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

I think that undertrained is relative in this case.

That version of Louis, would have gone through any other heavyweight, that could have been put in front of him at the time.

 

Charles is a slicker boxer than Herr Max and this is the thing that never allows Baer to land his big rights

 

Don't you get it?

Everybody that Baer beat, was a slicker boxer than he was!

He was just born with god like power, chin, and reflexes!

 

As much as I like Charles Baer from the Schmeling fight knocks him out. However the Baer that would later fight Louis would easily get outpointed by Charles.

 

https://www.thefightcity.com/joe-louis-max-schmeling-boxing-upsets/

 

The Wilder of the 1930's I guess.

 

Charles UD in an exciting fight where Baer lands some incredible shots

I seem to be one of the only people in this forum that ranks Baer as a high tier h2h fighter when he's serious (I think I rank him 18th-17th)

 

Charles should win but a few of his heavyweight fights point to a very possible loss. Look at the Satterfield fight, which is regarded as one of his best performances. Yeah, its a great knockout. But until the stoppage Charles was getting hit by big shots from Satterfield. He was literally getting pushed back from the force of the blows.

Baer with his snappier punches might not push Charles but instead knock him down and about. Baer has more in his arsenal than Satterfield; he has better ring generalship, different nuances to his offence, defensive moves, etc.. Baer also has the better chin. Hes not going down from a single combination.

 

Schmeling was an amzing fighter also from what I`ve seen.

 

Good point! People forget that when Louis was invisible he was a very difficult opponent to see and connecting solidly on him was neigh impossible...this is why many of us say his defense is very underrated!