The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

Yes he was a diamond in the rough. I see a man there who definitely would have been an ATG light heavyweight and cruiser. And if he had been around in 1988, he would have moved up to heavyweight and had a trilogy with prime Mike Tyson.

 

Braddock would lay waste to the modern day heavyweight division.

 

I get it that Braddock is one of the weakest lineal heavyweight champions, but we still have to take the facts into account.

He literally went into his ultimately successful title run, with one of the weakest hands in the history of the division.

Something else about him must have stacked up I guess.

To navigate the path that he did, he must have had some exceptional fundamentals.

Let's face it, he did better against Louis, than Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling (second effort), Lewis, or Conn (second effort).

I am not saying that he was a misunderstood ATG, but there was clearly some substance to him!

 

Jim Braddock had enough skills. Enough to knock down the next heavyweight champion, who would rule the division for 12 years, in the first round. Jim Braddock was not a spectacular boxer.

 

I don’t know how skillful of a fighter Braddock was (did anyone seriously make a claim that he was a master craftsman or just put together a video showing he had some skills that maybe had been underappreciated?) but he was good enough to become heavyweight champion of the world.

That counts for something. Lot of guys didn’t. Probably to include fighters who lost to Max who Klompton would argue were more ‘skillful.’ See where that got ‘em.

Because that’s how sports works. You have to be better than your opponent on the night (or day) you face them, and that’s what counts. I’m sure we can argue that a lot of Super Bowl champions and World Cup winners weren’t as good as some teams that didn’t win it that year, but those teams did what it took to win it and the others for whatever reason didn’t. Same in tennis or bowling or … boxing.

And since when is boxing a sport that’s always about skill? Lots of great fighters had other attributes — power, conditioning, speed, athleticism — than skill that made them better than most fighters they faced. I’m sure Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles could be said to have had more skill than Marciano, but we all know who won.

No, I’d say Jimmy did all right for himself.

 

very interesting discussion.

on the thread: I think klompton is misreading the point of the videos. ricky carmichael, the best motocross rider ever, said something like 'i'll watch the guy in last, maybe he does one thing i can learn from'

on braddock: he's one of the worst looking hw champs and i think baer either threw it or was injured. doesn't mean he sucked and couldn't fight, but hw champ is a high level to be graded against.

 

I'd start worrying if Jackomano liked my posts !lol

 

I think they would all pop his balloon.

 

There would be balloons popped all right. And those balloons would belong to Holyfield and Qawi

 

Good point. This whole topic presupposes that mental strength and determination and resilience and durability and conditioning aren’t also skills.

They may not be things you can demonstrate on a Tik Tok video, but they are a very big part of the equation of success for a boxer, and to downplay those kind of says someone who does that really DKSAB (but thinks they know it all).

 

LOL. Was talking about OP.

 

Have to love the time put into all the positive energy .. nothing like Karma ... would like to say that was years ago and things have changed but .......... Anyway Rez has nothing to sweat.

 

Rez makes some great videos, I don't always agree with his interpretation of them,but the quality is tops.

 

I thoroughly enjoy Reznick's videos. Oh course Jim Braddock had some skills. He would have never accomplished what he did without any. I think Jim Braddock, had he been born in more modern times, and was still fighting, would be doing fine. He was not an all time great, but he was not THAT bad either.

I do not buy into the idea that humans have evolved to any great degree in the last 95 years either, in boxing or in any other sport. Evolution is very gradual. We're actually still smaller on average now than humans were 40,000 years ago.

"We are now generally shorter, lighter and smaller boned than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago. The decrease has been gradual but has been most noticeable in the last 10,000 years. However, there has been some slight reversal to this trend in the last few centuries as the average height has started to increase."

"Average height of Homo sapiens over the last 40,000 years
This information is based on the average heights of European males because better statistics exist for this population, but the general trend is worldwide.

• 40,000 years ago: European males – 183 cm (6 feet). Cro-Magnon people were the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) to inhabit Europe. These hunter-gatherers lived a physically demanding lifestyle that would have required greater body strength than the average human today. Their recent African ancestry may have also affected their height, as tall, long-limbed builds are useful adaptations to the warmer African climate.
• 10,000 years ago: European males – 162.5cm (5 ft 4 inches). A dramatic reduction in the size of humans occurred at this time. Many scientists think that this reduction was influenced by global climatic change and the adoption of agriculture. Agricultural communities suffered from malnutrition as a result of failed crops and a more restricted diet. Furthermore, a close association with domestic livestock introduced new diseases into human populations.
• 600 years ago: European males – 165 cm (5 ft 5 inches). Poor diet and health were the main causes for the shorter stature at this time.
• Today: European males – 175 cm (5ft 9 inches). There has been an increase in height over the last few hundred years. In part, this increase is due to improved diet and health care. There may also be a genetic link as industrial expansion and urbanisation has brought together genetically isolated people and reduced the impacts of inbreeding due to a greater mixing of populations and their genes.

Smaller brains
For the last two million years there has been a trend toward a bigger brain that has affected many species in our family tree. This trend has seen a reversal in our own species and our brains are now the smallest they have been at any time in the past 100,000 years. Most of this decrease occurred in the last 6,000 years. In part, this is related to a decrease in body size that also occurred during this period, however, other factors are probably also involved.

Our brains now average about 100-150 cubic centimetres less than when our species first appeared.

• 100,000 years ago: average brain size: 1500cc
• 12,000 years ago: average brain size: 1450cc
• Today: average brain size: 1350cc

Smaller teeth and jaws
The trend toward smaller jaws and teeth that was seen in our ancestors has continued in our own species. In fact, some people today do not have enough space in their jaws to fit their 3rd molars or wisdom teeth.

Overall, these changes have occurred in proportion with a decrease in body size. However, over the last 10,000 years dietary changes and technology have played a major role.

A decrease in size has occurred in the jaws and teeth of Homo sapiens over the last 30,000 years. However, there has been a very slight reversal in this trend in the last century as teeth have increased in size. This is partly related to the introduction of fluoride, which thickens dental enamel, so making teeth a little larger."

The quotes are from: https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-have-we-changed-since-our-species-first-appeared/#:~:text=We are now generally shorter,height has started to increase. Similar information can be found in other reputable places online.