Max Baer - How good could he have been?

He could have been great.

His raw natural physical assets were among the most impresive of any of the heavyweight champions.

His combination of power and durability is probably unmatched. His power was up there with the best of them (perhaps at the top of the list) and his chin was also right up among the best. He also had the stamina to go 20 rounds.

Stylisticaly he was crude but effective and likley would always have been crude even if he had taken his craft seriously. He could however have benefited verry considerably from a few verry small refinments.

Above all he needed focus determination and killer instinct to pull off his agresive slugging style and these are what he lacked.

 

I don't know the skills often refered to ... he was not fast. He had horrible footwork. He telegraphed his punches, often swinging roundhouse and back hand ... I agree he was big, strong, hard hitting, with a very good chin and decent stamina but I see not skills for greatness. In addition, he did not have the biggest heart in the world. He was often a frontrunner and lost interest/desire when falling behind.

A great character and fun guy to watch, definately ... could have been great ? Not to me.

 

The bottom line is that Max Baer had the single boxing style that requires the least refinment to be effective. A little polishing would have gone a long way.

What his style does need is dedication to training and killer instict. That is what was lacking.

 

skilled is not the word that comes to mind. his punches were thrown by the absolutely longest route possible. if he had learned to shorten his punches, throw in combinations that made sense andkept a tighter defense, he could have gone a long, long way. he did seem to have immense physical talents and with refinement his speed and workrate would have improved.

 

Janitor has nailed it.

Baer was not called the Clown Prince of Boxing for nothing, yet he became champion.

Had he had hunger for greatness, at least as much as Braddock, translated into dedication to his craft, he very well might have been remembered on the level of Corbett, Jeffries, Tunney and Liston.

 

I think your grandfather is making an emotional assessment based on the hero and great of his youth, instead of going by what is there on film.

Because on film it's clear that of all gloved champions, Max probably has the least amount of skill, outside of Willard. Simply terrible.

And i don't really care much for "what if...", some fighters just have enormous strength, size and power. Baer had that, for his time, and as a consequence he was lazy to develop his boxing ability, or was just not talented enough at it. The Braddock loss was no fluke. Joe Louis absolutely destroyed him, though his chin was impressive for sure. The victory over Carnera is often exaggerated in how well he did, but fact remains that Carnera won most of the rounds that he wasn't knocked down in (11 rounds in total, hardly a slaughter). Plus, it seems that Carnera hurt his ankle and that may have caused a few extra knockdowns.

 

Interesting topic - Max Baer had a powerful build with wide shoulders
and a long reach. Definitely a power puncher.

Against Max Schmeling, Baer used a really good left jab. Baer neglected
to use his left jab in many of his fights.

Against Tony Galento, Baer threw some very hard body punches.

Against Lou Nova, Baer fought with courage even tho he had a severely
cut lower lip that was bleeding profusely.

If Baer put it all together and really dedicated himself to LEARNING the
proper techniques, I think he would have been awesome.

However, Baer clowned WAY too much, relied on his Right hand power
WAY too much and also Baer sometimes fought "dirty" - backhanding
opponents. I have film clips of Baer backhanding opponents.

Baer seemed to not take the sport seriously enough and also was a bit
arrogant to his opponents.

Grebfan9
www.firstroundboxing.com

 

IMO Baer could have been a lot better than he was. The clowning around and slack training sessions prior to fights certainly didn't enhance him.

A measure of Baer's limitations was probably best evidenced when light heavyweight Loughran gave him about 20 pounds in weight and a 10 round schooling mid way through his career. Granted, Loughran was a very polished light heavy, but Baer couldn't lay a glove on him!

Even with a better atttitude he never would have made ATG IMO.

 

Johnson, Baer, Liston etc and so on like the rest of the old timers who Janitor so dearly loves (is your DOB in the 20"s ? That would explain a lot. No disrespect intended) were who they were. Ultimatly their career would pan out the same. One could not get his pants zipped up with the ladies, one prefered to be a party animal and the other one would run afoul with the law while developing a serious alcohol/drug fondness.

Back to Baer, I have watched what ever is avail on film and he is about as crude and unpolished as they come. For the life of it I cannot see anything it about him above par, not even his chin. Stiff, straigth up, no angles , telegraphed, chin wayyyyyyyyy out and open as a barndoor. That a fighter like that was considered good, or like your grandfather said great, at those times speaks volumes how bad the division was back then and how far boxing technique in general has come.

That Baer version of the 30's would not even be a gatekeeper by todays standards. He would be lucky to fight on ESPN undercards in the middle of the night.

 

Well they say the narrower the mind the broarder the generalisation.

 

Bingo. If motivated, Baer could have been much better. IMO, Baer was only motivated for two big fights. Carnera and Schmeling.

 

:good:good

On the topic of Baer's backhanding, it was almost comical. It literally looked like he was winding up to backhand his opponents at times.

"****, that hook sailed right by him! Reverse direction and return fire with a backhand, sir!"

 

Foreman is close but he's just a little more skilled than Baer.


As for the Braddock fight, why would it be a fluke? On film it is clear that Braddock is too skillful for Baer, easily outboxes him and takes whatever punch gets through. If it was such a fluke, why didn't Baer continue his path of destruction afterwards? Okay, he to Louis, but what he did afterwards wasn't exactly impressive either. I suppose the Uzcudun, Nova, Loughran, Risko and Schaaf losses were flukes also? I hate it when people call a big puncher losing "flukes" while credit should be given where it's do. Young and Ali over Foreman weren't flukes either. They were masterpieces of boxing.