Steve Hamas vs Art Lasky

comparing the resumes of Baker and Hamas is interesting. Raises the whole issue of quantity versus quality.

Baker defeated more faded or fringe contenders than almost any contender. He was rated over quite a long time. Still his resume also seems a bit hollow. The most impressive win is probably the 1955 decision over Valdes. But a lot of folks defeated Valdes more impressively, for example Bob Satterfield, (who also stopped Baker in one). The rest seem to be guys clearly past it and slipping--Bivins, Layne, Baksi, Wallace--or fringy--Agramonte, Mederos, Davidson--all of whom were beaten more decisively by others. Bottom line is no real signature wins.

Hamas on the other hand has a much more limited list of top opponents, but his two biggest wins by decisive decision over Schmeling and KO over Loughran are more impressive than anything Baker managed. Nor are his defeats as bad. Yes, Schmeling ripped him up, but Moore did the same to Baker, and nothing like Henry or Satterfield happened to Hamas.

Complicating this a bit for me is my take that the heavyweight division had improved by the 1950's and there were more good heavyweights.

So for me this one boils down to a subjective judgment of quantity versus quality. I come down on the side of quality. I think beating the best out there is more important than racking up a lot of wins over the second stringers.

I would be interested in those that feel otherwise and why.