Mike Weaver vs Max Baer

Louis said the Max hit him the hardest punch he ever took, Braddock said the same thing. I think Max would land one of his wild rights sooner rather than later and end things. Max also had a good jaw. He took some incredible shots from Louis.

 

If you add up all of the times Baer knocked Braddock and Louis down what number will you come up with? Louis KTFO of Baer and Braddock boxed his ears off. On the other hand Braddock was able to drop Louis but got stopped by Louis in the 8th round. Boxers say crazy shlt all of the time. Maybe it's the repeated blows to the head?

 

A lot of people said that Baer hit them harder than any other puncher they ever faced.

Off the top of my head Max Schmeling and Tony Galento also said it, and both fought Louis.

Curtis Sheppard said it, and he sparred with both.

Whatever Baer’s strength’s or weaknesses as a fighter, his power should not be in question.

 

Baer makes him cry like a b****

 

Hard to say for sure.. Baer will always be the more notable fighter due to his confrontations with Louis, Braddock, Carnera, Schmeling and others.. That and he was a world champion in an era of only one title which reaped all of the fame that goes with such a position. Mike Weaver, though very good, only ascended to being second best, albeit second to one of the greatest of all time and a man whom he gave real hell to. His career saw wins over John Tate, Gerrie Coetzee, Carl Williams, James Tillis, Bernardo Mercado, Johnny Duplooy, James Pritchard, Stan Ward, Scott Ledoux, a draw with Michael Dokes who some felt he won, and an outstanding losing effort to a prime Larry Holmes. Max had the slight size advantage at 6'2 1/2, 215 lbs, over weaver who was maybe 6'1", 200 on a given evening. Both had pretty good whiskers and were generally only stopped by quality men. I'm guessing Baer hit harder but I don't think the margin was terribly wide.. Opposition was comparable with Baer having slightly better quality though I think Hercules has a tad more depth in the win column. Mike was always in stellar shape while Baer brought his "A" game most of the time. I think its anyone's fight really.

 

Is it fair to say that Weaver had the better resume?

 

No, I would say that it is almost unequivocal that he didn’t.

 

Certainly not unequivocal.

 

I think its very close to be honest. Baers wins over Schmeling and Carnera may trump any of Weaver's wins. But Mike fought a long list of very good men which probably runs longer and deeper than Baer's. Its a tough call.

 

I think that it would be very hard to make a case for Weaver on the raw numbers.

Baer was a lineal champion, and even if we argue that he had a weaker incumbent to shoot at, you still have the Schmeling win coming a few months before it.

Then you have to factor in Baer’s second rampage in the division, where he secured the #1 contender status years later.

Whether you look at longevity, number of top contenders beaten, number of years ranked in the top ten, or any other like for like measure, Baer seems to take it by some sort of margin.

 

It's not in question. He was a strong man, he punched hard... no doubt about that. He was also durable. He was not stopped until late in his career (Louis and Nova x2).

Punching hard is one thing. Landing enough of those big punches cleanly in order to drop or better yet stop a man is another thing.

Briggs said Foreman hit him harder than Lewis. Holyfield said Foreman hit him harder than Bowe but no fighter hurt him more than Bowe.

Baer didn't have the skill to put away or even put down guys like Louis or even Braddock. He was outboxed by Loughran, Uzcudun, Les Kennedy (1st fight), Ernie Schaaf (1st fight), and he was unable to stop Johnny Risko x2 or King Levinsky x2. None of this means anything though.

 

I don't have a problem with someone giving it to Baer " marginally." But "unequivocally" is a stretch. Having claim to lineage can only carry a man so far as it isn't necessarily a reflection of WHO you beat to get that title. Carnera was good enough but I'm not necessarily sure that he was better than a prime Tate or Coetzee. And Weaver sure did a lot better against a prime Holmes than Baer did against a 21 year old Louis who had been a pro for all but a year. Weaver was arguably the second best heavy in the division from 1979 to 1982 and a top 10 contender for years after. Baers wins over Schmeling, Carnera and a few others might push him over the edge but its by no means a wash.

 

This!

 

Can't argue with this