Just a random question I have. Can't understand why J.J. Braddock took two years before making a defense. Any insight on this guys?
I thought I was the only one in possession of this information. You should change your name to Big Ears !
Because Braddock hadn't eaten in several years and after winning the HW title gorged himself, and had to wait two years to digest the meal...There was no alka-seltzer those days...
I think he knew that he was verry likley to loose it in his first defence, so he was looking for the right time to cash out.
i believe that it came from above , something komo La Casa Blanca high , coz dei dident wont d taitel 2 b teiken by shmeling who deserved d shot . so dei postponed it until louis could B Xcused 2 fait 4 D taitel .
Yes but does anyone have any real idea why he waited two years? I've thought about this for sometime as well.
Because he could make much more money fighting Louis than Schmeling. Braddock and Louis were supposed to fight after his bout with Max, but when Louis lost that became unfeasible. So Braddock signed to fight Schmeling but pulled out with an 'injury'. Now the New York boxing commission told Braddock that he had to defend against Schmeling and no one else. So Braddock.was fined and suspended, but not stripped essentially a slap on the wrist even though Schmeling had made the trip from Germany and there were even, if I recall tickets printed. Of course by then Louis had fought his way back and Gould and Braddock could take the match they wanted all along. This isn't gospel, just what I remember from Beyond Glory.
Schmeling certainly deserved a shot at the title..a little disappointed in James J for not putting it on the line like he should have. I also wonder why there wasn't a rematch with Baer.
Schmeling was totally ripped off. As for Baer I think he had the option but elected not to and went for the money against Louis. Which turned out poorly.
It sure did LittleRed! I bet Baer regretted not rematching Braddock..he had a much better chace of redeeming himself with Braddock than dealing with Louis.
This relates to a very good couple of threads done in recent memory of how Schmeling would have done as the challenger to Braddock. I have always believed that he would have won the title for Nazi Germany had he had the chance...ot saying that would have been his intention, to bring glory to the Nazis..far from it...I just think he would have stopped Braddock.
If Baer had regained the title from Braddock, I wonder if he would have defended against Schmeling in Nazi Germany?
This is consistent with what is written in both Louis and Schmeling's respective biographies. In Schmeling's book he tells about Braddock winning the title from Baer. But, he says, people were not talking about the new heavyweight champion. They were talking about a young fighter from the midwest that was cutting a swath through the heavyweight division in meteoric fashion, and would soon figure to add the new heavyweight champion to his growing list of victims. Of course, this was Joe Louis. This would be the bout that would bring in the most money, and naturally the Braddock camp wanted to make the most money out of the title while they were in a position to do that. After stopping Baer, Louis was top challenger, and he was matched with Schmeling, winner to face Braddock for the title. Nobody figured on Schmeling scoring one of history's greatest upsets. Schmeling's autobiography mentions how Braddock congratulated Max after he had upset Louis, saying "You'll get a title shot, Max." The Braddock-Schmeling fight was supposed to take place in September, 1936, but the "injuries" started happening to Braddock. Schmeiling said that it was now obvious that Braddock had no intention of fighting Max and never did. Braddock's camp did not want to fight Schmeling, and Louis' camp wanted the title shot. According to the Louis book, Gould (Braddock's mgr) had some shady guys pick up Roxborough (of Louis' camp) and try to make a deal - to cut Gould in on Louis. When Roxy refused to budge, Gould went after Mike Jacobs. Hence the deal that Louis gets the title fight and Braddock gets 10% of all heavyweight title promotions for the next ten years. (Contrary to popular belief, it was NOT 10% of Louis' purses - it was 10% of the promotion, regardless of who held the heavyweight title during that period.) Louis won the title and the rest is history. Had Schmeling not upset Louis, Braddock probably would have defended the title sooner than 1937. No doubt he and his people knew that the Cinderella Man's coach could turn back into a pumpkin at any time, and wanted to get him set financially while they could. The maneuvering to give Louis the bout with the attached deal gave everybody essentially what they wanted, except Schmeling, and by now it was June, 1937.
In researching Braddock's record, I came across this dumb article. It's written by a sportswriter who was convinced that Braddock's poor won-loss ratio was evidence that Baer would destroy him. Was the sportswriter unsophisticated about boxing? Didn't he understand that stylistic analysis is the key to understanding fights? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BbBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7yEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680,3915012&dq
