These are just some random articles for El Bujia who seems to have some type of image of Braddock being a no hoper who happened to score a one off fluke victory. And the round by round does seem to indicate a closer fight than what was reported as a one sided thrashing. Loughran was obviously the better boxer and Braddocks right hand was always dangerous, but didnt land enough. Loughran does equally as well against any of Sugar Rays opponents, i would have thought, do you disagree? Were you not the one who suggested it ridiculous to think that Braddock was a better pound for pound fighter than most of the middleweights that Sugar Ray Robinson fought? :? And i think you misunderstand my ranking of Braddock. On a pound for pound basis, what he did in beating Baer was great. And i will say, that unlike many people, who dont give much weight to actually rising to the top of the sport and winning a world champion, I do, and i dont think that any fighter can do this in any time period (without fractured titles) without being just a little bit special. Braddocks efforts were as good as that by guys like Spinks, Tunney, holyfield, guys who won the top crown as blown up fighters. Obviously the difference is that Braddock didnt have much of a career at the lighter weights. I will admit though, from time to time, I do often place emphasis on short spectacular periods rather than longevity. Braddock is not one of the greatest pound for pound fighters ever (although his victory over Baer may actually be one of the better pound for pound victories) but he is on quite high ground. This is not about overrating Braddock compared to the likes of Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore, or Spinks or such forth, but comparing them to Rays opponents. Some are good fighters but most are not as good as Jimmy Braddock. So, let us look at a few of them to see if they compare who do you think wins out of Jimmy Braddock and say Holly Mims. Or do you really think that Jake Lamotta, Randy Turpin or Gene Fulmer could have blown up in weight and set themselves up as World Heavyweight contenders and then go on to win the world championship? Because if they are better fighters than Jimmy Braddock they would need to do that. I dont think that they could . Certainly i dont think that most or all of them could, anyway.
Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta, Sammy Angott, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer, Randy Turpin, Bobo Olson, Ralph Dupas, Jose Basora, George Costner, Steve Belloise, Henry Armstrong, Fritzie Zivic, Rocky Graziano, Rocky Castellani, Holly Mims, Robert Villemain, Bobby Dykes, Charley Fusari, Aaron Wade, Tommy Bell, Bernard Docusen, Georgie Abrams, Artie Levine, Izzy Jannazzo, Ralph Zanelli, Marty Servo, Maxie Berger, Maxie Shapiro, California Jackie Wilson, etc. could all be considered as good or better than Braddock. That's 30. Put that in ya pipe and smoke it up.
Yeah, but they still don't say what you say they say? The round by round basically says that Braddock lost 11-12 rounds. When they say "thrashing" they don't mean "blood was coming out of his ears", they mean that Braddock wasn't in the fight. Probably, given that he didn't seem to fight outside of the LHW division once out of his teens, and Robinson hardly ever fought up there. Direct comparisons are going to be very difficult. I don't think so. The guys I rate pound for pound ahead of Braddock would be Jake LaMotta, Denny Moyer, Gene Fulmer, Kid G, Paul Pender, Carmen Basillo, Izzy Janazzo,Bobo Olsen, Tommy Bell, Randy Turpin, Sammy Angott, Holy Mims, Marty Servo. Braddock was unquestionably a natural HW at the time he met Baer. This is beyond argument for me. He trained down and was in tremendous shape. What Braddock did was special, but let's be clear, "Rising to the title" was as much about his mob-connected manager as Braddocks efforts. They are the only reason he got the Griffin fight and the only reason he got two ranked contenders (including the #1) behind that result. Any other fighter - literally ANY other fighter from that era - spends two years trying to fight back to the title after his miserable decent before retirement. Me, i'm glad he got that shot. It was a special thing for boxing, however muggy the roots. But that's why some of us struggle to put as much stock in the title as you do. Politics outweights talent. If you don't believe me, ask Ike Williams*. Me too. And I bet Braddock was as good pound for pound as some of the guys I listed in Robinson's favour. Especially if you take into account how hard a fighter is to beat as opposed to his "all round skill". Braddock wasn't "blow up". He's as textbook an example of "grown in" as there has ever been. In fact, according to some, he countinued growing all the way up to the Baer fight. *you can't, he's dead.
We are talking just about the Loughran fight? All i was pointing out is that the articles dont mean that Braddock hardly landed a punch or it was Loughran did what he wanted. It was a competitive fight where Braddock seems to have landed decently in most rounds but yes i agree he also seems to have lost most rounds. It was a thrashing in the sense that Braddock lost easily (i am sure if it happened today we would have guys who scored it for him, but on the internet that happens with every fight i have seen, i think). My point is it was not as big a thrashing as say Razor Ruddock copped from Tyson in terms of competiveness. Or maybe even Toney against Jones. That is all that i was saying. Perhaps competitive but not close may have been a better description than thrashing? A great pound for pound middleweight should be able to step up to the plate and beat a not so great light heavyweight, shouldnt they? I mean after all that not so great light heavyweight stepped up to the plate and beat the (arguably) not so great heavyweight. Why dont you think any of Ray's middleweight opponents could do this, is because they were very good, but maybe not so great in a pound for pound sense as a fighter like Braddock? I don't think so. The guys I rate pound for pound ahead of Braddock would be Jake LaMotta, Denny Moyer, Gene Fulmer, Kid G, Paul Pender, Carmen Basillo, Izzy Janazzo,Bobo Olsen, Tommy Bell, Randy Turpin, Sammy Angott, Holy Mims, Marty Servo. [/quote] I havent got time to look into all of these, right now, so i will come back, but a few: Jake Lamotta - a good, solid middleweight, who, imo opinion gets vastly overated due to a fine performance from Robert Deniro. He was definitely one of the best middleweights of his time, but in a point for pound sence, he started his career at 20, weighing 170lbs this makes him close to a natural light heavy or i suppose super middleweight. Which is not to different. He trained down in weight, as opposed to braddock who trained up. His best result was against a welterweight Ray Robinson (as a middleweight) As opposed to Braddocks best win being against Maz Baer a much heavier fighter. Jake, like braddock did step to to light heavyweight against the decent Bob Murphy and Danny Nardico. He was stopped on 2 out of 3 occassions. On pound for pound achievements, he simply didnt do what Braddock did. And here is one that Ray's fans will hate, part of the reason is because he couldnt take a punch as good as Jimmy Braddock could. Braddock was unquestionably a natural HW at the time he met Baer. This is beyond argument for me. He trained down and was in tremendous shape. What Braddock did was special, but let's be clear, "Rising to the title" was as much about his mob-connected manager as Braddocks efforts. They are the only reason he got the Griffin fight and the only reason he got two ranked contenders (including the #1) behind that result. Any other fighter - literally ANY other fighter from that era - spends two years trying to fight back to the title after his miserable decent before retirement. Me, i'm glad he got that shot. It was a special thing for boxing, however muggy the roots. But that's why some of us struggle to put as much stock in the title as you do. Politics outweights talent. If you don't believe me, ask Ike Williams*. Me too. And I bet Braddock was as good pound for pound as some of the guys I listed in Robinson's favour. Especially if you take into account how hard a fighter is to beat as opposed to his "all round skill". Braddock wasn't "blow up". He's as textbook an example of "grown in" as there has ever been. In fact, according to some, he countinued growing all the way up to the Baer fight. *you can't, he's dead.[/QUOTE]
Kid Galivan. This is actually an excellent selection. In fact in some ways i agree with you here. And Ray did beat him at his natural weight probable Rays best opponent on his ledger. No doubt that the kid had a better record at his natural weight than braddock, but Braddock's claim is that he was for a small point in time the best fighter in the world at a weight above his natural weight. To do the same thing, Galivan who was a natural welterweight, i Believe would have to establish himself as the number 1 contender in the middleweight division and beat the middleweight champion. And there is no doubt that he was a better and more dominant champion than Braddock was at any weight. But, look what happened when he tried to go up the weight division. (he was admittedly older, but Braddock was no spring chicken). Galivan couldnt beat the champion of the time, bobo Olsen and couldnt establish himeself as a legitimate middleweight contender. In other words, he couldnt do what Braddock himself did.
Galivan beat better fighters than Braddock beat, looks better on film, didn't lose to such average fighters, had nothing like the longevity (which you so prize when ranking Johnson). Basically this weird weight-jumping fetish is the only way you can make any kind of bizarre case for Braddock(who may have beaten a BETTER mw in Luasse than Braddock did a HW in Baer anyway). It's a non-starter, basically, one that doesn't allow room for circumstance, natural size, quality of opposition, or any other factor outside of your tunnel vision. I rank KG as one of the best ever boxers pound for pound and one of the greatest 40 in history. I rank Braddock nowhere. I would speculate that he makes the top 1,000.
Because he looks like a plodder on film where there are numerous fighters who look far better, with better skillsets and because he was in a weak era.
It is definitely two totally different careers. In many ways Braddock's ranking is a little more like Riddick Bowe's or I suppose Buster Douglas. How do you rate someone who reached a higher level for a short period of time (because he beat the higher weight opponents) against someone who had a longer and better career, but who couldnt reach that higher level presumably because he was not bigger. Gavilans longevity was only as a welterweight and not as a middleweight so it isnt relevant. I dont doubt that the Kid was a much better welterweight champion than Braddock was at Heavyweight or any other weight. In some ways i agree with you about longevity, it is definitely a factor i consider strongly in most cases. But, in these cases, it is less important because, if longevity is the key, we dont have any need to argue. Joe Louis had better longevity than Sugar Ray Robinson (which is the only reason we got into this argument). Louis was more dominant for a longer period of time against his opponents than Robinson was. At any weight including the much hyped Welterweight. So, if you are arguing that Ray is better, you must be doing so on the basis that he was a welterweight beating middleweights. This is why weight hopping is more important on this thread but not on others. You cant judge pound for pound credentials by two separate principles just to make your favourites come out on top. If Sugar Ray is better than JOe louis on a pound for pound basis, it can only be because he beat naturally bigger fighters than he and on this criteria (and probably this criteria alone) Jim Braddock is a better fighter than Kid Gavilan. It is quite ironic actually that i got lead down this path of ranking fighters by you guys, yet now it is you guys that are suggesting that this type of ranking is not correct. Does this mean you are both changing the criteria by which you measure Sugar Ray Robinson against Joe Louis?:think
Bang on. You've described the problem beautifully. I get this creeping, "watched by a rat" sensation when I'm pondering what your potential answers might be though... Why not? I think this is where you make one of your mistakes. You harp on (no offence) about what a guy does at a second weight, but what if that weight is now his natural weight. Like I did when discussing with you Ryan's victory over Dempsey (Which you insisted was massive until I told you Dempsey had been literally ****-faced in the ring) i'm getting a feeling that you don't know the details of Braddock's move to HW. It was a career choice at first. But there is no way Braddock is getting down to LHW in his second career. He beefed up and actually seemed to shoot up, gaining a reported inch in height (now his Boxrec listed height). In other words, Braddock was a natural HW for his era. Now let's look at the Gavilan case. KG was a career WW as you've pointed out. This makes his sojourn into MW more not less impressive. Gavilan could have made 147 when he was fighting at MW, Braddock could NOT have made LHW when he was fighting at HW laterlly. In fact Gavilan made WW less than a year before he retired. Additionally, Gavilan had quite a span dipping in and out of MW, beating up Rocky Castellani in 1949 and rematching MW Ralph Jones in '58. He also has some decent scalps at LW. How does all this play into your p4p ranking system of weight jumping? Because I'd say it favours the WW Gavilan over the HW Braddock almost completely. I disagree with you. Robinson beat Agnott in '41. He beat Dupas in '63. Louis beat Ramage in '34 and Bivins in '51. Even this conservative estimate has Sugar relevant for longer. Perhaps you mean as a champion. Again, this brings us back to the matter of competition - Sugar's was far tougher, by virtue of the fact he was a WW fighting as a MW and by the fact that he had to contend with better fighters. These are factors every bit as crucial in describing longevity as the years involved. I am attempting to use your criteria, yes. Even by your criteria, what you are saying makes very little sense to me, and crucially ignores Braddock's status as a natural HW at the time of his success at that weight. As I believe i've shown, the complete opposite is true. Robinson looks better on film and beat better men. Simple, fair, and dare I say it, uncomplicated.
I'm not convinced by the hyping of the "new Braddock" of '34 - '35. He had a good little run but I must say I find the Braddock-Baer fight largely underwhelming. Baer's just awful in there and Braddock doesn't need to do much to deserve the win. Not at all impressed by either performance. I haven't seen the Corn Griffin, Art Lasky or J.H.Lewis wins - or if I have I don't remember. I've seen quite a bit of Braddock-Farr at least and it looks like Farr might well have been robbed in that one. Braddock did knock Joe Louis down after 2 years without fighting though, and that might be the most impressive feat of his I've witnessed on film.