Jameel McCline vs. Buddy Baer

[Russell]

Who takes it?

[The Kurgan]

Interesting fight. McCline has an outside chance of stopping Baer early, but over a long fight I think McCline would tire. If it was a 15 rounder, I suspect Baer would pick up the last eight or nine rounds to win a firm decision. The last rounds would be a rather comical affair, I think, because they'd both gas horrendously. It's one thing to be that big, but to be also fighting a giant means one's stamina is going to go pretty swiftly.

[mcvey]

Who takes it?
I'll go for Baer ,Mcline is too timid for me.

[Muchmoore]

I'll go for Baer ,Mcline is too timid for me.

Mcclines inconsistent. Against Peter he looked very good, dropping Peter 3 times and was an inch away from stopping him early. In fights against Zuri Lawrence, etc. he looks terrible and timid. If an interested McCline shows up, this would be a very interesting fight.

[janitor]

This is a mismatch.

Baer is in a diferent league.

[ChrisPontius]

This is a mismatch.

Baer is in a diferent era.

Corrected.

[Muchmoore]

Corrected.

:lol:

[janitor]

Corrected.

It is not an issue of era.

McCline was never in Baers league relative to the era he fought in.

[Russell]

Why not, Janitor?

[mcvey]

It is not an issue of era.

McCline was never in Baers league relative to the era he fought in.
You were right first time.

[janitor]

Why not, Janitor?

A good few people here would say that Buddy Baer was one of the top five heavyweights of his time but I doubt that anybody would make that claim for McCline.

Baer beat a number of ranked contenders and still has one of the highest first round knockout ratios of any heavyweight ever. He didnt do this by padding his record with the kind of tomatoe cans Shannon Briggs fought either.

Hard to say how good he really was. He had the misfortune to share an era with a certain Detroit heavyweight. Remove that one fighter and perhaps he becomes a short tenure champion.

[BIG DEE]

BIG DEE HERE= Baer by early rd KO over the mediocre McCline. McCline is one of the worst heavyweights of the modern era. BIG< SLOW and DUMB.

[mcvey]

A good few people here would say that Buddy Baer was one of the top five heavyweights of his time but I doubt that anybody would make that claim for McCline.

Baer beat a number of ranked contenders and still has one of the highest first round knockout ratios of any heavyweight ever. He didnt do this by padding his record with the kind of tomatoe cans Shannon Briggs fought either.

Hard to say how good he really was. He had the misfortune to share an era with a certain Detroit heavyweight. Remove that one fighter and perhaps he becomes a short tenure champion.
Excellent post!

[Hatesrats]

McCline is not even worthy to be Baer's sparring partner.
Baer by Default.

[BOGART]

A good few people here would say that Buddy Baer was one of the top five heavyweights of his time but I doubt that anybody would make that claim for McCline.

Baer beat a number of ranked contenders and still has one of the highest first round knockout ratios of any heavyweight ever. He didnt do this by padding his record with the kind of tomatoe cans Shannon Briggs fought either.

Hard to say how good he really was. He had the misfortune to share an era with a certain Detroit heavyweight. Remove that one fighter and perhaps he becomes a short tenure champion.


Baer had close to 60 fights in his career and probably 40-45 would qualify as the types of cans you say Briggs fought. When comparing Baer to McCLine, its safe to say that McCline fought every bit the competition that Baer did if not better. Whats Baer's best wins? Maybe Mann, Delaney, Simon, or throw in Galento. I'd put McCline's best wins of Briggs, Grant, and Whitaker as a better group of fighters.

In an actual match-up I think its a tough fight to call. I've only seen Baer in with Louis. He looked sloppy but did manage to drop Louis but then again a number of guys did it as well. I'd probaby lean toward McCLine due to overall athleticism but its a tough fight to pick.

[janitor]

[quote=BOGART]Baer had close to 60 fights in his career and probably 40-45 would qualify as the types of cans you say Briggs fought.

Same with most fighters resumes.

The point is that while Briggs has padded his legacy over many years Baer took a prety direct route to the topa and went for bust or nothing against Louis. Clearly a much higher percentage of his fights were against top 20 opponents than in Briggs case.

I guess the Briggs win would be on a parr with a win over Jimmy Braddock.


When comparing Baer to McCLine, its safe to say that McCline fought every bit the competition that Baer did if not better. Whats Baer's best wins? Maybe Mann, Delaney, Simon, or throw in Galento. I'd put McCline's best wins of Briggs, Grant, and Whitaker as a better group of fighters.


Lets look closer.

Grant and Whitaker would be forgotten names if they had the equivalent records in Buddy Baers era. Certainly Whitaker would not stand on the same level as Gallento, Savold, Simon or Mann.

Michael Grant would be known for is fight with Lewis but people would wonder why the hell Lewis fought him or how he came to be ranked. So it would be seen as a name win over a paper tiger.

The points I have made are held out by the respective ranking of both fighters in their respective times.

[BOGART]

[quote]

Same with most fighters resumes.

The point is that while Briggs has padded his legacy over many years Baer took a prety direct route to the topa and went for bust or nothing against Louis. Clearly a much higher percentage of his fights were against top 20 opponents than in Briggs case.

I guess the Briggs win would be on a parr with a win over Jimmy Braddock.



Lets look closer.

Grant and Whitaker would be forgotten names if they had the equivalent records in Buddy Baers era. Certainly Whitaker would not stand on the same level as Gallento, Savold, Simon or Mann.

Michael Grant would be known for is fight with Lewis but people would wonder why the hell Lewis fought him or how he came to be ranked. So it would be seen as a name win over a paper tiger.

Baers resume may be better than Briggs, I'd have to look into that one, but yeah, Briggs has fought a lot of easy fights. Whitaker is on the same level as some of the guys you mentioned I always felt Whitaker was a bit of an underachiever.

Grant gets a bit of a bad rap. He never lived up to the hype but he wasn't a bad fighter at all. I've seen fighters from the past getting praised as being good contenders for their time and having done less than Grant.

Briggs may be one of the weaker lineal champs in the divisions history but he was a solid if flawed fighter. I'd put Grant and Briggs as some of the better contenders from when Baer fought while Whitaker would have been a run of the mill guy who hung around the top 10-15. Sometimes in it and sometimes just outside of it.

[janitor]

[quote=BOGART][quote=janitor]
Baers resume may be better than Briggs, I'd have to look into that one,


I am not saying that Baers resume was better than Briggs. Just that his credentials as a knockout artist are neater.


Whitaker is on the same level as some of the guys you mentioned I always felt Whitaker was a bit of an underachiever.


The hardest part of comparing a fighter from yourown era to one from another is to step out of your own era into the other fighters.

If I am in Buddy Baers era looking forward to the present day Eddie Blunt might look like a big name and Whitakers credentials would be hard to apreciate/define.


Grant gets a bit of a bad rap. He never lived up to the hype but he wasn't a bad fighter at all. I've seen fighters from the past getting praised as being good contenders for their time and having done less than Grant.


I happen to agree with this but it dosnt suport my argument so I will stay in Buddy Baers era looking forward.

How do I apreciate Michael Grants body of work?

He has a win over Andrew Golotta who is big name that always lost when he stepped up on paper.

Briggs may be one of the weaker lineal champs in the divisions history but he was a solid if flawed fighter. I'd put Grant and Briggs as some of the better contenders from when Baer fought

Briggs would have got so shafted back then.

A dangerous black puncher who was flawed enough to drop decisions to some of the other murder row crew. A man who was feared but could be avoided without undue criticism.

He might have been one of the better contenders but he wouldnt have got far.

[BOGART]

[quote]
[quote=BOGART]

I am not saying that Baers resume was better than Briggs. Just that his credentials as a knockout artist are neater.



The hardest part of comparing a fighter from yourown era to one from another is to step out of your own era into the other fighters.

If I am in Buddy Baers era looking forward to the present day Eddie Blunt might look like a big name and Whitakers credentials would be hard to apreciate/define.



I happen to agree with this but it dosnt suport my argument so I will stay in Buddy Baers era looking forward.

How do I apreciate Michael Grants body of work?

He has a win over Andrew Golotta who is big name that always lost when he stepped up on paper.



Briggs would have got so shafted back then.

A dangerous black puncher who was flawed enough to drop decisions to some of the other murder row crew. A man who was feared but could be avoided without undue criticism.

He might have been one of the better contenders but he wouldnt have got far.


I can agree with most of this especially Briggs possibly getting shafted in the era Baer fought in.