Max Baer vs Jim Corbett

Corbett via UD. Baer was not a good boxer, mostly lazy, and was easy to hit.

 

To be fair he didn't have that many fights. He was elusive but in his prime shots were fired much more individually as opposed to in combinations. I mean could you really see him slipping every shot in a combo from rocky?

He had a good jab and good footwork. Good enough head movement to convince fitz that the body was the best target.

The problem is he was ahead of his time hence he's somewhat of a rough diamond. He's also a cruiserweight by today's standards making him undersized in a lot of matchups.

He doesn't have the power to keep baer off him. Baer is much bigger and he throws punches in bunches. In his prime he showed tendancy to get frustrated and allow his opponent to box his ears off and I imagine that's the angle you're gunning for. During his peak run he was pretty unstoppable and careered his way through ranked opponents.

Maybe corbett could catch baer on an off night. But he'd be stopped in rematches. Had the two been around in the same era I think there'd be little doubt as to who the superior fighter was.

 

Sorry LUFC but your Premier Series was a bit bat **** crazy. I agree Leon Spinks was never the best in the world, but your criteria was quite contradictory even though I know you were trying to be fair

 

The one I put on here was interim. Like a prototype if ya will. To allow me to iron out issues and make it as consistent as possible. As you said, my timeline had contradictions and things I was doing with one case but not another.

I've still not really finished it but i've put updates on other sites and it's much more fluid now.

The whole point is just that for me being the number 1 means more than being lineal i.e. Jones jr > dm; holyfield > briggs etc.

Either way though, whatever the criteria used it'd be a struggle to ever justify neon leon as top dog. I mean I suppose it is possible that you agree with all of ali's official decisions but I doubt many neutral observers did.

 

I just cant invision a man of Corbett's size, archaic skill set and track history beating a man like Baer. The only good heavyweight Corbett fought was Jeffries who KO'd him twice (old, fat Sullivan doesn't count).

Baer had an enourmous punch, granite chin, loads of stamina and advantages in size and strength, if he manages to catch and KO the much better Schmeling he'd do the same to Corbett and earlier.

 

I like Corbett. Baer did well against boxers who stood right in front of him(schemling) but boxers who moved around the ring(loughran) easily handled him

 

Mid round ko from max.

 

Corbett has one decisive edge on Baer

Max Baer was played in a movie by Craig Bierko. (for me, Craig who?)

Jim Corbett was played in a movie by Errol Flynn.

How can anyone doubt Corbett's greatness?


*as for the original question. I think boxing improved a great deal from the 1890's to the 1930's, (and more so by the 1950's) but Corbett has the perfect style for Baer. Schmeling could box but was right in front of Baer. Corbett I assume would be on his bicycle the whole fight. Would Baer catch him? I think it problematic and Corbett's good performance over 23 rounds against Jeff shows he might have had what it takes to out speed a crude guy like Baer. So for me, a toss up fight. The closest comp for Corbett whom Baer fought was Loughran, who beat a young Baer easily.

 

This is an old thread, and I have to say that Baer has held up better than Corbett in my estimation.

I still think that Corbett might be a bit of a stylistic foil for Baer, but the best punchers seen to have caught up with Corbett eventually, even if they got made to look like stumblebums along the way.