max baer vs rocky marciano

jimbraddock · Post by **jimbraddock** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:42

both are very tough and durable who do you think would win

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:47

Marciano had skills, whereas Baer did not. Both hit hard, I would say Marciano more so, at least for his size. Marciano had two good hands, and better conditioning. Baer had a granite chin, but the fight in Marciano's heart was much more. I can see Rocky doing a Rex Layne job on Baer, over a slightly longer period.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:59

Both hit hard, that is for sure. I disagree that Marciano was more skilled than Baer. What made Rocky are greater fighter was his consistency and longevity compared to Max's. I think Marciano would win because he is overall tougher, more resiliant, durable, and relentless. Marciano TKO in the late rounds of a very entertaining slugfest. Marciano was better conditioned and could last longer.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 18:05

perrycarter wrote:Both hit hard, that is for sure. I disagree that Marciano was more skilled than Baer. What made Rocky are greater fighter was his consistency and longevity compared to Max's. I think Marciano would win because he is overall tougher, more resiliant, durable, and relentless. Marciano TKO in the late rounds of a very entertaining slugfest. Marciano was better conditioned and could last longer.

Would you say Baer was more skilled than Marcian then? If so, please provide examples.

In Rocky's fights he clearly cuts off the ring and feints his way inside. He slips and parries jabs, and uses head movement when fighting at mid range. He keeps his gloves high at long range, feeling and gradually working his way in. He knew how to alternate between body and head, and knew how to neutralize a man in a clinch. He was a smart fighter.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 23 Jan 2006, 18:41

I have not seen much footage of Baer but I have read reports that he was boxing very well and using extremely good skill in his wins over Tom Heeney, Max Schmeling, and King Levinsky.

I have seen lots of tape of Marciano and he always struck me as a come forward, bruising, bullying fighter. Sure you need some skill to do that all of the feinting and slipping is stuff that 99% of the fighters of the 40's and 50's did. He wasn't anything special in the skill department for fighters of his era. He was great because of his power, heart, conditioning, durability, and determination; not his skills. You might be thinking of Walcott or Charles.

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 23 Jan 2006, 18:42

DoubleM wrote:
perrycarter wrote:Both hit hard, that is for sure. I disagree that Marciano was more skilled than Baer. What made Rocky are greater fighter was his consistency and longevity compared to Max's. I think Marciano would win because he is overall tougher, more resiliant, durable, and relentless. Marciano TKO in the late rounds of a very entertaining slugfest. Marciano was better conditioned and could last longer.
Would you say Baer was more skilled than Marcian then? If so, please provide examples.

In Rocky's fights he clearly cuts off the ring and feints his way inside. He slips and parries jabs, and uses head movement when fighting at mid range. He keeps his gloves high at long range, feeling and gradually working his way in. He knew how to alternate between body and head, and knew how to neutralize a man in a clinch. He was a smart fighter.

you are absolutely right.
With Marciano is .. that you can't see all that without takeing a closer look; Marciano was very elusive. I kept really studying Marciano some time ago and with every look I spooked in, I got somethin new. He was truly magnificent and as he being maybe slower than Baer(not that it has been said here but probably thought of as I certainly though this to be the case some time ago).. just watch that second Walcot fight - the KO was awesome

....

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 18:54

cultus wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
perrycarter wrote:Both hit hard, that is for sure. I disagree that Marciano was more skilled than Baer. What made Rocky are greater fighter was his consistency and longevity compared to Max's. I think Marciano would win because he is overall tougher, more resiliant, durable, and relentless. Marciano TKO in the late rounds of a very entertaining slugfest. Marciano was better conditioned and could last longer.
Would you say Baer was more skilled than Marcian then? If so, please provide examples.

In Rocky's fights he clearly cuts off the ring and feints his way inside. He slips and parries jabs, and uses head movement when fighting at mid range. He keeps his gloves high at long range, feeling and gradually working his way in. He knew how to alternate between body and head, and knew how to neutralize a man in a clinch. He was a smart fighter.

you are absolutely right.
With Marciano is .. that you can't see all that without takeing a closer look; Marciano was very elusive. I kept really studying Marciano some time ago and with every look I spooked in, I got somethin new. He was truly magnificent and as he being maybe slower than Baer(not that it has been said here but probably thought of as I certainly though this to be the case some time ago).. just watch that second Walcot fight - the KO was awesome ....

Yea... Same as Carlos Monzon. Deceptive styles. At first neither him nor Marciano look any good... But then you sit down and watch closely, and realize how effective each man was.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 18:56

perrycarter wrote:I have not seen much footage of Baer but I have read reports that he was boxing very well and using extremely good skill in his wins over Tom Heeney, Max Schmeling, and King Levinsky.

I have seen lots of tape of Marciano and he always struck me as a come forward, bruising, bullying fighter. Sure you need some skill to do that all of the feinting and slipping is stuff that 99% of the fighters of the 40's and 50's did. He wasn't anything special in the skill department for fighters of his era. He was great because of his power, heart, conditioning, durability, and determination; not his skills. You might be thinking of Walcott or Charles.

I'm definitely not thinking of Walcott or Charles. Marciano was not slick, but he had skill, and considerably more so than Max Baer. More importantly, Rocky had a fighting mentality, whereas Baer did not.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 23 Jan 2006, 19:44

I just want to know if Rory has finally morphed completely into Jim Braddock?

jimbraddock · Post by **jimbraddock** » 23 Jan 2006, 19:47

who is rory?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 23 Jan 2006, 19:50

jimbraddock wrote:who is rory?

You gave it away right there buddy!

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 23 Jan 2006, 22:02

Marciano KO's Baer inside seven

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 24 Jan 2006, 00:44

Double M,

I don't really disagree with what you say about Marciano. He did have some skills, as do all boxers at the top level. I'd say he was more tricky in the way he was able to land punches more than jaw droppingly "skilled".

I think where we clash is that you are underrating Baer IMO. His only downfall was a lack of motivation and desire. When Baer was on he was awesome and could have been an all time great heavweight. He could do just about anything in the ring but chose to not train and clown around in many of his major fights. When he was on he was every bit as skilled as Marciano.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Jan 2006, 01:34

max baer always said he could beat rocky. evne on a show, he once told a huge rocky fan frank sinatra he would have killed the rock.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 24 Jan 2006, 01:40

Max Baers son was Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies T.V. show. Max sr. should have trained him better.Ellie Mae was kicking his ass all the time.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jan 2006, 05:29

Baer was supposed to have been a wasted talent, though I haven't seen enough of him to comment. Marciano always turned up ready to face hell if need be. Rocky wins.

barry · Post by **barry** » 24 Jan 2006, 07:06

Baer's problem was that he was lazy and preferred the fast life much more than he did training, but when he trained and was in shape he was one of the best. His prime was from around 1930 to 1935...he was past it after the losses to Braddock and Louis, but even then still managed to score some impressive wins, but Louis had the ability to ruin fighters!

At his peak he was like a wrecking ball and unlike Shavers, Baer could take it just about as good as he could give, but Earnie Shavers was a long way off from being in Baer’s league. You have to be able to win the big fight and Baer did that when he was in shape, in fact when he was in shape he could go with anyone, with the exception of Joe Louis, which there were very few who could go with Louis. I have talked enough about Marciano, but he too was a great. Very tough fight to call, but I would have to go with Baer because when he wanted to, he fought like one of the greats, but when he failed to train he often looked dreadful!

Speaking of his loss to Art Oliver, what were the details of the bout...anyone actually know? Was it a close bout, a bum decision, or was Baer beat fair and square? Regardless, I can guarantee that he did not enter the bout focused or serious and he certainly was not in his prime in that bout!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Jan 2006, 12:44

on marty woroners simulation computer radio tourney, they had marciano TKO 14 baer. i am going to go listen to it

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 24 Jan 2006, 13:00

Marciano never lost to a fighter making his pro debut ...

Marciano TKO 6 Baer, in a one-sided beating. Want a reason? The faded Ezzard Charles that was pounded by Marciano in the rematch was still better than the best version of Max Baer.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Jan 2006, 13:34

Decagon wrote:I maintain that six-round bouts that occurred among top fighters up until the 1940s were glorified exhibitions

Great, another Decagon classic quote. Keep em coming big guy!!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Jan 2006, 15:12

Decagon wrote:Um, and given that the fight wasn't sanctioned, that the fight itself took place in a cicus sideshow, and one of the boxers wasn't licensed? Sounds like an exhibition to me.

Genius, please reread my post. I'm not refering to the Baer fight. I'm refering to your comment:

Decagon wrote:I maintain that six-round bouts that occurred among top fighters up until the 1940s were glorified exhibitions

Another statement based on your extensive boxing research? Or does this just apply to California MW's of the 1930's?

barry · Post by **barry** » 24 Jan 2006, 22:00

>>>I maintain that six-round bouts that occurred among top fighters up until the 1940s were glorified exhibitions<<<

"Glorified exhibitions...that's very, very, very funny. Boxing had thousands upon thousands, actually hundreds of thousands of glorified exhibitions during that time then...jeez. That kind of statement is what you have a reputation for! One might could look at some of the pre-1900 six rounders as exhibition-esque, but glorified exhibitions...Jesus! Now you could look at the bouts on the record of someone like Lamar Clark and take the six bouts that he had on Dec 1, 1958, or the three bouts that he had on Nov 10, 1958...now they, or any like that could be looked at as glorified exhibitions, buts that about it! Don't you ever think about something before you say it...or did "glorified exhibitions" really sound good to you?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Jan 2006, 00:04

"This story originates in the book "Rocky Marciano: Biography of a First Son"

Apparently, Mario Lanza, Max Baer, and a mutual friend were having dinner together (Marciano may have been there as well) when Baer began belittling Marciano's style and boasting that he would have beaten the Rock if they were to fight in their primes. Lanza, who loved Marciano dearly, couldn't bear to hear Max talk that away about his idol and challenged the former champion right there in the living room.

The two of them strip off their and throw down, Lanza fighting in a Marciano crouch and Baer with his right hand down near his hip as he did in the glory days, and somehow during the brief scuffle, Lanza sneaks in a right hand and actually floors Baer, prompting the fight to stop.

Knowing Baer's chin the story sounds suspect but then again I recall hearing that Lanza had a short pro career in boxing as a middleweight and that he was a natural born puncher. Perhaps the aging Baer's health had declined that much that the smaller Lanza was able to knock him down."

i got this from cyber boxing zone board but I personally have read about this before.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Jan 2006, 07:27

Decagon wrote:Oh, please. Barry can get away with that because he actually knows a little bit about boxing. You can't. Both of you use it as an excuse for being unable to argue a topic, but Barry is probably just unwillling, while you're completely unable.

Was this directed at me? Get away with what? Challenging your ignorance? For someone who "publishes" articles discussing bareknuckle boxing without any prior knowledge of even who Daniel Mendoza was, that's a hell of a comment. Perhaps you should actually make some attempt to defend your ignorant statement.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 26 Jan 2006, 05:49

i cant believe some of the posts here. max baer was a second rater along with people like sharkey but better than, say, lee savold who was third rate. marciano ranks in the top heavyweights of all time along with louis, ali, johnson and probably dempsey but lets be clear about this rocky wasnt a skilled fighter, he certainly improved on his basic lack of skill as his career moved on but he never reached a point where you could say he outboxed guys. he was an awesome puncher and he didnt know how to lose. the biggest heart of any fighter. but skilled? naaaa. max would not have got thru the ropes against marciano.