Bob Fitz V James J Braddock??

Fitzsimmons either by decision or stoppage. Braddock was extremely durable, but Fitz was special as a finisher.

I'd pick Fitz by stoppage.

 

Fitz via KO. A dangerous and possible lethal fight for Braddock who had no quit in him. The referee and his corner better watch this one closely.

 

Braddock would box his ears off

 

Braddocks face would look similar to that he had after the Louis fight.

Braddock is not going to be hearing the bell for round 20.

 

Based on what? Braddock wasn't that hard to outbox and Fitzsimmons wasn't unmotivated Baer.

 

Based on Braddock looking better on film than Corbett who was outboxing Fitz. It's not just beating Baer, which you underrated. He also beat LHW champion Lewis and at times was beating Louis to the punch and outboxing him aswell as dropping Louis

 

Corbett did fine against Fitz due to two things - he was very mobile (much more than Braddock) and he was a skilled clincher (which wasn't Braddock's game). Corbett was harder to land on than Braddock. Besides, Fitzsimmons outboxed Corbett in the second half of the fight anyway.

Fitzsimmons beat up some of the best P4P boxers ever. He dominated Jack Dempsey, he beat O'Brien and he outboxed Gardner - all of them were better boxers than Braddock.

 

How is dominating Nonpareil telling us anything about how he would do against Braddock?

Dempsey was a tiny welter, 6" shorter and 40 lbs lighter than Braddock... and yet it took Fitz 13 rounds to get rid of him. Hardly something that should be used as a serious argument for him beating Braddock.

 

It's just an example that Fitz wasn't easy to outbox. Nothing more and nothing less. I can mention many HWs and LHWs if you wish instead.

 

I think the 30s boxers look better than the 1890s boxers. It stands to reason, boxing was illegal in many places, there weren't many fights and there weren't many participants. Boxing participation exploded after Dempsey started earning those million dollar gates. It stands to reason that more participation and more fights makes an era better.

 

Fitzsimmons had likely over 100 fights. A lot of records are incomplete, it doesn't mean that there weren't many fights back then.

Could you name a few of these many places by the way?

 

What? Braddock was neither big, or strong, or fast....he was a tough journeyman who won the title from an apathetic Max Baer in a fight I think could have been fixed.

No one who saw boxing from 1890-1940 felt Braddock was the better than Fitzsimmons. Jimmy was there to be hit. It would be a massacre.

 

Fitz claimed he has 300 fights.