Would Max Baer be Undisputed Heavyweight Champ today?

Don't ever change Mark. Well not too much mate.

 

^it's these kinds of absurd takes that make threads like these fruitless. Both comments are either troll attempts or incredibly biased/ignorant/dishonest statements.

Yet posts like these are seen as having some merit by some and completely reasonable by others. And This is why anytime we have debates where the eras are more than 20 years apart we usually don't make any progress.

 

Not even Jack Johnson?

 

Wasted a lot of punches against the ropes, and off balance.

 

If he took the fight seriously he may have a glimmer of hope but he got hit Aton and I think the fighters today are to advanced to fall for a one handed fighter

 

Wilder is the sloppy punch king

 

Baer's better in every department to Wilder tell us if that's incorrect. He's a bit shorter, I forgot.

 

You can already see, you're a boxing historian so if anyone should know this, you should.
Schemling vs.... Dominic Breazeale.

 

Absolutely.

The only person Wilder has stopped, who was ranked in the top ten at the time of the fight, is Ortiz.

Whatever Baer's failings, and they are many, he built his reputation as a KO artist against champions, and ranked contenders.

 

Let's start with the fact that there was more than one of them.

 

It's stupidly hard to become undisputed now, it basically requires luck and a solidly long run of form. Baer wasn't nearly consistent enough to pull something like that off.

 

I wasn't claiming Wilder is way better than Baer, I was responding to your absurd claim Wilder's best TKO is Charlie Zelenoff. You aren't about to sit there with a straight face and tell me that wasn't a troll attempt.

 

(Groan) It's a nice day out so I'll keep it brief.

First, Max Baer didn't earn his reputation knocking out contenders because, when he fought "ranked contenders at the time" the fights usually went the distance and he usually lost.

Baer didn't knock out Ernie Schaef either time they fought. Baer didn't knock out King Levinsky. He didn't knock out Jim Braddock (he lost to him). He didn't knock out Uzcudan (Baer lost to him). He didn't knock out Tommy Loughran (Baer lost to him). He didn't knock out Lou Nova either time they fought (Baer was stopped twice). He didn't knock out Joe Louis (Baer was stopped again).

And if you aren't going to add guys Wilder fought who were previously rated by Ring, then you can't include guys who weren't rated when Baer fought them, like Tuffy Griffiths.

Second, if you're one of those guys who "count" the top 10 contenders someone beat using Ring ratings to determine who beat the better competition, it's a flawed argument to start.

For that to make sense, for example, every number one, number two and number three contender in the 1930s would have to be equal to the fighters in those positions in, say, the 2020s. And that's never the case. In 1945, the top two contenders were Melio Bettina and Tami Mauriello (essentially two light heavyweights). Today they are Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder. Not really comparable challengers, right? (LOL)

There are years with good fighters and years with bad, so just because Tony Galento had a #1 rating in 1940 doesn't mean he's equal to every guy who ever held a #1 rating, like Ali. That's ludicrous. So "counting" how many "ranked contenders" someone fought using a ratings like Ring is dumb.

The challengers champions defended against then and now were dictated by the sanctioning bodies of the day. Everyone Wilder defended against and stopped was a ranked contender by the WBC just like everyone Charles defended against was rated by the NBA. Ring ratings had nothing to do with who they fought.

Finally, by my count, the number of "ranked" contenders Max Baer knocked out to earn his reputation as a puncher was one - Max Schmeling.

And Baer certainly backhanded and eventually knocked out Schmeling to earn his reptuation. But Herr Schmeling had been stopped three times (Larry Gains, Gipsy Daniels and Max Diekmann) before that a lot quicker than Baer put him away, so it wasn't totally suprising.

Since Baer didn't stop Galento until basically the last year of Baer's career ... I don't think that is the win over the contender that earned him his rep.

People can see Baer. He was a big puncher for his time. But he didn't "earn" his rep knocking out a bunch of contenders and former champs, like you said.

Max Baer earned his rep knocking out unrated guys, stopping one former champ (who had been stopped three times before) ... and Carnera.

Like I said yesterday, Wilder's career is ongoing. We'll see.

But my prediction is when Wilder retires people aren't going to list Max Baer as a bigger puncher than Wilder. Most don't even do that now. (LOL)

Enjoy your day.

 

Even factoring in all of the above, Baer had got Wilder beat very comfortably.

The only Ring top ten contender that Wilder stopped was Ortiz.

I realize that it is not perfect, but I will use it for the want of anything better.

My point is that Wilder built his reputation as a puncher, primarily against B grade opposition.

This means that it has a soft underbelly.

This would be a very pertinent point if Deontay Wilder had beaten Anthony Joshua, but he hasn't.

This is an nonsensical argument.

Max Schmeling was a 19 year old kid when Gains stopped him, and he was the best heavyweight in the world when Baer stopped him.

Furthermore do you think that anybody will ever argue that Ortiz was greater than Schmeling?

That is a bold prediction.

Men like Wilder can get forgotten very quickly after they retire.