Max Baer vs David Tua

I am getting called a troll, by somebody who talks about me like I am not here, but won't debate me.

You hang on the coat tails of anybody who challenges my posts, but seem to lack the conviction to debate me yourself.

I imagine that most people will draw the obvious conclusions.

 

No. He'd get completely outclassed by Lennox Lewis. It's not up for debate

 

One of the bittersweet aspects of this forum, is that I keep having to defend Max f***ing Baer!

The Clown Prince who had it all, inside and outside of the ring, and somehow managed to blow it!

While it can't be denied that Baer was a considerable disappointment, he did have very considerable accomplishments.

He stood supreme over every other heavyweight in the world briefly.

He didn't just win the undisputed title, he tied up all the lose ends.

He was smashing ranked contenders years after he lost the title.

You could make a strong argument for him being a top 30 all time heavyweight, and I would challenge Tua being in the top 100!

 

Firstly, it is up for debate, if I am debating it.

Secondly, how would you even begin to work out how good Sullivan was?

 

Max is def underrated in many ways. Beat all kinds of styles fought everyone and anyone. He defensively under achieved and could have been better had he not enjoyed partying as much. Kind of the Wilder of his day except he actually fought real contenders.

although I def have Tua top 50.

 

There is no footage that i know of however i will guess that he is Jack Johnson level or Jack Dempsey level and that is already enough to warrent his destruction against Lennox Lewis. The rules were completely different back then and boxing fundamentals are less rudimentary than they were in the early 20th century. Like defensive maneuvers that allow slipping punches in range to set up counters on the spot or just rolling with shots along with upperbody movement and footwork that allows for excellent mobility or pivoting into an angle to get into an opponents blindside. All of these have improved drastically at world level. Also jabs have become more dynamic.

I can see this as clear as day on footage that does exist from the early 20th century. I am not biased because i can see skill and slickness and excellent footwork and mobility with guys like, Liston, Ali, Moore, Patterson, Folley etc on black and white cameras. But guys like Dempsey, Johnson, Willard, Tunney, Sharkey, Langford were not technically on that level. They were stiff and sloppy in comparison

 

Even if the above was true, (which I dispute) he might simply have been a man before his time?

Has it never occurred to you, that the quality of the footage might be an issue?

Even given the examples that you have mentioned, you should have worked out that Jack Sharkey,was a better technician then every heavyweight in the top ten today, with the possible exception of Usky.

 

This content is protected

These highlights are quality enough for me. The man was stiff, crude and basic. But lets say he was on Usyks tier. He was a lot smaller than Usyk at 6 foot and averaging about 192 pounds in his prime. He'd be too small for skilled modern heavyweights anyway

 

facts agian you give breakdowns I just say simple trash which is all that is needed

no you can see and and dont pretend to be blind like 70s/the legend troll jan

 

this vid is just sad it's nothing here impressive which goes for all of that era like I been saying

 

Get lost troll
I told you befor dont interact with me you make no sense whatsoever

 

yea facts dont make sense coming from a blind person who says joe could beat lennox
I'm the troll though no im real who tells the raw truth

 

Alright your on block now Mr I know everything

 

I'm not sure if that's a gentlemanly warning shot or genuine interest