I am saying that Jimmy Braddock was a better pound for pound fighter than most if not all of Sugar Ray Robinson's opponents, particularly the middleweight ones. Jimmy Braddock was a solid 190 plus pounds, certainly not out of shape. Are you trying to say that Joe Louis beating Jimmy Braddock was no more impessive than say Joey Maxim beating a blown up Welterweight? And Robinson was shot after 40. His best win as a 40 year old was probably his wins over Greaves and Moyer. It doesnt compare with the 37 year old Joe Louis' wins over Savold, Brion and Jimmy Bivins. In fairness though, neither fighter really deserves to be judged by what they did at the tail end of their career.
Maybe I'll respond in full when I've garnered the patience to go over this nonsense in a calm manner. Suffice it to say that Braddock was one of the worst Heavyweight champions of all time (if not the worst) who managed to catch lightning in a bottle for one night against an out of sorts Baer. Outside of that victory his entire career fails to impress. He was a rated Lt. Heavyweight for a short period years prior, his only other truly impressive victories coming against Jimmy Slattery, Tuffy Griffiths and a John Henry Lewis who he outweighed by over 10 lbs. You show solid knowledge on a select few topics, but supreme ignorance and/or lack of logical understanding more often than not, which leads me to question your views on even the topics you're clearly well versed on, such as Fitzsimmons, who I rate highly.
At the very least, this isn't true. Braddock beat the #1 prospect in the HW division, the #1 contender in the HW division, and a fighter with a serious stylistic advantage who was ranked. Then he beat the champion. How can this be called catching lightning in a bottle for one night? He became a clever fighter who was most definitely very tough.
****, I didn't see this though, this is well more mad. El B is right in the respect that Braddock was a protected and underwhelming LHW who struggled desperately with boxers who moved. I'd say Braddock was only ever superb for his comeback, for a variety of reasons, most relating to his maturity and completely healed hands.
Fill me in on the bolded part. I don't pretend to know the rankings at the time, and have a tendancy not to put much stock into them anyway, but this is curious. Is that all referring to John Henry Lewis or seperate fighters? If it's the former I already touched on that victory. It's impressive, I'll admit that. The fact is that Braddock earned his nickname the Cinderella Man, as he had managed to pull off a few good wins out of the blue at seperate stages of his career (first at Lt. Heavyweight over the aforementioned Griffiths and Slattery) before fading back into relative obscurity. He was never a great fighter by any means.
Lasky was #1 in the sense that he was to fight Baer had he beaten Braddock. Even then, Braddock was given the nod more as the sentimental draw than anything else. Lewis has the style advantage. Corn Griffin was the #1 prospect in the HW division when he fought Braddock. Most of this was generated by his handling of Carnera in sparring, this created a great deal of buzz. Baer is the champion. I think Baer was a little distracted on the night. He was famously recorded by journalists picking out celebrities in the crowd between 2 and 3 whilst his despairing corner tried to give him adjustments. But Baer was focused when his title started to slip, of course. Braddock has been over-egged since June '35 pretty consistently, but there's been a stiff re-dressing over the last two decades, I think much more stiff than can be justified. At his best, a very short peak between November of '34 and through '35 he was a very good fighter in my opinion, hugely durable, clever, two genuinely good hands and a very good economy. But he wasn't particularly special as a LHW or as a HW contender first time around. Boilermaker is like that. I like Boilermaker. He's a good and interesting poster. But he wants to grab ahold of very strange things and grab them, overate them. I remember when I started that thread about long-time (possibly 25 years) lightweight contender Jimmy Carroll he tried to peg me into shoeing him into a top 10 at the weight, all time I started that thread armed to the teeth ready to argue his reputation and ended up explaining why he wasn't one of the greatest fighters of all time
Not him, but Gould certainly was. Supposedly to the point where he did some "driving" for some very dodgy people during the depression. These connections absolutely played a part in his career, but there is no indication at all that this stretched to any strange decisions.
Put Joe Louis in every era since 1970 and see him get destroyed . While in the 1970s I believe only Foreman and Frazier could destroy him , while his chances against Frazier were about as good as Frazier's against him , In the 80s he would have racked up a few more losses than he would at the 1970s , while in the 1990s to about 2005 he would have been considered as just another limited chinny contender with a punch. You can't even plave him above Vitali , Foreman or even Corrie Sanders in P4P lists. At least these 2 were effective vs smaller men . Don't forget Louis even racked 2 stoppage losses and actually another 2 over the distance losses which one of them is listed as a win for him ... Put Louis instead of either one of Holyfield , Tyson , Lewis , Rahman or Byrd , and he gets ruined and his career , not just his 'reign' or 'prime' gets ended quick
Didn't know that about Griffin and Lasky, but like I said, unless it's truly warranted I don't put much stock into ratings. Moreso on my perceived ability of the fighters or what they accomplished. Still, good info to have. It does twerk my perception a bit, although I thought I'd edited the bit about catching lightning in a bottle for one night, as I knew that wasn't proper wording. Boilermaker had me riled. All in all, I can get down with that. Braddock's stylistic proclivity did seem to change a fair amount during that latter stage of his career. I'd guess it was just a case of a fighter buckling down at the most crucial point of his life and tying together all the loose ends. Unfortunately it happened toward the end of his physical prime so was short lived. So long as we agree on the preposterousness of Boilermaker's sentiments, I'm cool.
Joe Louis broke the color line in the division in 1937. Remember folks, Jackie Robinson gets credit for breaking the sporting color barrier but does not don a Brooklyn Dodgers jersey until 1947, a decade later. Louis is the most significant athlete of all time (clearly my opinion). No other athlete has ever been so intricately linked with and important in global history, culture, politics, military, and entertainment. Truly a legend, a worthy hero. And while I'm at it, I'd like to express my frustration in the portrayal of Louis' wins. He has several straight up classic, legendary wins: Schmeling II, Conn I, Walcott II. His next batch of wins against former heavyweight champions is mighty impressive: Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Braddock. Several other wins which pad his resume, unfairly portrayed as simply average or unimportant wins: Uzcudun, Farr, Savold, Conn II, Lewis, Godoy II, Pastor I & II, and Bivins.
I remember the Jimmy Carroll phase . That was spurned on by some posts, I think it was by Senya. He posted some pretty impressive stuff about Jimmy Carroll. When i get the chance, i will have to have a look into Jimmy Carroll, but unfortunately my knowledge is pretty much limited exactly to what is in that post by Senya. Remind me one night that I should do some research and take you on on that Jimmy Carroll point. It is interesting that you think that I take an obscure point and twist it and look for more. Actually, that is why i originally chose the boilermaker nickname, for the great fact that the boilermaker was the first person to retire as undefeated champion of the world (not Rocky Marciano). I now know this to not be strictly correct, of course. Still, it is also true that I dont know where many of the points and topics will go when they are first posted. Such as the carroll post, where from memory you probably raised some good points and i couldnt debunk them. I dont mind being proven wrong on any topic including the present one. I am not sure why some people on this board dont like to admit when their wrong or acknowlege when other posters have made good points, but for some reason it rarely happens. The cold hard facts are that there is not a single poster alive (possible exception of Hhascup) who cannot learn more about the game or knows it all. any way, i was going to go on with the theoretical crap more, but cant be bothered. So, back to the original topic. You guys have a good chance to prove me wrong on Sugar Ray's opponents. The point i made about Braddock was pretty reasonably summarised by McGrain. His natural weight was just around and slightly above middleweight. Now as a fact, he grew into a legitimate heavyweight contender. He started his career as a small light heavyweight, and i admit that it wasnt too impressive at first (who knows, 20 of Ray's opponents may have been better). But, in his second incarnation, Braddock grew into a solid heavyweight contender, possibly the best (and definitely one of the best) behind Joe Louis. His last 3 wins over Lasky, Baer and Farr are 3 excellent wins over top notch opponents who all outweighed him substantially. They were fine pound for pound wins by any standards even pound for pound greats. One of them was even over the heavyweight champion of the world. And his lone loss was a competitive (even if outclassed performance) by arguably the greatest ever. I cant imagine any of Rays opponents putting in similar performances against these 4 opponents to what Braddock put in. Now considering that most of Rays opponents were also natural middleweights, does this not suggest that Braddock was better than these, pound for pound. But i am interested list the names on Ray's record who achieved better results pound for pound. (and please dont refer to wins or performances against Ray himself.
why not? Joe Louis has as much a shot as anyone, imo. He is the greatest puncher of all time in any weight class.