Max Baer in the post-Ali unification tournament

I included Galento because it's only one fight. You can ignore that fight, it wouldn't change anything in statistics.

Yes, 25% of the time when he was lighter than opponent is quite often in comparison to other guys his size - Foreman (15% in his first career) or Liston (11%). Before you start talking about inconsistencies - I included shorter and overweighed opponents as well, because it's much easier and much more objective to include everyone. For comparison, Ali faced heavier opponents around 30% of the time.

So yeah, he usually was the bigger guy but it wasn't that much of an outlier to see him being smaller. His size advantage is closer to what Ali had vs his competition than Liston or young Foreman (I didn't include second career, because he was basically never smaller man then).

So if he wasn't that big for his era and he didn't have any skills, how did he accomplish so much? Do you really think that there were no other Baer-sized fighters back then who could punch hard?

Sure, just like with Foreman's record.

I calculated it to show that Baer didn't feast on 180 lbs guys while himself being 210 lbs. He faced the same size of opponents as Sonny Liston.

So if we take prime Wright instead of older one, he's still the size of prime Baer. Note that I included 2nd Frazier fight in Foreman's calculations and Frazier was in worse shape than Wright vs Baer.

If you want to have objective stats, don't make excuses for the ones you don't like.

All you do here is to try to find a way to prove how I manipulate stats, but I simply calculated when Baer was lighter than his opponent. If we exclude overweighed Frazier and midget George Johnson, then Foreman basically never fought bigger men. It works both way, I don't see any reason to believe that Baer's stats are less representative than for other boxers... unless you have an agenda to push.

You can say all you want, but stats shows that Baer was big for his era, but not unusually big. It wasn't rare for him to face heavier opponent and he actually faced bigger guys on average than Liston. If size is the only reason why he was successful, you'd find his record against big guys clearly worse than vs small guys and the truth is opposite. Baer struggled vs smaller and quicker men, not against big punchers.

 

I 100% agree with you on the stylistic angle, favoring Quarry. It's just that, watching Jerry's career closely, unfortunately, I'm certain Jerry would find a way to abandon his advantage and lose to Max Baer. I rarely saw him stick to a style that worked for him. He certainly was a warrior, but I really don't see his counter punching working with Max. Though, if he stuck to a good game plan (as he did with Buster Mathis, which may be the smartest fight he ever fought), Jerry would certainly have a shot at an upset decision win. Still, I would certainly put my bet down on Max Baer.

 

Clearly going in circles here. Of course I’ll say all I want - and it’s justified and supported.

25% isn’t “often” nor a valid counter to the view of Baer facing a lot more smaller than larger opponents - the very position you tried to butt up against, and weight is not the only qualifier for over all size advantage anyway.

He was big for the era - particularly against the upper level comp. - virtual 6’3”, which he was listed at times - 81” reach, large frame, massive T square shoulder, easy 210 lbs without any fat - later accomodating up to 223 lb or so and still looking fine.

You’re stating that Baer wasn’t big for era - not I - but running with your view, we have Baer not big (disagree), no skills (you agreed) amongst a sea of similarly sized fighters with equal power (disagree). So how would you answer the ques. as you’ve framed it?

I’m not lead by the frame of the question. Baer was larger than most - and even more uncommon were his chin and right hand power - which I’ve previously included in the whole equation.

How am I making excuses for the stats? You’re trying to use them to refute justified overviews. I’m duly addressing and qualifying the stats you’re providing. You’re the only one complaining about the analysis and qualifications - you can’t flip it.

The question was/is is he “bigger” not an arbitrary line drawn at 200 + lb’rs - without factoring the specific stats of Baer as and when.

Wright was 211 at age 30 or so, Baer was 216 at about age 27 when he faced Wright so, against a prime Bearcat, Baer would’ve been the “bigger”‘man overall, height, reach and weight.

Now you’re saying Baer’s record was apparently better against bigger guys and clearly worse against smaller, faster guys but based on his performances v Schmeling (smaller) Farr (smaller) Schaff (on par or bigger by your own weight reckoning and who beat Max first time and was winning second time until Baer managed to start land his power punches at the very late stages), being some of the more notable names that Baer defeated and who you reason to be better skilled than Quarry, Baer goes against the grain re his struggling vs the smaller faster man, (as you’ve framed it) and beats Quarry - who would be the smaller, faster, better skilled guy and very durable.

Re Foreman, there has been no attempt to dilute the degree of his general size advantage, particularly against some bigger, but lesser skilled opp. or bolster his skills beyond what they were - but besides his own chin and power, Foreman’s skill set was simply that much better than Baer’s - his mere possession of a jab being a good start without even going deeper into it - which I have already done anyway.

Like I said, this is a dead duck save for any further pointless tack ons.