Braddock was a 6'3 light-heavyweight most of his career, floating around at 174 - 180 pounds and trying to put on some weight (by his own account). He was up to 193 for those "big wins" later in his career.
I thought he was. I'll correct that : he was 6' 2 1/2 I was wrong about his weight, it seems he was up to 182 or 183 for much of his career, almost all the way up to fighting Baer, whereupon he put on 10 pounds. Certainly not a middleweight.
You're wrong about his height, too, from what I can make out. I'm guessing that's what Boxrec lists him as? Braddock was listed around this height for the fight with Max Baer but generally was listed as shorter before that. Most people seem to think that Braddock's height was egged for the poster, but Braddock himself claims that he actually grew an inch between world title shots, and that an extra inch was not uncommon in the late twenties for the men in his family.
Every book with tale-of-the-tape of heavyweight champions that I own has Braddock at 6'2 1/2. At least 3 or 4 books. As does boxrec, and other websites. I guess I rounded it up half an inch out of habit (I do the same to M.Spinks and M.Baer often too). It's not something I've been studying closely though and had no idea that most people think his height was inflated for a poster. Nor have I seen alternative heights for him listed. A man's height can change up to an inch within a day, from morning to night, so I don't know. George Foreman claimed to have grown a whole inch during his ten year layoff, and I remember 6'1 was a often-quoted height for Holyfield before he moved up to heavyweight. I don't really hold my own opinion on Braddock's height. I'll see how he looks next to Baer and Louis. How tall do you think Joe Louis was ?
Yeah, and the reason for that is that as a heavyweight champion he was 6 feet two and one half inch or six feet two. But you claimed that he was that he was a "six foot three light-heavyweight" which is out by two or more inches, which is why I asked.
Yeah, I see what you mean. He would have been 6'1 or so as a 175-pounder, by his own reckoning. :good
He started his career around 168 and i agree he tried to put on weight, which makes him by all accounts a blown up light heavy/small heavyweight, i would have thought. Here is an account of the Loughran title fight. The round by round actually sounds a lot more competitive than the fight report. In fact i think i would go so far as to call this an underated performance against a first class or even all time great opponent. I seriously doubt that many, if any of Rays opponents would have been as competitive against Loughran. http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...72286&dq=jimmy+braddock+pound+for+pound&hl=en Here is Braddocks loss to Lomski. Obviously not the best result, although note the credit given to the the wins over Tuffy Griffith and Latzo who were both good decent opponents and underated wins today. And another good underated pound for pound performance. It seems he only lost 4 rounds to 3 to Earnie Schaaf, who was a top heavyweight contender. http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...g=6369,2622217&dq=jimmy+braddock+schaaf&hl=en I have to ask the question of McGrain and El bujia, who are these 20 fighters on Rays record with the better pound for pound credentials than Jimmy Braddock. http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...95373&dq=jimmy+braddock+pound+for+pound&hl=en
Headline for this link: "Tom Loughran wins fight by decision after handing Braddock sound thrashing." Some of the text: "15 rounds that for the most part were dull and one-sided...in the opinion of the majority of ringsiders, Loughran won at least 12 or 13 rounds." come on, man. Why are you asking me this? I doubt there is anyone on this board (apart from you, now) that rank Braddock, at his best, higher than me, and that should be clear from this thread. You should also be asking yourself why you are so vastly in excess in praise for this fighter than someone like me.