Max Baer: Broken hand in the Joe Louis fight.

Where is the medical proof? I read Bear had to be pushed out of his dressing room. Perhaps the injured hand is a reason why?

 

I will just stay skeptical until I see better evidence.

I rewatched the fight again, and it is true Baer did not throw any major rights in the third or fourth rounds,

but he also didn't throw many lefts and just seemed frozen. Your "fast" comment for Baer isn't one I would agree with. He seemed slow and totally without defense. Losing badly that exchange in the first round seemed to take the moxie out of him.

"absolutely shocked that this was the first time most heard of this"

That is the reason for skepticism. I am not saying it can not be true, but I would like to know what are the primary sources backing up these claims. None are given by Marcus.

And in his article on the Louis-Buddy Baer fight, Marcus made several obviously inaccurate comments about that fight (he had Buddy turning his back on Louis and starting to walk back to his corner when Louis cold-****ed him in the back of the head) which can be easily disproved by watching the film.

Makes one wonder if Marcus has some sort of thing against Louis.

As for overall records, Louis was 22 when he lost to Schmeling. Baer was losing to all sorts of people like Schaaf, Loughran, and Uzcudun at that age. Schmeling might have gone back severely from 1933 to 1938, but it is hard to say as he dominated everyone else but Louis. Baer was 24 when he stopped Schmeling in ten. Louis was 24 when he stopped Schmeling in one.

Just on Louis, I think the best heavyweight he defeated was Walcott in 1948.

 

The hand injury sustained in the Braddock fight was verified by X-ray.

Maxies Gal details it on her website.

 

It's an interesting thread and thanks for bringing it up. It's been a good discussion.
For me though, injured hand or not, I just don't think Baer was going to beat Louis, especially then. The injured hand (if true) may would have hindered his performance but still, to me Baer never looked one inch a winner.

Maybe with a healthy right mitt he would have extended Louis a bit more, but that's about it as far as I'm concerned. I still think Louis would have knocked him out.

I certainly don't see it as any reason to think any less of Louis or any reason to drop him a notch in my (non-existent) top 10 list.

 

I think Jeremy Schaap talks about it in his Braddock bio. And now it's on boxrec.

 

Balder you have shown some real open minded qualities, very nice.

Yes besides Frazier being declined in fight #2, mainly Ali got away with so much holding & pulling down that no way is it a top fight of his. Sure he should have been warned repeatedly & disqualified if he continued, then it may have been a good fight.
Or MAKE it a hybrid boxing/wrestling match so Joe can do the same. But one fighter flouting the rules makes it a bit of a farce, like the 2nd to last Klitchko bout.

As for your rankings...I think you will find that Louis matches up better than you think upon further examination.

Marciano I would not rate higher than lower top 10. He had weaker competition overall than Louis, even if his "old men" were still pretty good. Louis had declined the most though from his vaunted peak. He beat ONE guy who beat Louis, & you can argue that Walcott deserved the 1st bout. But Louis was approaching 36 for his 2nd ever loss vs. Charles, Rocky had his last fight soon after he turned 32. Rocky also never faced anything like a great slugger, the bane of swarmers, his best guys were boxers, who swarmers are good at. Louis had 66 wins even with the list war years & faced high quality men of all styles.

Also Rocky's smaller size & relative lack of speed & accuracy would make him worse than Louis in H 2 H competitions against all comers. Though he might well beat Louis.

Foreman? HIS competition was weak overall with dramatic exceptions. But he lost to Ali, Norton could not handle sluggers, & a slugger beats a swarmer all other things being equal, & Frazier was not peak. His comeback burnishes things a bit, but he ducked & would have lost to the very best. If he did not voluntarily give up a decade & got his head on straight, he could be higher.

Dempsey? I do not think he could overwhelm Louis, the accuracy & combinations would be too much. And his FAME & cultural impact exceeded the quality of his record & opponents. The color line-top black fighters he could have faced, sitting on his title, the losses...6 of them AND 11 draws.
Even if he threw the Flynn KO1 or had not eaten well...He was responsible for not being fully ready for Tunney twice, he went "Hollywood" & coasted, he was young enough & did not have a disease like Parkinsons...He was losing to Sharkey & nailed him with ball shots & KOed him when Sharkey was protesting unprotected...

His greatest moment was against a 37 year old fighter: not benefitting from modern training & in superb shape like the Klitchkos, but complacent & almost completely inactive for the last 3 1/2 years!

You will see that if you objectively pick apart the record, opponents, H 2 H capacities of these & other guys it becomes hard not to rate Louis top 2.

UNLESS you prioritize head to head AND believe that size across eras would make a significant difference. Though Louis in '42 at 207 & ~ 6'2" & 77" reach was bigger than Dempsey & Rocky...Here is a good analysis of how a fight w/The Manassa Mauler was likely to go. Louis dealt with croucher's & swarmers...

[url]http://coxscorner.tripod.com/dempsey_louis.html[/url]

Louis even with lost time that he could not help had fewer holes in his resume & a better string of dominance than almost anyone.

 

I think Burt this is the bottom line, never in decades had I ever heard a peep about this either, nor did Dempsey who was in his corner nor Max himself ever allude to it.

 

Baer did say that his hands had been fine after the fight, and that he had no excuses.

He might just have been acting graciously of course.