Zhang vs Joe Louis

I'm actually chuckling at the thought of how Americans in 1939 would react to seeing a 6'6", 300 lbs Chinese man. They'd probably kidnap him and put in a sideshow.

 

It was 1939 not the Wild West.

 

Tony Galento was 5'8 first of all, so he's disqualified off the bat for not in any way resembling a modern heavyweight.

But more importanty, I don't think that list proves much of anything. Some of the people you listed are absolute trash.

Valentin Campolo was 12-7

Charley Neaves was 8-7

Sandy McDonald was 29-36

Ray Jarecki was 0-6!

And the better records in that bunch aren't much better, to the tune of 18-8, 70-40, things like that.

How does Max Baer knocking out a bunch of bums and obese 5'8 part time icemen "flat out prove that his power is very real and effective against larger, modern sized men"?

 

If a guy can brutally KO Oliver McCall with 1 punch, does it matter if his record is 0-3-24...?

Height is height.

Muscle is muscle.

Power is power.

Buddy Baer, Simon, and Carnera were not trash. They were huge, modern sized, muscular men with genuine KO power whether you like it or not, and Louis handled their power. That's all that matters.

The context of the conversation was that Coljimar was questioning the power of these men since they "failed to KO smaller opponents under 200 lbs" so I pointed out they had no problem knocking out men over 200 lbs.

Is a huge, 6'5, 240 pound man "less durable" if he has a bad record? It is not easy to knock out a man that size, especially if they're a trained pro boxer and in good shape. Unless he's been brutally KOd a dozen times, he isn't biologically any different form someone like Anthony Joshua.

Shift the goal posts again if you want.

 

Max Baer won his HW title by beating Carnera.

I think he might be getting Valentin Campolo confused with Victorio Campolo who was 6 ft 6 and was a better fighter. They were both from Argentina and both fought around the same time but Buddy Baer did not fight Victorio.

Jose Santa is another 6 ft 6 guy who Max Baer KOd. Santa is the best HW in the history of Portugal.


Campolo was 21-8 and Santa 69-20. 6 of Campolos 8 losses were to elite fighters and Campolo actually has a win over Santa.

Buddys KO rate might be inflated. Maxs is deflated. While his record is padded if you look closely a lot of those fights were for 4 and 6 rounds. Such fights are responsible for 10 of Max Baers 15 decision victories. Also the Schaaf fight was technically a decision because he was KO'd at the bell. If we discount that his KO rate is about the same as Buddys.

 

Me - How does knocking out someone that's 0-6 or 29-36 prove anything?

You - Buddy Baer isn't trash Carnera isn't trash. Height is height, muscle is muscle, power is power! Shift the goal post if you want...

Did you reply to the wrong person? Your reply to me is a complete non-sequitur that doesn't address anything I said. I never said that Baer was trash, and I didn't comment on Carnera at all...

You've somehow decided that every single fighter that's tall and heavy (or in 5'8 Galento's case just obese and heavy) is also difficult to knockout for some reason, even though this has never been the case.

To illustrate, one of the fighters you listed had 19 wins and 27 losses, with 19 of those 27 losses being by KO, and yet you think think that this absolute bum being tall and heavy magically makes them good evidence of someone's punching power?

I don't need to say anymore than that. Your argumentation was poor. Accept it and move on. Stop digging a deeper hole of nonsense, this is not the hill to die on lol.

 

I did reply to the right person. Apparently you don't get it so I need to explain this yet again.

Coljimar questioned if guys like Buddy Baer were hard hitters and true super heavyweights because he was unable to KO smaller heavies such as 188 pound Lee Savold.

So I pointed out to him that his power was effective on multiple men who weighed 220 or more with an 88% KO ratio. Baer had no trouble at all KOing larger, modern sized men at all.

You then butted in saying that some of those big men have bad records as if that had anything to do with the conversation. The point wasn't that Baer KOd a bunch of hall of famers, the point was Baer's punching power was very real and was effective on several large men. Which is why I asked you if them having a good record would suddenly change their physiology and make them more durable or harder to knockout if Baer landed his best punches on them. It was a rhetorical question and you did not have the wits to comprehend what was said.

Height is height.

Muscle is muscle.

Power is power.

Buddy Baer was a real super heavyweight with real KO power and Louis handled his punches. Therefore, Louis probably wouldn't crumble form the first punch he takes from a guy in today's era. The fact some of the larger guys Baer defeated had bad records doesn't change the fact he can obviously KO large men which destroys Coljimar's talking point. You would know this you actually followed the conversation.

 

I'm confused because your position is confusing.

You believe that being large by itself is proof of durability. You have to believe this, because your entire argument hinges on it. So much so, that despite common sense dictating that a
0-6 man with 4 KO losses, or a 19-26 man with 19 KO losses aren't durable, you're arguing that they ARE durable by sheer virtue of their size, and then working backwards, saying "Why would them having better records change their physiology and make them harder to knock out? They're large men, and so are
obviously difficult to knockout by default".

This means that if Max Baer were to have knocked out a 7'0, 300lbs man, that's 0-1000 with 1000 KO losses, you'd argue that this person is evidence of Baer's knockout power, and say "What does him getting knocked out 1000x have to do with his physiology??? Height is height, muscle is muscle, power is power. You're not following".

That's extraordinarily strange. You're the first person I've ever seen argue with this logic and you're acting like it's totally normal lol.

Whatever, I don't even really care about Baer or Louis, just found your argument fascinating. Have a nice day.

 

No, Coljimar is arguing that size by itself is proof of durability. That's why he questioned how good of a puncher Baer really is since he failed to KO 188 Savold. This is failed reading comprehension issue on your part.

My own personal belief is absolutely NOT that knocking out a 7f man with 1000 KO losses is impressive just because the guy is tall and heavy. I'm pointing out that knocking out that his claiming that Baer's power is questionable since he didn't KO a much smaller opponent is odd given he KOd so many big men over 220.

I am using Coljimar's own logic against him since HE thinks a large opponent is automatically more durable than a smaller one. You following so far? Without the context of the conversation, none of this would've made sense. You butted in and dissected my post in isolation.

 

Super middleweights/light heavies of that era were equally effective at knocking out giants. There's little on Baers record against big men to set him apart from guys 50-70 pounds lighter like Savold, Sheppard, and Pastor.

The Sullivan Barrera sized Curtis Sheppard at a mere 5'11 187 pounds ko'd
George Fitch 209
Al Hart 224
Charley Neaves 225
Johnny Allen 205
Big Boy Brown 245
Wallace Cross 213
Al Patterson 212

Lee Savold at 6'1 190 ko'd
Eddie Blunt 220
Wallace Cross 202
Claudio Villar 206
Jim Robinson 216
Louis Gray 220
Lindy Elliot 233
Ford Smith 221

I'd say if anything the evidence points to someone like Sheppard being a bigger puncher than Baer not only pound for pound but in absolute terms. He not only ko'd big men but guys renowned for being hard to stop. Lack of athleticism or lack of skill or some combination thereof for whatever reason seems to have prevented men like Baer/Simon from being dangerous punchers even by the standards of their own day despite their size.

Power doesn't always equate to size and it seems pre Liston the biggest punchers were generally men under 200 pounds

 

If Sheppard is a bigger puncher than Baer in absolute terms, that doesn't mean Baer doesn't have real KO power. It simply means Sheppard is a very hard puncher.

You didn't address anything I said. You claimed Baer must not have a lot of power since he failed to KO a smaller guy like Savold, and I pointed out Baer's power was effective on more than a dozen large men who weighed 220 lbs or more. All you're doing is shifting the goal posts.

Do you think skill/technique/ranking of an opponent is more important than size when evaluating KO power? Yes or No?

 

My only caveat being Carnera's power.

 

Results are more important than size when evaluating knockout power. Evidence points to Zhang being a huge hitter even though he does not have a great resume.

However, realistically the failure of Baer and company to kayo guys like Savold suggests they are not comparable to todays giants as I find it hard to imagine todays best super heavies failing to kayo Savold, Franklin, etc. Whether it is due to better technique, better raw power, etc I can't say. But the traits that make today's big men dangerous don't seem present in guys like Baer.
I'm sure if we found big men that are limited enough like Julius Long or Tye Fields we could find light heavyweights and even super middleweights that could beat stop them. But I still wouldn't consider this enough evidence to say they are big hitters at heavyweight. If Benavidez knocked them both out I still wouldn't be sold on his power at heavyweight.

Savold was not renowned for durability so irrespective of his size not knocking him out is a bad look.

 

Wait, how can you say results are more important than size, then say there's evidence Zhang is a huge hitter? The only evidence is him beating old ex champ Wilder (coming off a loss) and KOing Joyce. I don't think he KOd any other ranked/world class fighters. Louis has a long career brutally knocking out ranked fighters.

Regarding Savold, I don't think there's any footage but the report says Baer knocked Savold down. So perhaps Savold, after tasting his power, decided to play it safe and ran fighting a cautious technical, defensive fight. You can see examples of this with James Smith knocking down the much smaller Marvis Frazier adn failing to follow up, then losing the decision to Marvis. Smith obviously had power as he was able to KO men much bigger and more skilled than Marvis such as Bruno and Witherspoon.

So perhaps it's a combination of Savold being the much better boxer and Baer lacking in finishing ability. KO power and finishing ability are 2 different things. Obviously the issue wasn't that Baer's power had no effect if he knocked Savold down. It even says that Savold was in a different "class" compared to Baer and put on a good display of skill. Power isn't everything. You need to have the skill to actually deliver that power and the finishing skill to take out the opponent once you do hurt them.