Walter Neusel A German heavyweight, Neusel was very much second fiddle to Schmeling though he technically went 1-1 with his greater compatriot. The first fight was before WWII and was fought in front of 100,000 if that can be believed, and Schmeling absolutely dominated the younger man, right hand bonanza, punishment throughout, Neusel quit on his stool. The second fight was post WWII and was marked by clinches. Neusel secured a dull but clear decision. Apart from the pair with Max, he's got a nice win over Larry Gains who was himself coming off a win over Carnera (Neusel battered Gains apart in the second half of the fight after dropping the first half to Larry's superior boxing showing good stamina). Decisions followed over Gypsy Daniels and King Levinsky. Levinsky seems to have been a real performance, he was being booed by anti-Germany Americans, nearly knocked out or at least down in the second but came battling back in front of a hostile crowd, think Rocky IV. Good stamina allowed a strong finished and he nicked it, the crowd turned to his favour. Uppercuts then bought him a clear win over Tommy Loughran. He seemed headed for a title shot until he ran into Max. Farr and Carnera drove him out of the title picture all together. Neusel traded on stamina, durability and steady pressure. "Workmanlike" is a phrase you run into when reading about him, which is a little harsh, he was in the world class, and is probably underrated. This content is protected Bob Baker An American heavyweight, Baker's potential probably became apparent with his 1951 pair over Omelio Agramonte who he first defeated on a cut and then defeated with a dominating performance that saw him yoyo Omelio over the piece for a decision. He similarly dominated an ageing Jimmy Bivins for a decision, Bivins using all his experience to stay in the fight. Baker's problem was the same as Neusel's, consistency, it wasn't there. After a disastrous loss to Clarence Henry, he couldn't shake off Billy Graham. After beating Brion and Valdes to get positioned for the shot once more, he was stopped in a disaster against Satterfield. He had a habit of getting entangled with very elite gatekeepers. On the other hand, he was hard to deter, filled with determination, after being smashed up by Archie Moore he came back to defeat Laye, Slade and Valdes. But for every John Holman there would be a Tommy Jackson. This content is protected So here we have Neusel, steady, likes to fight, has all the punches, less torque than he should have, comes to fight. Then Baker. Big and technically sound but built more for control than fight-controlling aggression. Able to deploy himself but unable to implement his style. The weights: Baker 214, Neusel 200. The ruleset is 1949 with which both were familiar. They box 15 rounds. Who you got?
What i'm thinking about in these contests are HW fights that might deliver an absolute barn-burner out of a surprising combination. Both these guys were nearly-challengers whose weaknesses I think line up beautifully. Here, you have Bob Baker who has the technical ability and size to control this action - but absolutely none of the mentality or IQ to inflict it. On the other hand, you have Neusel. Neusel doesn't have the technical ability to take control of fights, so he's developed a style that insists upon a certain level of boxing to force him out of his steady pressure. Early, it'd be Baker in a fight like this, just like it was when Neusel met Gains - but just like he did against Gaines, I think that Neusel would be tough enough to keep his pressure on despite losing rounds and getting hit. He will remain in control of the action, while losing. These are often the best fights, because the fighter who is winning also suffers a terrible psychological pressure, even if he's not that afraid of his opponent. So think of Billy Conn, fighting like absolute hell (not running) to keep control of Joe Louis. It goes on and on and on and Louis can feel him beginning to come away (in the form of panic or tiredness, for example). Here, Neusel would be feeling out Baker constantly for some fade, some opportunity to take over the action and Baker, if he wants to win, would be forced to fight that showdown. The fight IMO is all about when those key confrontations take place. Too early and Baker is in trouble because you can only fight so many of those before you are forced to retreat or change up. Too late and Neusel could end the fight in total control but lose 10-5 on points. The fight would play out on two levels for all that these guys are a level below the guys we usually think about. I think it would be FOTY stuff.
Excellent thread! I would say Baker, at this best. His "inconsistency," as well as his apparent lack for power for a big man, came from hand problems. When his hands were right, he was a pretty complete fighter.
Baker beats Neusel by decision (although I wouldn't rule out a stoppage win, either) and it would be worth betting a bit on that result. While there might be some parity in their respective levels, I think Baker was just a little bit ahead of Neusel. I can't see Neusel's persistent bravery and boring in being enough to overcome the bigger man with more in his toolbox. Baker had some craft, which if he put it together made him a hard guy to beat. He had a reasonable defense, an effective jab, and really knew how to cover some ground with punches launched from the outside. He was also quite able on the inside and could deliver some pretty well-considered shots from close range off the back of tying up and smothering his opponents' efforts. Neusel would likely run into Baker all night long and pay a price for it, every time. And, IMO, he just didn't have the imagination to find another way.
I think that Baker had a better run of form at the highest level, albeit he wasn't entirely consistent, as others have said. As you say he played second fiddle to Schmeling, which left poor Adolph Heauser playing third fiddle. I could see Neusel getting this if he got Baker on the right nigh, but the smarter money is probably with Baker, for the reasons given.
It appears so, but recent fights should give us a salutary warning, about jumping to conclusions when a fighter quits.
I give the OP credit. This is a very unusual and interesting matchup. I like Baker. He was a top contender, while Neusel is less so. Neusel's big wins were over an over the hill Loughran when Neusel was prime. Plus a win over an ancient Schmeling, when Neusel himself was also old. To his credit, he lasted a long time as a top Euro, but how good was the competition in Europe during the war years and the immediate postwar era? In his prime, he failed badly against Schmeling, Carnera, and Farr. As for Baker, he also came up short against the best but his second win over Nino Valdes impresses me more than any by Neusel. Valdes was much the same sort of fighter as Neusel, only bigger, stronger, a harder puncher, and rougher. So Baker is the pick for me.
I voted for Baker based on better wins in my not-so knowlegeable opinion. That being said, I care very little about this matchup but it is the fact that there are people who do care which makes this forum so great.
I think Walter gets a little less credit than he deserves here. He's probably more consistent of the two, barely, and in the way he boxed I'd say definitely, and he was a strong finisher. Baker, I'm not sure would perform well in the final third of a fifteen round fight. But definitely Baker is not a bad pick, and he seems to be the board's pick.