Max Baer hit harder than...

I don't remember Louis or Novela manhandling him physically and I watched these fights a lot of times.

He also definitely imposed his physical advantages over Schmeling and Galento. I agree that he performed poorly vs Braddock.

 

No, he didn't hit harder than any of them.

 

I don’t think Baer hit harder than the guys mentioned.
I know his ko percentage is high but who at the top level did he knock out decisively?
He hit Carnera with everything but the kitchen sink but he was on his feet at the end.
Schmeling despite taking several monster shots too many was still on his feet.
Although admittedly durable he couldn’t put Braddock away.
I just don’t know what evidence is there that he hits harder than the guys mentioned.

 

Carnera wouldn`t get near today`s top ten list.

 

Pat Comiskey was renowned for his durability for one.

To be honest, most of the argument for Baer's power, is the Shavers factor.

Everybody who fought him or sparred with him, crossed themselves when they talked about his power.

 

False. Have u seen these clowns?

 

Unlike Shavers Baer stopped quality opposition though

 

FFS, look at some of the guys, who are getting near todays top ten list!

 

You think the guys who got ranked in the top-10 during Carnera's time (1930s) were (generally speaking) better than today?

How about if you pick a year of your choice from the 30s - and then we can compare The Ring's 11-man lineup from that year, with their most recent (2021) end-of-year lineup.
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1930s - BoxRec

The Ring's Top-11 for 2021:
Fury, Champion
1. Usyk
2. Jushua
3. Wilder
4. Whyte
5. Parker
6. Ruiz Jr.
7. Ortiz
8. Joyce
9. Hrgovic
10. Sanchez

 

You don't even need to be better than them.

You only need to beat the guys that they beat to get their ranking.

 

"FFS, look at some of the guys, who are getting near todays top ten list!"... does this not imply, that you believe some of today's top ranked boxers are crap? And I mean even more crap (generaly speaking) than the top boxers of the 30s. Or am I Interpreting that wrong?

Surely there are lots of world ranked HWs from the 30s, who wouldn't make the top-10, at any time during the past 10 years.

Can we say the same for the world ranked fighters from the last 10 years... that lots of them wouldn't make the top-10 at any time during the 1930s?

 

I’ve read a few references to opposition testimonials regarding Baer’s power on this thread - does anybody have the details as to who said what including common opponents who said Baer hit harder than Louis? Thanks.

 

If my memory serves me correct Baer fought two opponents who ended up dying as a result of the blows they suffered from Baer.
I believe this impacted Baer greatly and I remember reading an interview with a top trainer/manager of that period that said it impacted Baer greatly to the point where he held back ALOT.
Also in the interview he stated once in a sparring session a sparring partner was getting the better of Baer and that Baer got angry and all the sudden just flattened the sparring partner with one shot and that the sparring partner was on the canvas for awhile and that Baer started to get upset thinking he had seriously injured him.
I will try to dig up the interview if I can find it.

 

Todays to ten is pretty consistent from top to bottom.

Yes we are in a strong era, but that doesn't mean that the best boxers of the 30s, were worse than the people at the bottom of the top ten right now.

 

What are you saying here? Do you want to take the (for example) top-5 ranked boxers from a year in the 30s - and compare them to the 5 men ranked 6 to 10 from last year? Is that what you mean - and if so, what would that prove?

Why are you saying strange stuff like this? Is it completely impossible for you to simply say that, overall, last year's top-11 HWs may actually be stronger than a comparable group from the 1930?