Most stereotypically "respectable" / middle or petit bourgeois boxers?

Klitschkos.

Well, I think Wlad is unmarried and has a child out of wedlock. He knocked up that chick from Heroes.

But otherwise I think they fully qualify.

 

Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran.
Gene we all know about, and Tommy was an avid churchgoer who never even married.

 

Calvin Brock—polite guy who works in banking.

 

Marco Antonio Barrera's dad was a lawyer, wasn't he? Not your average Mexican slugger.

 

Henry Maske?

Cleanest guy in the sport.

 

Wait. Do boxers who had a poor upbringing but lived respectable lives upon making it as a fighter count?

Larry Holmes. Still married to his first wife (he'd even have his wife and kids ringside for every fight), does charity drives, didn't drink or do drugs, didn't have issues with the law, was smart with his money from day 1, etc. Aside from the dropkick incident and lack of education, he's always been a respectable guy.

 

“Bryant Jennings, 27, has been employed for the last six years as a mechanic in the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's facilities department.Jun 17, 2012”

 

Jiro Wantabe grew up in a squeaky clean higher up class of life and apparently now has ties to the Yakuza. No reason to box but for the enjoyment of it. That's a dangerous ideology, hungry is one thing but the man who loves the business is a different breed.

 

Gene was born and raised in Hell's Kitchen in the 1890's, not exactly a beginning of privilege, if that is what the premise is here.

Loughran was a man's man?

 

Sorry @cross_trainer. I misread the question. I lazily assumed it was asking who had come out of a middle or bourgeois background.

It's not that, is it? It's who boxed and then pretty much replicated their stable upbringing. Henry Cooper stayed married to the same woman but he didn't replicate his upbringing. He was from a poor background but became a celebrity due to boxing with a steady income to be derived from telling his tale of his fight with Cassius Clay. So that's not answering it either.

I suspect for an answer to meet the criteria of the question, we won't often have heard of the fighter. By and large, fighters who rise to the point where we know about them, don't come from such stable backgrounds. That chaos is almost a prerequisite for the toughness to get to the top.

Then, for those that do it's a tough ask to settle back into a life that is mundane next to that of the fighter and just put to one side the adulation and adrenaline it brings. Bad Bennie Briscoe was a municipal refuse worker throughout his life but I just don't believe for a minute he lead as simple a life as his average blue or white collar fan. He was one of the hardest cases on the streets of Philadelphia. Such men just don't go home and help the kids with their homework of an evening.

At a push, I'll go with Chuck Davey and Billy Graham, seemingly family men who were not born into abject poverty and who then pursued quite mundane careers after boxing with no (known) womanising or hell-raising. But I've had to really strain to think of them. To the point where I may have exacerbated my piles.

Tough question.

 

I think we're all struggling to come to terms with the premise. Essentially, as I see it it's this. Forgive the ego but I'll use myself as a hypothetical example.

My parents have been married for over 50 years. My dad had a series of jobs in factories. As far as I'm aware, there has been no straying from the marital ways from either parent. I, for my part, have a job that would bore the arse off a Trappist monk and have been with my wife for decades. Again, no carousing from either party, at least none that I'm aware of.

The boxer that the OP seems to be asking us to identify is someone whose life is as spectacularly non-descript as my own except between growing up in that very average household and then replicating it with one of their own, they fitted in a boxing career. That right, @cross_trainer ?

PS: are you asking what I think you're asking about Tommy Loughran?