The popular notion here, and one I once bought into, is that Baer was different the night he fought Braddock. The census is that he was gun shy, timid, show boaty, and too easy going. But after watching the Baer vs. Schmeling fight, is that honestly the case? Baer doesn't charge into Schmeling either. He takes his time, lands effectively, and goes for the kill on occasion. Schmeling didn't have Braddocks spoiling style, and fought him more straight up, in the pocket, relying on his head movement that would sometimes put him in direct contact with short thudding blows. Braddock on the other hand, played with Baers momentum. Constantly being in the right position to absorb/block/avoid Baer punches, and sneak in a cute combo. While Schmeling didn't seem mind his distance much, Braddock was on full alert throughout, maintaining optimal positioning to avoid and hit back. I don't see Baers performance in both fights being much different, save the way the fights ended. And I'm starting to lose all belief in the notion that Baer was handicapped/different the night he fought Braddock.
Actually it is often said that Baer's performance against Braddock was fairly typical of him, and that his performance against Schmeling was more unusual. Either way round I look at it, I can't see the two being "the same". I could be wrong. But then that would mean something like: Baer (and possibly Schmeling) were always a bit crap. Because Braddock was not much good at all.
His right hand was apparently broken for the Braddock and Louis fight, I heard somewhere his left was injured too, I'd say it' credible because of how in both fights he landed the overhand right right on Braddock and Loui' s chins but didn' seem to hurt either of them, Louis even remarked that baer's famous overland right want that hard, so I do believe it's more believable that baer wasn't game for either career ending fight than the man that's accidently killed more people in the ring than any other pro had no power to start with He wasn't very good at chasing opponents, but he was formidable because he was the hardest hitter boxing has seen at the time, and he had the best chin boxing has seen at the time
I think Baer looked good vs Schmeling because Schmeling fought Baer's fight. You can clearly see Schmeling is the better boxer. You can equally see that Baer is stronger and tougher. The German was stupid to come straight at Baer and to slug with him toe-to-toe. Braddock, on the other hand, while I don't rate him highly either, used his head and moved in and out on Baer, and avoided exchanging punches as far as he could. I think Baer also had a good outing vs Schmeling and a bad one vs Braddock. These things add up.
It is pretty reliably documented that he broke his hand during this fight. This must have had some bearing upon his performance.
It was well documented that Baer had to defend his championship with a broken right hand, it was also documented that he barely trained for the bout and was mostly partying and whoring around. Baer was one of the hardest hitters anyone has seen but in those two fights against Braddock and Louis it was as if he had no power
I was only commenting on your claim "he was the hardest hitter boxing had seen at the time, and he had the best chin boxing has seen at the time". There had been quite a few big hitters and great chins before him. It's a big statement and that's in no way detracting from Baer's power or durability either.
