Why is Baer nearly always ranked higher than Carnera?

Carnera gets merit points for getting back into the fight, but Baer DID beat him up that night. The first 3 rounds he battered him quite thoroughly, and in later eras I think it would have been stopped early.

By all means credit Carnera for his courage, but Baer seemed to put out a considerable amount more than Carnera was capable or taking or avoiding.
Everytime Baer landed clean on the chin Carnera went flying.

 

Your approach reminds me of some statisticians I know who trumpet a "statisiticallly significant" effect that is infintessimal!! Big deal Baer's record against top opposition isn't as numerically impressive - how did he PERFORM in those fights, were the opponents, in fact, generally better; were the victories more impressive or more significant?? I would submit that, on all of these points, the answer is yes.

You have made the mistake of assuming that quantification of career records somehow "proves" that Carnera is "better," ignoring that, qualitatively, Baer performed better. How many of his fights ended in conclusive knockouts, while how many of Carnera's ended in decisions - which may or may not have been on the level?? As others have said, Baer's victory against Schmeling alone is more significant than ANY of Carnera's wins. Oh, and then you have the fact that he annihilated Carnera himself!!!

 

uh, because he was better in a head to head sense

 

Max Baer, even with his shitty work ethic, lack of discipline and clownish attitude demonstrated with ridiculous ease why he was better than Carnera. I mean, Carnera had his good points, like being earnest and straightforward in approaching all his fights, and wasn't distracted like Baer was, and he did perform better against some common opponents like Loughran and Uzcudun than Baer did, and he even fought with more courage against Louis than Baer, but as we all know, that dosen't always equate logically in the world of boxing. If Max Baer had approached his biggest fight, the one against Carnera, like he did the one with Schmeling, for instance, he would have ko'ed Primo much more emphatically. The fact that Max was a head case, particularly after killing basically two men (I include Ernie Schaff) needs to be brought into the equation whenever discussing the guy.

 

I'm not suggesting that you are ignoring the record, rather than your emphasis on numerical indicators leads to a misleading picture of the record. You admit that Baer's win over Schmeling trumps anything on Carnera's ledger, and obviously you cannot deny that Baer convincingly beat him head to head.

There are other things that go into these sorts of evaluations. As a result of these debates, I was motivated to review the film of the Baer-Carnera fight and, while there are MOMENTS where Carnera seems to be doing well - and yes, he wins a few rounds - OVERALL, he is getting beaten up. Baer is faster, has better footwork, and is - obviously - landing the more powerful punches throughout the fight. Carnera looks PAINFULLY slow and amatuerish, frankly. For large portions of the fight Baer is either outboxing him from the outside - which says something in itself, given Carnera's size - or, when he really engages, he beats the living daylights out of Carnera.

I would submit that a fair view of their fight - as well as their abilities demonstrated in other fights - show that Baer was FAR more talented.

Simply because Carnera hung around a bit longer rather than retire when the handwriting was on the wall like Baer did doesn't make him better, and neither do misleading numerical indicators. I would add that the weight of historical analysis and opinion is on my side, putting the burden of proof in your corner. I will congratulate you for making the best case you could, but it doesn't overwhelm or overturn the dominant - and correct - belief that Baer was light-years superior to the mediocre Carnera.

 

:happy

 

I don't believe Carnera's matches were fixes. I just don't think he was as good as Baer. Baer beating his face to mush and knocking him down 11 times in 11 rounds is a pretty convincing proof, really.

Your adding seems to be a little off, here. I count four losses on that list. I would also think Larry Gains and Young Stribling (both of whom beat Carnera) should be deserving of spots on that list.

This is rather unfair. Baer was still in his first two years as a pro, very green, and on the heels of a psychologically-damaging tragedy when he lost to those three, while Carnera fought them when he was at his peak. We all know what happened when a prime Baer fought Schaff. And the Carnera-lasting-longer-than-Baer-against-Louis thing is pretty severe hair-splitting. If anything, I do think Baer was at least more competitive with Louis in patches than Carnera was.

While Baer was an inconsistent fighter, his wins over Carnera and Schmeling are both more impressive than any single win Carnera ever posted.

Um, how so? In Carnera's major fights in the time period you mention, he had a win over Uzcudun, balanced against losses to Sharkey, Gains and Poreda. In Baer's major fights at the same stage (2-3 years into his career), he had losses to Loughran, Uzcudun, Schaff and Risko, balanced against wins over Campbell (the famous fatal match) and Risko. If anything, Baer won a higher percentage of his early major fights than Carnera did.

If he were "extremely low" in head-to-head ability, how would he have brutalized Carnera, bludgeoned Schmeling into submission and killed Campbell and perhaps Schaff by extension? You're severely underrating Baer here.​

I would say Baer had plenty more over Carnera than that to have done what he did to him.​

 

Marciano-Frazier---I have to take responsibility for the numbers as I posted them months ago. Carnera was 7-4 and Baer 5-8 against fighters who were champions or rated #1 or #2 contenders in at least one year in the Ring's yearly ratings.

Larry Gains was never rated that high.

Baer is 5-8 because he had two defeats to Nova. I thought I posted it that way but maybe I made a mistake. Carnera I did post as 7-3 but corrected it later. My fault and I apologize.

I think you make a valid point about Baer falling into a severe slump after the Campbell tragedy, losing to Schaaf, Loughran, and Uzcudun. He later began to fight much better but rematched only Schaaf, defeating him.
I think Carnera's fine 7-4 record against top rated opposition does indicate he is somewhat better than the very harsh negative judgements often leveled against him, but Baer at his best was clearly the better fighter despite an often spotty record.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you write here. Carnera is an underrated champion, not at all the joke he is sometimes made out to have been, but Baer in his best performances clearly showed himself to be a level above Carnera.

 

A. Douglas didn't beat Tyson nearly so badly as Baer beat Carnera.
B. Tyson and Douglas were not otherwise-similar-level fighters. One can see Carnera Carnera as having had a better career than Baer outside of their fight against each other, but not as though they're in different leagues, unlike Tyson, who was several light years ahead of Douglas outside their fight against each other.

You think it didn't effect him psychologically? You realize that, per his son, even into old age, he would wake up in the middle of the night yelling and begging for Campbell not to die? And your argument to the contrary is that he scored one knockout? Obviously I'm not saying he didn't fight/try at all; I'm saying he was hampered in his performance by the psychological trauma of having just killed a man with his fists. And I don't think you're being reasonable if you're arguing that he just went right back to business and didn't care. Besides which, as I said before, this was also only 2-3 years into his career. He was an inexperienced fighter moving up in class for the first time.

No, but that's mainly because Lewis had an enormous number of quality wins over an extended period of time and an extended, dominant reign as champion. If Bowe had his two wins over Holyfield that were better than any Lewis had, but Lewis had maybe a couple more wins over contenders and had four title defenses instead of Bowe's two, then I would probably still rank Bowe higher.

The loss to the 2-3 fighter was a DQ when the other guy started refusing to fight and sitting around along the ropes like a turtle doing nothing and provoking Baer until Baer pulled him off the ropes and threw him down in the process. It hardly reflects on ability. Other than that, they're essentially the same here.

Then apparently he doesn't rank "very, very low" in terms of head-to-head ability. Look at your words in context- you said he ranked "very low" in head-to-head ability, not "boxing technique" or somesuch.

So if Joe Mesi dies after his next fight, you won't think it had anything to do with the Jirov match?