Ezzard Charles vs max baer

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Jul 2006, 02:12

who do u take in this heavyweight fantasy match?

ill take charles 15 unanimous

theone · Post by **theone** » 16 Jul 2006, 04:31

I agree. Charles would win by a very wide margin if he doesnt stop Baer.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Jul 2006, 23:36

Styles make fights, and this fight is no different.

If Baer fought like he did against Carnera and Cambell, and possibly when he faced Schmeling in the 10th round...he would have given the far more technically gifted Charles some hell, no question.

Charles had a weakness, as did Louis, as did Ali, and that was against men who did not know the meaning of the word "backing up". Pressure fighters, brawlers like Baer, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman would have given Charles, Louis, Walcott, Ali problems.

Judging solely on Frazier/Ali, I could say that Baer, in all fairness, would win at least once out of three fights---and the others would be very close.

But that's just my opinion.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 17 Jul 2006, 00:07

Wasn't sure what you meant when you said Baer would win at least one out of three fights based on the Ali/Frazier fight?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Jul 2006, 00:18

I mean, judging how other great movers were matched up against the great punchers/brawlers, that (for instance) if Frazier could win one match against Ali out of three, and all were very close---I'd say Baer, who is a brawler and one of the most under-rated championship fighters, if he had faced Charles, one of the greatest movers of all time no question, in all fairness would probably win ONE out of three.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 17 Jul 2006, 08:00

Okay that makes it a bit more clear, at first I thought you meant if he fought Frazier or Ali.

I always thought Max Baer got plenty of recognition as a fighter, even way before the movie Cinderella Man brought him to the publics attention. He was pretty much a houshold name before that. I think a lot of boxing fans would like to rate him higher but you get into the discussion do you rate the man based on his ability and potential or do you rate him on his accomplishments.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 17 Jul 2006, 08:37

Ezz by easy decision, or late rd TKO.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 17 Jul 2006, 10:54

I'd take Charles to win by about 11 rounds to 4. But this is a fight that Baer could end any time if he got lucky. If they fought 3 times, I think Charles wins two decisions by a wide margin, and in the third one suffers a brutal knockout loss.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Jul 2006, 15:59

I actually would take Baer to be the favorite, despite Charles being the greatest light-heavyweight ever and made a great transition to Heavyweight. He had the skills to get away from some of the best brawlers and tacticians in his era---but Baer was a rather large man, he had capable skills, and not to mention, before Joe Louis came around, he possibly had the hardest right hand in the business---whether it was telegraphed or not, when it landed 200+ pound men dropped like a sack of shit.

If Baer had it in his mind to literally destroy his opponent, myself Baer would have been almost Formanesque. He was literally unstoppable when he was in that mode. Plus he is the last Heavyweight that I know of who participated in 20 round bouts, so he had stamina as well.

Take note of how mundane he was against Joe Louis; imagine Baer coming at Louis the way he done Carnera or Cambell or even Schmeling in the 10th round---who knows Baer could have been a 2x champion.

That's why I believe he would win at least once, and the other two would be close, IF Baer fought like he did when he was damned determined to knock his opponent's dicks in the dirt.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Jul 2006, 16:18

Well Decagon, what if you killed two men in your career? I don't really blame Baer for feeling guilty, it's sad that Baer could have done better in his career, but that's something that really affects a fighter.

Hell Emille Griffith was not really the same after killing Parrett, Marciano felt so bad about putting Carmine Vingo in a coma he almost retired, Louis even apologised to cracking the vertebrae in Schmeling's neck. These things really phuck with people's minds.

Baer could have been one of the all-time greats, but I don't really blame him, and the movie Cinderella Man was far from the truth, Baer wasn't some sadistic freak. After Cambell died he really contemplated the consequences of his profession, and when Schaaf died a fight later after battling Baer, that broke the straw---Baer never fought really with that same aggressiveness again.

Even against Carnera, he joked some. He clowned way too much with Braddock, hardly put up a great deal of offense against Louis---the last time he really let loose was against Tony Galento, who was harder than hell to like, let alone fight in a sportsman-like manner, as much as he fouled and cussed.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jul 2006, 16:47

bullshit, baer let loose against louis in the first round and louis took his best shots and came back with an incredible perfect 4 punch combination that had baer reeling in the corner

louis beat a prime max baer

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Jul 2006, 16:59

well i seen the film over and over in the years passed, and Baer didn't, in my opinion, come out with fists of fury like he did---it was hard punches yes, but he wasn't punching with the bad intentions he did in some of his earlier fights.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Jul 2006, 17:15

Baer Winks at the women, smiles for the cameras gets in a few respectable shots that gets Ezzards attention so Ezzard out navigates and outpoints him in about a 9 rds to 6 rds so so affair, which does not bring the best out of either fighter.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 17 Jul 2006, 17:29

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:well i seen the film over and over in the years passed, and Baer didn't, in my opinion, come out with fists of fury like he did---it was hard punches yes, but he wasn't punching with the bad intentions he did in some of his earlier fights.

I see here where you're not making a point for Baer's greatness but only for how great he should have been. There have always been an abundence of fighters with great potential only to end up on the ex contender scrap heap. But their have been only a very few who have developed that potential and sustained it for an entire career.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Jul 2006, 17:40

Take note of how mundane he was against Joe Louis; imagine Baer coming at Louis the way he done Carnera or Cambell or even Schmeling in the 10th round---who knows Baer could have been a 2x champion.

Coming at Louis like he did against Canera, Campbell and Schmeling? He would have been knocked out even quicker.

Well Decagon, what if you killed two men in your career? I don't really blame Baer for feeling guilty, it's sad that Baer could have done better in his career, but that's something that really affects a fighter.

Both ring deaths occurred well before Baer's biggest wins, so I how exactly did it effect him in the ring? Before the the two deaths Max wasnt anything special.
In my estimation Baer overacheived, not underacheived in his career. He was very fortunate to have been the size he was and to have that punch because he didnt have much else.

This fight would be very easy for Charles.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Jul 2006, 18:11

theone...we have to stop agreeing like this......people will think the fix is in.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jul 2006, 18:13

i find it funny when people call rocky marciano very crude and unskillful. on film, baer looked a lot more crude than marciano.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 17 Jul 2006, 19:14

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i find it funny when people call rocky marciano very crude and unskillful. on film, baer looked a lot more crude than marciano.

Agreed. At least in most of his fights. At times it almost seemed like he didn't have a trainer and that he had been plucked off the street. But then there were isolated cases where he almost looked skilled. In general though, it's hard to imagine how anyone could rate him with the best HWs of all time.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Jul 2006, 20:05

theone...we have to stop agreeing like this......people will think the fix is in.

Well, to be fair this was a pretty easy one to agree on.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Jul 2006, 20:07

i find it funny when people call rocky marciano very crude and unskillful. on film, baer looked a lot more crude than marciano.

Yup. At times Baer could make Marciano look like Charles.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jul 2006, 20:15

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:bullshit, baer let loose against louis in the first round and louis took his best shots and came back with an incredible perfect 4 punch combination that had baer reeling in the corner

louis beat a prime max baer
Like we were talking about in the other thread, I'd call Baer past his prime, but not shot. He came on swinging in the first round, and he surely had more focus than he did against Braddock, but I can't call him "in his prime" one fight after the Jim Braddock loss and a year away from the Art Oliver incident.

o come on! baer was 25 years old when he fought louis, of course he was in his prime!

baer was one year removed from the shellacking he gave to carnera. u expect me to believe baer suddenly aged dramtically in one year?? bullshit

baer was inconsistent in his whole career. even in the early 1930s he lost to levinskey, uzcuden, risko.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 17 Jul 2006, 20:49

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:baer was one year removed from the shellacking he gave to carnera. u expect me to believe baer suddenly aged dramtically in one year?? bullshit

Yeah!! We all know that Mike Tyson is the ONLY fighter in history to have aged a full 15 years in a matter of months!! It's been scientifically proven, and if you can't accept this FACT then you are a Tyson hater and totally biased!!

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 17 Jul 2006, 21:39

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:bullshit, baer let loose against louis in the first round and louis took his best shots and came back with an incredible perfect 4 punch combination that had baer reeling in the corner

louis beat a prime max baer
Like we were talking about in the other thread, I'd call Baer past his prime, but not shot. He came on swinging in the first round, and he surely had more focus than he did against Braddock, but I can't call him "in his prime" one fight after the Jim Braddock loss and a year away from the Art Oliver incident.

o come on! baer was 25 years old when he fought louis, of course he was in his prime!

baer was one year removed from the shellacking he gave to carnera. u expect me to believe baer suddenly aged dramtically in one year?? bullshit

baer was inconsistent in his whole career. even in the early 1930s he lost to levinskey, uzcuden, risko.

Boxrec has Baer winning a pair of Decisions against Kingfish Levinsky.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jul 2006, 22:18

The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:baer was one year removed from the shellacking he gave to carnera. u expect me to believe baer suddenly aged dramtically in one year?? bullshit
Yeah!! We all know that Mike Tyson is the ONLY fighter in history to have aged a full 15 years in a matter of months!! It's been scientifically proven, and if you can't accept this FACT then you are a Tyson hater and totally biased!!

once again u exagerate. i never said that tyson was shot or aged, in fact he was still a great fighter when he fought douglas.

however, there is absolutley no reason to believe max baer was past his prime vs joe louis.

baer just 1 year earlier knocked out primo carnera in wut many call his "peak fight".

baer on film also tried to take louis out and let his hands go hard in the first round only to have louis take his best and come firing back with a perfect 4 punch combination.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jul 2006, 00:36

baer was the exast same fighter in 1933-35.

JOE LOUIS RUINED MAX BAER. HE WAS NEVER THE SAME AFTER. THATS WHY BAERS RECORD AFTER LOUIS IS BAD. but baer was prime going into the louis fight, baer simply was ruined by louis.

i refuse to believe baer suddenly aged dramatically in one year after the carnera fight. it was louis who made baer age dramtically