Max Baer vs Ron Lyle

Doubtful, most of the fighters he fought did not resemble these men in size, skill, record background or little else.

Neither Louis nor Baer ever fought a puncher like Foreman. Lucky for them they didn't.

This content is protected

 

]

He fought significantly less large heavyweights. Baer fought 20 below 195, and numerous others who were barely at the 200 pound mark. Although Primo Carnera was significantly larger than Joe Frazier, these two are hardly in the same class.

I think that I've given you enough verification over the past 24 hours to show that Baer was not like Foreman, and you even admitted it using these exact words " Foreman was much better than Baer. "

More effective? Questionable. I don't think Louis can claim having 68 knockouts in 76 wins, and if you're going to do the whole competition comparision again, well then I don't think that Foreman would struggle anymore than Louis did in beating the same opponents.

Baer did not have the skill that Lyle had, and so far you've only picked out one bad performance, of Foreman's. I could easily say that if Johnny Risko kicked Baer's ass, that Foreman would give it to him in spades.

This content is protected

 

OK 1973

1973 George Foreman, Champion

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Frazier
3. Ken Norton
4. Jerry Quarry
5. Ron Lyle
6. Earnie Shavers
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. Joe Bugner
9. Jimmy Ellis
10. Chuck Wepner

This is actualy much better than most years from 1970-75 but still you have some prety average fighters in the lower half of the top 10.

Now compare it to 1931 when the division was pulling itself back together after the retirment of Gene Tunney

1931 Max Schmeling, Champion

1. Jack Sharkey
2. Young Stribling
3. Tuffy Griffiths
4. Primo Carnera
5. George Godfrey
6. Johnny Risko
7. Ernie Schaaf
8. Tommy Loughran
9. Larry Johnson
10. Max Baer

Match up the top 10 from the 70s to their opposite number. The series will end up split prety closley.

 

Fleischer didn't have much good to say about the pool of heavyweight talent in the 30's. Comments to the effect of "the heavyweight division is on lifesupport", and "This is the weakest the division has been in 50 years" spring to mind.

Some of the top fighters, Galento, Baer, Braddock and to a lesser extent Carnera were beyond technically woeful.

 

I think this speaks volumes myself. If Nat Fleischer was so hard on the 30's, then it certainly says something about the era.

 

The first list considerably more eye lifting than the second.

 

While i think the 30's is one of the weaker periods if i had to assign one, i don't think the argument of Fleischer is that strong.

That bitter old man didn't want to see much in any champion post-20's. He ranked Dempsey far ahead of Louis when both men had finished their careers. What a biased headcase.

 

LOL

This is very true. I saw a top ten list of his that was constructed I believe in the late 50's or 60's. He had Schmeling rated above Marciano and of course Dempsey rated above most everyone on the list. It would be interesting to see what his take on things would be if he were alive today, and with an additional 40 years of champions to rate. I'm not sure however, that his views would have changed much though.

 

If you are going to acept Fleischers testimony as evidence that the 30s was a weak era then you would also have to consider his testimony that Muhamad ali was not as good as Max Schmeling.

 

Lets work from No 5 down-

5. George Godfrey vs Ron Lyle is basicaly a pick em fight if Godfrey is not wearing the cuffs.

6. Johny Risko vs Earnie Shavers is another pick em.

7. Earnie Schaff vs Oscar Bonavena. Again a pick em fight.

8. Tommy Loughran vs Joe Bugner is a mismatch.

9. Jimmy Ellis should be able to beat Larry Johnson.

10. Max Baer vs Chuck Wepner is a blood sport.

And even the No1 slot Max Schmeling vs George Foreman is a fine candidate for an upset stylisticaly.