Larry Holmes vs. Max Baer

There is a bit more to it .. after being crushed by Louis for the most part he fought terrible competition .. other than Nova who beat him up twice and a very faded Galento he split with Farr .. the rest of the men he fought were poor competition .. he was being built up for one more payday as a name and a character .. that being said I will not deny he was big, very strong, had a terrific chin and a big right hand .. when enraged like the Lewinsky exhibition or the Scheming fight ( focused ) he was dangerous .. I actually would have loved to see him against the first incarnation of Foreman .. in that one I give Max a hell of a shot ..

 

holmes and razor ruddock knock out baer

 

The 30s was the deepest the division ever was. Never was there more trainers and fighters.

 

In your dreams.

 

Again. I would point people to footage of a focused Baer displaying skill and cagey counter punching in destroying Comiskey.

Comiskey's only knock out loss in a long career.

If he fought like any other power puncher he wouldn't have beat Schmeling

Baer is too underrated in this forum.

 

Sure it was. Same type of athletes that we found in the division during the 70's, 80's, 90's and beyond.

Where is Tuffy Griffiths when you need him?

 

Yes, just not as well fed.

Well, who today is enjoying the nutritional benefits of a great depression era diet of corn mush?

 

True. 70s heavies were bigger, stronger, had superior amateur training, access to better nutrition, better facilities, better trainers, and the wisdom about the sport that accumulated during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, but otherwise they were pretty comparable, actually.

And Tuffy was a tiny man who began his career well before the Depression, as far as I can tell...

 

One should be rather appalled that a fighter lacking such skill as Baer did achieved so much. Tho in truth his window of opportunity was fairly small and he lingered on much by avoiding better fighters.

 

Massive assumption, especially when we are talking about the talent that he would have encountered early in his career.

I think that it is reasonable to say that Max Baer was matched much harder in his first two years as a pro, than George Foreman was for example.

 

Not really. Rated 30s heavies were of comparable size. Strength isn't measurable, and made up for the lack of amateur experience with extended pro careers. 30s had the largest talent pool in history and far more available facilities and access to quality training.

Tuffy began his career at the age of 15 in 22 and spent his adult life and 14 years of his career in the Great Depression
.

Tuffy was not tiny at 5'11" and often 185 to 190. Comparable size to Quarry. Unlike Quarry, Tuffy really wasn't that relevant.

 

No, one should be curious and pay attention to his fights.

Power, durabilty, stamina, and athleticism are the great neutralizers when Baer was on point he maximized those assets at the expense of looking good as explained over and over.

Who did Baer avoid? Lol, he fought everyone. This a first, the feared Baer being accused of cherrypicking.

 

Not really. Norton battled through a trilogy with basically the greatest heavyweight of all time and finished on more or less even terms, plus beat a handful of good contenders, competed in what many consider a much stronger division and retired with far fewer defeats.

Well you seem to like ratings and longevity.. Tim was ranked by ring magazine for a combined 11 years and fought until he was more than a decade older than Bear was at retirement. In his 15th pro fight, he took on an ATG who some felt he upset, then proceded to beat a slew of top rated men - some of whom were the champ's mandatories.

 

Well said.

 

To be fair,the Cominskey win was impressive.