Who wins: Max Baer (that beat Schmeling) Vs Ezzard Charles (of the first Walcott fight)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BitPlayerVesti, Oct 11, 2018.


  1. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    Would the best version of Max Baer claimed the title post Louis?
     
  2. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    Charles was a far better fighter than Baer, not even close.
     
  3. Minotauro

    Minotauro Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,628
    712
    May 22, 2007
    Baer always has a punchers chance had he not met Schmeling and people asked who would take that most would favor Schmeling. However Charles is a lot more skilled then Baer and should win a wide decision.
     
  4. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,101
    15,581
    Dec 20, 2006
    Can’t we just say who wins Max Baer or Ezzard Charles
     
  5. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,667
    2,153
    Aug 26, 2004
    Charles was more consistently conditioned and very able but when Max was right he was a tremendous talent with crazy power. I pick Charles for the consistency of reliability but in 2 of 10 fights Max could be the Max of the Schmeling fight
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  6. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,663
    80,930
    Aug 21, 2012
    Schmeling fought Baer's fight and still gave him hell. Charles could actually box.

    I guess with Baer's physical attributes he always has a chance but I'll just go ahead and pick Charles.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  7. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,560
    36,122
    Jan 8, 2017
    Charles survive s the hard thumping rights of Baer to gain a decision win.
     
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,228
    Feb 15, 2006
    I doubt that anybody would have said that of him while he was champion.
     
  9. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    Why? He was beating Marciano before he got stopped in their first fight and Rock would have landed far more power punches on Baer.
     
  10. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    Charles had far more talent than Baer ever did.
     
  11. unitas

    unitas Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,062
    768
    May 12, 2007
    baer was too crude. charles on another Level.
     
  12. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,667
    2,153
    Aug 26, 2004
    you left this part out of my quote
    Charles was more consistently conditioned and very able....I picked Charles
     
  13. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,228
    Feb 15, 2006
    I think that you are confusing Charles with Walcott here, but you still somehow come away with a valid argument.

    Charles was not very highly regarded while he was champion, perhaps due to coming after Louis (bit of a Larry Holmes effect). At that time I doubt that many would have picked him over Schmeling or Baer.

    Now I am glad that Walcott and Charles are getting their due these days, but I do question the idea that they were better then Schmeling or Baer.

    Let's not forget that Schmeling did to a young Joe Louis, what they could not do to an old one!
     
  14. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,228
    Feb 15, 2006
    It depends whether you mean athletic talent, or technical talent.

    Technical talent goes to Charles, but athletic talent obviously goes to Baer.
     
  15. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    16,246
    11,709
    Sep 21, 2017
    Yeah but Louis was undertrained for that fight. A bit of a foreshadowing of Douglas/Tyson which would take place 54 years later.