Max Baer vs Ron Lyle

The 1970's are supremely over-rated. I would take the 1990's over them in regards to the heavies. Ali's name carries a lot of mytholgization but he was on a downward slide the whole decade and gave credence to b-level fighters by not rising above them. Frazier was obviously done by 73. Foreman was argueably the most protected prospect in the annals of the sport. Norton was brave and admirable but definitely a step below championship material. The rest were flash in the pan or mere basked in the glow that was Ali, no matter how depleted a version they confronted.

 

You had numerous fighters who made it into the championship picture who had horrible records, crap managment, primitive training habits, poor nutritional standards, mob pressures, short amateur careers, and took fights on short notice while working full time jobs, and before healing properly. Sure this supports your claim that they were " thrown to the wolves", but it didn't necessarily make them better fighters either. James Braddock for example was heavyweight champion of the world by beating Max Baer, but he spent most of his career bearing the label of journeyman, and fought injured or malnurished frequently. This does not make the 30's better than the 70's nor most eras.

Wepner made it into the top 10 by having relations to the mafia. There were many such men in the 30's who were mob promoted figthers. Evangelista didn't emerge until the late 70's after the era had declined. Foreman and Frazier were basically gone, while Ali and Norton were declining. Evangelista was chosen as an easy opponent for an aging Ali. Bringing up Wepner and Evangelista is hardly an argument to draw accurate comparisons between the 30's and the 70's.

Three poor technicians who were all heavyweight champions of the world during their era, hence strengthening my argument that the 30's were weaker. What champion in the 70's outside of perhaps Leon Spinks can you think of that was worse than Braddock, Baer or Carnera? Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, and even Norton on the right evening were all better than the previously mentioned three.

If you're using the term "slickster" to describe a boxer, then I strongly disagree. No way were those guys better than Ali or Holmes from a boxing standpoint, and I also think that a skilled puncher like Frazier would have beaten Schmeling and Loughran.

 

The Lyle that fought Foreman and decked the big boy would beat JUST ABOUT anyone. I think he could take Baer.

 

Could is the operative word.

Remember that Baer hit as hard as Foreman and had a better chin.

 

I don't think that Baer's career credentials support that he either hit as hard as Foreman nor had a better chin.

Foreman was only Ko'd once in 81 pro fights, and that was a result of exhaustion to what many consider as the greatest heavyweight of all time. Baer can make no such claim. He was beaten 13 times and Ko'd on at least 3. He also had no where near the KO ratio that Foreman had, and I won't buy your usual argument that he knocked out better men. It means little or nothing to me what Baer's opponents were ranked back THEN. Foreman Ko'd a much larger array of bigger, stronger and better athletes than baer did, and what's more, Baer couldn't even finish off all the guys he did fight. Foreman's wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer were better than Baer's wins over Carnera, Schmeling, Galento or anyone else. I have much respect for Baer in terms of what he did during his time, but I think we need to leave it at that. Common sense and basic logic does not support that he was a greater puncher or more durable than Foreman. The stats and films, don't reflect it, therefore we shouldn't try to use obscure angles to prove it either.

 

I'd take a fully motivated Baer* to win via knockout, somewhere near the mid-late rounds in a slugfest. His chin is better than Lyle's.






*Bear in mind, though that a fully motivated and serious Max Baer wasn't exactly the most regular of commodities.

 

Max's chin was definitely on the same level as Foreman's (at least). Personally speaking I actually think it was better. :good

 

If we look at the fact that Foreman was only counted out at 10 once, and was due more to exhaustion than a chin issue, then this puts him over the top against Baer, who was stopped on at least 3 occasions.

.

Simply stating that they were better doesn't tell us much.

Not really. In both baer and Foreman's first 40 fights a piece, they fought very close to the same number of opponents, who's records contained more wins than losses. The major difference is that Foreman won all 40 of his first fights, whereas Baer lost at least 6 out of his first 40. Foreman's list during his first 40 also includes Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo, kirkman, Peralta and a few other good knockout wins.

A better question would be, How many fighters did he beat who were under 195 Lbs? Foreman fought around 3 men in 81 fights who were listed as being under the 195 pound mark, and two of those men came in his first 6 fights. Baer fought 20, and that is based on the fighter's who's weights were listed on boxrec, as many of them weren't. Additionally, some of his opponents were as small as maybe 168. I think this explains some of the knockouts that Baer had as well.

From an actual rating standpoint, perhaps, but again I don't think that a lot of the men Baer beat would have been rated fighters in either 70's or the 90's.

 

michael moorer is better than tommy farr and rony lyle is certainly better than earnie schaff, too much of a bias for janitor.

 

This content is protected

In Baer's first 30 bouts he fought roughly 13 men with losing records, and about 10 men who were less than 195 Lbs. He also lost 5 fights within his first 30.

Foreman in his first 30 fights fought 12 men with losing records and only 3 men who were under 195 Lbs, and won all of his first 30 with 27 Ko's. He also had wins over ranked fighters in Peralta, Kirkman and Chuvalo.

It will be interesting to see what you come back with next.

Agreed, Foreman's resume is better and not just marginally but by far.

Disagree,

I'd pick Joe Frazier to cream the livin' **** out of anyone in the 30's, and on the right night that might even include Louis, given that he was a sucker for the left and Frazier had one of the best of all time, along with more speed and power than anyone back then to boot.

 

I forgott about Lyle. Yes he rates higher than Earnie Schaff.

As for Tommy Farr I think he was better than Michael Moorer. He split a series with Max Baer, beat Jimmy Braddock in reality, and gave a prime Joe LLouis a verry close fight. If he had come along a couple of years earlier (pre Louis) he could well have been champion.