I see McVey winning a easy decision ... it is forgotten that on top of his strength, speed and power he had a very good jab and was able to use it to dictate a fight ..
The basic problem with any Baer match up is predicting which Baer will show up, the one who beat Schmeling? Or the one who surrendered to Louis? Therefore you have two entirely opposite , but also entirely logical answers.
If there is an important heavyweight who possibly looks worse on film than Baer, it is McVea. Someone please explain to me how this is a "very good jab"… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pay6XBYfnRc So, we have two crude sluggers, one more aggressive and lethal than the other. I will take him. Baer by KO.
If you took the Ray Leonard of Montreal and showed six minutes of it you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that he could stick and move like lighting .. first off even in this terrible footage I don't find him looking bad at all .. he was fighting a large strong man that he was not concerned about and simply walking him down. If you read about McVey from newspaper clips or even Clay's Langford book you will learn that he had a very stiff jab when he decided to use it and did so on a number of occasions against Langford, a fighter he obviously felt compelled to ..
Were I to watch any 6 minutes of the Leonard at any time in his professional career I would not see such egregious errors as I see on this film. He is not even using his left as an offensive weapon but extending it and rushing in directly behind it. He retreats in a direct line. He does not throw a single straight punch. He squares up his feet. I understand he didn't have what we now take for granted as "grooming" for the pro ranks. It was eat or don't eat for him. And I do respect that greatly, much moreso than many of the pampered careerists of today. And I have read Clay's book and unnumbered daily accounts of fighters in that day, and their great abilities. But when film is unearthed it is almost always deeply disappointing. As modern students of the game we may assume that a fellow writing in 1905 about a great jab or lightning footwork means what we know it to mean. However, that fellow never saw Louis or Robinson or Ali or Pep or Napoles… or you name a thousand other, modern boxers. His reservoir of experience was probably much closer to watching the equivalent of modern day tough man competitions. So, take it with a sizable grain of salt when some old wag goes on about great jabs and such.
I actualy think that McVea looks better from a technical standpoint. Its not so much that he looks bad, as that Johnson makes him look bad with his negative tactics. I could see McVea countering Baer, to win by decision.
As unimpressive as mcvea looks I can't help but think he wouldn't look as bad against a opponent that would be willing to engage in a fight . Saying that I still would pick Baer by stoppage
I appreciate your point and agree to some degree but far from 100 % .. human evolution did not improve from 1900 to 1950. Techniques have been refined but that is also a matter of fighter to fighter and styles .. men prior to modern PEDs were nt any stronger or faster .. I also don't always think film disappoints if you're able to factor in the differences of film itself ..
Could Sam take a full Baer right hand? I don't know of course but my guess is not. Max by mid round ko.
Tough one to call I think. Baer isn't that much more refined in his technique than McVea was...If he was at all. If the question were McVea against say Joe Louis I would definitely pick Louis. But Baer? I'm not so sure. Could go either way I think. If Baer had a better left hand that was used more often I would pick him...but he didn't so I really can't make a pick.
