Would Max Baer be Undisputed Heavyweight Champ today?

Right. That's why so many in Baer's diet of bums went the distance. (LOL) Tyson Fury is the only guy Wilder hasn't stopped.

Somehow your once-in-a-generation puncher couldn't stop Benny Hill in two fights (a guy 13 other fighters managed to stop).

Baer wasn't even the best puncher of "his" generation.

 

Was color footage going to make him look less sloppy? (LOL)

The only guy Wilder hasn't stopped was Tyson Fury, who Wilder had on the floor twice (you can even watch him floor Fury in color).

I don't think all the color in the world will make Max Baer's distance fights or losses look better.

 

When someone implies Baer knocked out more "rated contenders" and throws freaking Pat Comiskey in there, or worse yet, adds EXHIBITION fights, people have no choice but to fight as well (LOL).

Guys like Arreola were rated in the top 10 for five years ... he just wasn't the year Wilder fought him as a late sub when Povetkin poppped for PEDS ... and Arreola doesn't count. Ignore.

Same with Stiverne. Three or four YEARS in the top 10. But wasn't for the rematch when Wilder stopped him. Ignore.

Dominic Breazeale was in the top 10 longer than Pat Comiskey. Just wasn't when he fought Wilder because he'd sat out too many months waiting for the title shot. Ignore.

Luis Ortiz has been rated in the top 10 for six years, rated in the top five both times Wilder stopped him, and you guys act like that was one knockout, instead of two. And you do it intentionally, because you don't want to give him any credit.

But Comiskey, who was in the top 10 all of a handful of months, not even a year, counts as some SIGNIFICANT WIN in your mind. As does an exhibition knockout, apparently.

Or Tuffy Griffiths wasn't rated anymore, but you still want to add him to Baer's list ... but you are adament not to include the guys Wilder knocked out who weren't anymore. It just comes across as so desperate to run him down.

That's why it won't be hard for Wilder to surpass Baer on any all-time puncher lists. When you use the same criteria for both, stuff levels out quickly. And his career isn't even over yet.

Wake me up when Wilder loses to someone like Jim Braddock.

 

No footage would make him less sloppy, he was sloppy. So is Wilder though and Wilder has no resume edge either.

But keep dreaming about Wilder being the best in the world like you did before Fury rematch

 

Why would he need to be the best in the world to beat the likes of Baer?

 

He wouldn't need that, this part of my post is related to different discussion.

Baer wouldn't have to be the best in the world to beat Wilder either.

 

RING had Tuffy in the top 10 for 3 straight years prior to the Baer fight (as high as #3).

The NBA March ratings had Tuffy top 10. Which would have been the only ratings prior to this fight being made.
September 20th ratings came out as you said, just 6 days before the fight, well after it had been made. If we are going to split hairs and say that Tuffy got dropped from the NBA quarterly ratings 6 days before the fight after he was rated top 10 in the previous statement....

This just boils down to the nature of the era where more fighters fought more frequently but their standings were evaluated less frequently. I suppose technically Tuffy was not an NBA top 10 at the time of the fight, though was at the time the fight was contracted, so certainly some grey area here. That's arguable, what isn't arguable is that Tuffy was certainly a quality scalp.

I certainly will. The fight was witnessed by 14,000 people live, was reported by the major sports writers, and was even filmed for theatrical distribution. It was a non-title fight scheduled for 4 rounds but still billed as a rubber match with an old rival. Seeing Baer chin Levinsky further established his reputation as a feared puncher, nobody cared if it was on the official pro record or not.

It was and it wasn't. Frankie Campbell wasn't a contender that I'm aware of but was a quality fighter that got shockingly brutalized by Baer's power and helped build his reputation.

But you are wrong in that Baer ran up four straight knockouts over noted contenders and Champions: Tuffy, Schmeling, Levinsky, and Primo, that established his power at a time that knockouts like that were less frequent due to the gloves being used and other factors.

If I was comparing him to Wilder, my point wouldn't be contenders. With his KO wins over Schmeling and Primo, and his blow out exhibition of rival Levinsky, Baer was firmly established as the lineal Champion and undisputed best heavyweight in the world. He also did beat lots of contenders, and inspired fear in the sport.

Wilder has not even came close to matching that.

 

A bit shorter? Baer was only 6'2.5, Wildder is 6'7 with an 83 inch reach, he would have dwarfed Baer.

 

Baer had an 81 inch reach, very long arms for his height. The minimal difference in reach, would make me hesitant to say Wilder dwarves him.

 

Baer himself had 81 inch reach and he weighed within 199-224 lbs range. Wilder wouldn't dwarf him at all.

 

Yeah, he has.

Again, Griffiths wasn't rated. He was earlier. But, like I pointed out, so were quite a few Wilder fighters that you give him no credit for beating because they weren't rated the moment they stepped in the ring. Sorry. You don't get to keep out opponents for one guy and include opponents who don't meet your own criteria for another.

And, again, sorry, four round exhibitions don't count. (LOL)

The only knockout that means anything is Schmeling. Truthfully. And everyone knows it. That's the bar.

The bar isn't Carnera.

 

Baer is smaller than most of the people Wilder has fought in the last decade.

And, compared to Baer, Wilder's skills look like Pernell Whitaker. And Wilder hit harder too, IMO.

For all the flack Wilder gets for "only having a punch" ... Wilder is the better boxer AND puncher in this fight ... and he has the greater will to win. Wilder certainly doesn't take a knee because he's afraid of getting stopped. (Like Baer)

Classic needs to wake up when it comes to Wilder. If people here have to hype attendance figures for exhibitions ... or insist beating Pat Comiskey matters in any realm because he was "rated" for a couple months around that time ... then there isn't anything there.

I know some of you guys don't even watch current fights anymore.

START. The current guys are better than practically every 1930s/1940s boxer mentioned in this thread except for Louis.

 

Baer knocked out the man people thought was robbed of the Championship lineage (Schmeling)
Baer knocked out the actual lineal Champion (Primo)
Baer knocked out his iron chinned rival in 2 rounds (Levinsky)

Not just beating the lineal Champion, but decisively making a claim as the best Heavyweight in the world is something Wilder has yet to do. In fact, it's something only the greats have done.

I would also argue Baer was much more active against his peers and the next generation, fought and beat more contenders in general, just had a superior career to Wilder at present.

I'm not, you are confusing me with janitor. My argument was that Baer knocked out more than two contenders, counting Tuffy or not, I've made that point.

My other point was that Baer's reputation was assisted by his knockout wins over quality opponents. It was. I don't think people would rag on Wilder so much if his opponents were seen as quality and just happened to not be rated.

It doesn't matter if you count it or not. The boxing world saw Baer destroy an iron chinned contender in two rounds, which only helped cement him as the most feared puncher in the world at that time.

The fight was originally scheduled to be an official title defense. You can read up on it. But the Illinois state commission pulled some crap and changed it to a no decision 4 rounds. Levinsky would be given recognition as Champion if he defeated Baer by KO. They did not use exhibition sized larger gloves but official 6 oz sized. It was very much a real fight, promoted heavily, and is a pretty iconic moment in Baer's career. Our opinion does not matter here.

My final note: Baer was historically seen as one of the most dangerous punchers of his time, seen as one of the best fighters of his time, and still stands up historically as such. We can't change that. What we should do is analyze and see why people of his time thought that, and why many still do. Coming to terms with such things as the Baer vs Levinsky KO being impressive at the time, even if you don't think exhibitions should count is a huge starting point.

Wilder at present has many question marks as to legitimacy of his power and his worth of a fighter. You know these arguments well, and there isn't much that can be done about it, until Wilder gets off his butt and starts fighting quality opponents other than Fury, Ortiz, and Stiverne 6 times.

 

That's not what I was talking about.

I don't see anything to support that.

Baer is much more durable in this fight and he sustained a lot of punishment throughout his career, more than Wilder ever proved.
Wilder didn't show much heart in Fury's rematch.

Wilder never beat someone as good as peak Max Schmeling.