Max Baer vs. Max Schmeling

I thought is was reasonably competitive all in all. I didn't score the fight or anything, but I'd probably have Baer up by a round or two at most.
Baer's backhands made me laugh though...how did he get away with that? Ref was shockingly blind there...

Most observers felt it was the most focussed they had ever seen Baer.

 

Baer, who was part Jewish has special motivation to defeat Schemling. I agree, its too bad Baer was such a clown. He could have been better.

 

I doubt Baer was very conversant with Nazi ideology,Hitler became Chancellor in Jan 1933 Baer fought Schmeling in June of that year,.Outside Germany people weren't really too aware of the anti -semitism surfacing in Germany.Baer, who wore the star of David on his trunks was of German parentage and actually a Catholic I beleive.

 

The problem is that this fight was for Baer, a bit like the Tyson Douglas fight for Douglas. It was a high that Baer never achieved before or since. He might have shown the same level of focus at the twilight of his career but by then he was declining.

 

Anyone who describes Baer-Schmeling as "one sided" has either never seen the fight or has only seen the ending, and is just repeating myths that others have perpetuated. The same goes for anyone who says Schmeling-Walker and Bear-Carnera were one-sided. It's true that the loser in all of those fights took a physical beating, but people who have never seen those fights misinterpret that as the loser being dominated, which in each case was not true.

I don't have an exact scorecard of the fight, but I believe I actually had Schmeling winning at one point, until Schmeling faded and Baer stepped up the pace at the end. The difference as I saw it was that Baer did some good work to Schmeling's body, while Schmeling was never able to do any damage to Baer or wear him down. In that sense, the fight was somewhat comparable to Cotto-Margarito, with one fighter "looking" like the better fighter (Schmeling), but never able to do the damage needed to hold off the other, more limited fighter.

Despite being Baer's biggest career win, the fight also clearly showed many of his weaknesses. He stood flatfooted, he mostly just pawed with his jab, and he really couldn't fight on the inside, where Schmeling actually got the better of the action. Plus Baer never really mounted a sustained attack on Schmeling and spent much of the fight just lying on the ropes, waiting for Schmeling's attacks to subside (another reason anyone who says the fight was "one sided" is quite simply wrong).

As someone else said, Baer's fouling in this fight was atrocious. Not only his obvious backhands, but also his rabbit punching. If I remember right, the last punch of the fight was a long overhand right, right to the back of Schmeling's head. That punch made me shiver. He could've really hurt Schmeling doing what he did.

 

Anyone who describes Baer-Schmeling as "one sided" has either never seen the fight or has only seen the ending, and is just repeating myths that others have perpetuated. The same goes for anyone who says Schmeling-Walker and Bear-Carnera were one-sided. It's true that the loser in all of those fights took a physical beating, but people who have never seen those fights misinterpret that as the loser being dominated, which in each case was not true.

I don't have an exact scorecard of the fight, but I believe I actually had Schmeling winning at one point, until Schmeling faded and Baer stepped up the pace at the end. The difference as I saw it was that Baer did some good work to Schmeling's body, while Schmeling was never able to do any damage to Baer or wear him down. In that sense, the fight was somewhat comparable to Cotto-Margarito, with one fighter "looking" like the better fighter (Schmeling), but never able to do the damage needed to hold off the other, more limited fighter.

Despite being Baer's biggest career win, the fight also clearly showed many of his weaknesses. He stood flatfooted, he mostly just pawed with his jab, and he really couldn't fight on the inside, where Schmeling actually got the better of the action. Plus Baer never really mounted a sustained attack on Schmeling and spent much of the fight just lying on the ropes, waiting for Schmeling's attacks to subside (another reason anyone who says the fight was "one sided" is quite simply wrong).

As someone else said, Baer's fouling in this fight was atrocious. Not only his obvious backhands, but also his rabbit punching. If I remember right, the last punch of the fight was a long overhand right, right to the back of Schmeling's head. That punch made me shiver. He could've really hurt Schmeling doing that.

 

Not sure about the question that you raised but the short-cut that you provided will be a great time waster for me - brilliant info there!

 

I agree. I went into the fight thinking it was supposed to be a one-sided thrashing, but it wasn't. It was competitive throughout, though there was always a sense that Baer was in control. Whenever he really turned things on, Schmeling didn't have an answer.

 

I read that Schmeling was in front at the halfway stage and Baer came back in to it ,and really came alive just before he ended it,it is described as a tough gruelling fight.

 

In his biography Schmeling writes that he was taking a severe beating. From a highlight version of the fight I have seen, it does not look that bad - but I was not taking the punches.

Woller

 

The Schemling was a Nazi thing (and a racist) has been debunked for years.

 

One more thing. That right hand Baer drops Schmeling with in the 10th was one of the most vicious I've ever seen.