How well does a 1935 James J. Braddock do against the following

Depends if the fight is at HW or LHW. At LHW he'd lose them all but at HW he might escape with a winning record. The problem with this group is 3 of them are LHWs and he'd have a harder time outboxing those guys even at HW. But he should beat Schmeling and Walcott. While I wouldn't favor him against the other 3 if he fights all 3 I do think he gets 1.

Braddock was a considerably better fighter against HWs then LHWs. He had much of the skill of other LHW transplants but had power and size they simply lacked. At LHW he struggled to win decisions but at HW he'd have struggled to lose them. At 190-195 pounds he would have been a force to be recknoned with but people barely got to see that Braddock and the little they did see gets written off as a fluke. He might not have been better than Baer at his best but other than him and Louis I generally pick him against HWs of his day including Schmeling. Braddock is like a Schmeling who chose to stay at LHW another few years.

 

You do realize he literally ducked Schmeling and left him waiting on the scales at the weigh in. No way in hell Braddock beats Schmeling and everyone knew it. He lost to tons of HWs way worse than Schmeling.

 

My thoughts as well,

 

He ducked Schmeling to fight Louis?

 

I will mix things up a bit here.

I think that he would probably have beaten Walcott, if the fight had happened in the time frame where it was possible.

 

I'd favor all of them to beat Braddock, but I'd give him a chance against Schmeling because Max, like Braddock, could be an in-and-outer with off days, and also, Schmeling at times could be a bit chinny, while Braddock had a solid chin. We know that unpredictable things happen in boxing, so there always is a chance, like Braddock beating Baer, of an upset. Guys have good nights and off nights, train harder for some fights and less so for others. There is an impact regarding where they are in their careers, age, inactivity, weight, motivation, etc.

 

I think it was more the case that Louis's people made him a better offer.

 

A new opponent enters the fray.

 

Yes. Losing to the face of American boxing was much more preferable than being the guy who lost the title to the face (kind of) of Nazi Germany’s boxing.

 

Schmeling got stopped by Max Diekmann in 1924 (retired after 4), Larry Gains in 1925 (in 2 rounds), Gypsy Daniels in 1928 (in 1 round), Max Baer in 1933 (10), and Joe Louis in 1938 (1).

Schmeling had decision losses to Jack Taylor in 1925, Jack Sharkey in 1932, Steve Hamas in 1934, along with the aforementioned stoppage losses, and draws with Jimmy Lygett and Leon Randol in 1925, Max Diekmann in 1926, and Paulino Uzcudun in 1934.

He had some so-so performances against several guys who weren't world beaters, so I can see how Braddock might have a chance with him. Not saying he would have beaten him, but it wouldn't shock me either if he did. Braddock beat the guy in Baer who beat Schmeling. Of course that doesn't always necessarily translate in a meaningful way. But it does indicate to me that the fight could very well be close and competitive.

I think Braddock took on Louis over Schmeling primarily as a result of economics.

 

Max Schmeling L UD
Jersey Joe Walcott L UD or Late round TKO
Archie Moore L UD
Ezzard Charles L UD
Rocky Marciano L Late round TKO

Braddock doesn't belong in the same area code as these fighters. He got by on his cageyness, solid chin, and heart and managed to become a one hit wonder champ due to a perfect set of circumstances against the right opponent.

 

Braddock was stopped once due to a cut, by Lou Scozza, before he met Joe Louis.

He was pretty darn durable.

However if he had defended his title against Max Schmeling, I could well see that as ending in his second stoppage loss.

Schmeling had a track record of stopping very durable fighters.

It was often a prolonged process, but he picked them apart.