let alone one as good as even an old Louis.

*It is a whole different issue how much pre-war fights like Simon prove about Walcott. His efforts against Ray and Layne are no worse than Schmeling's against Hamas.

**I think Walcott also had more tough fights than Schmeling.

 

I thought he was robbed against Sharkey.
Steve Hamas was a smart boxer.

But if people are holding Walcott up as some sort of slick and skillful boxer with KO power who would run rings around Baer and/or Schmeling, then it needs to be pointed out that didn't dominate against men like Rex Layne and Elmer Ray, who weren't super skillful themselves.

Louis was old and overweight. He was better in 1936.

Hamas was a clever boxer, the equal of Tommy Loughran in a 4-fight series, and with wins over other contenders. Equal with Lee Ramage in a 3-fight series, another lauded 'clever' boxer.
Schmeling dominated Hamas utterly in the rematch.
I think Rex Layne was crude by comparison with Hamas.

If the claim is being made is that Walcott would easily dominate the "crude" Max Baer, I look to where Walcott easily dominated such types of fighter. I can't find any examples to back that up.
Walcott gets overrated on the 'beauty' of some of his moves, his performances in their entirety don't back it up.

 

"Louis was old and overweight"

Well, he was old. He was in superb shape, though. Off the film, he didn't carry an ounce of fat.

"He was better in 1936"

Probably. He was not taking his opponent lightly in 1948, though.

"Walcott would easily dominate Baer"

I did go too far in using the word easily. But I still think Walcott and Charles would be favored to outbox Baer.

"Where did Walcott beat a Baer type fighter"

He beat a lot of men as big or nearly as big as Baer (Baksi, Murray, Ten Hoff, Tandberg) and at least Murray had a punch. There aren't many Baer type fighters around at any time, but Walcott handled big men often, and Schmeling didn't. I think the only plus 200 lb of any quality Schmeling defeated was Ben Foord.

"Steve Hamas"

The only film I have seen of Hamas is his awful defeat in the second Schmeling fight. He doesn't look good or particularly clever. He doesn't really show much. He has no foot movement, doesn't seem to have much of a left (Schmeling easily outjabs him), and basically shows very little to me. Hamas did defeat Loughran (who lost to Joe Sekyra, King Levinsky, Stanley Poreda, Johnny Risko (2), Primo Carnera, Walter Neusel, and Jose Carattali-as well as twice to Hamas-between 1931 and 1934) but beating Loughran was done quite often.

This is Hamas' record from 1933 to 1935

Lee Ramage-------D 10
Tommy Loughran--L 10
Charley Massera---D 10
Benny Miller-------KO 4
Lee Ramage-------SD 10
Max Schmeling----UD 12
Art Lasky---------SD 10
Max Schmeling----KO by 9

Other than the setup Miller, his most decisive victory was over Schmeling. After seeing their second fight, I don't understand.

I stick with saying that losing to Hamas is every bit as bad as losing to Ray or Layne. I would pick Layne over Hamas but who knows.

"Sharkey"

I don't think Schmeling was robbed. It was a close fight and he ate jabs all night.

Bottom line--all these champions--Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey, Walcott--were very erratic. Schmeling's win over Louis is the best any of them had, but otherwise he was perhaps the least impressive. I think one could make a good case for any of them being overrated if you focus on bad performances, or underrated if you focus on good performances.

 

The scary thing is Baer looked reasonably talented compared to Galento, who is quite simply the most horrendously crude top level heavyweight I've ever seen on film. Bar none.

 

come on, i LOVE that leaping left hook of his. it's like something out of ****ing dragonball z