Braddock Or Douglas??

Douglas' heavyweight resume shits all over Braddock's

 

"Regularly" he dropped 4 decisions and it wasn't due to inconsistency, he hadn't reached his prime

Yes he was starving. Before the Corn fight he hadnt ate in forever, so his manager scrounged up some Hash for him.

 

At their best Braddock has the better wins and performances even in losses. They both have good chins going against some serious bangers and surviving. both were flawed but Braddock proved he could hang with the big guys getting more then one stellar win and hanging with arguably the greatest Hw all time in their prime. Douglas wasn’t nearly as good as some on this forum make him out to be.

 

BS !
Braddock lost to Sekyra in his 40th and 61st fights
He lost to Okun in his 49th fight.
He lost to Rosenbloom in his 50th
Lomski twice when he was 24 & 25.
The Griffin fight was 5 years later!

 

How many of Braddock's fights have you seen to make this statement?
He looks very ordinary against Farr .
Braddock's bad years were 32,33,and some of 34 and this is from a recorded interview with him in1972
After winning the title he put it in cold storage for 2 years and never defended it during that time.
Douglas beat three men who held versions of the title, plus Page and Cobb, he has the deeper resume at heavyweight there is simply no argument about that!

 

Braddock's prime was '34 to '37. He didn't have a left hand in his early career. All of his losses before Corn and after Loughran are null and void because of his broken body and bank account in the depression

 

This is just pitifully silly I'm out!

 

Don’t get me wrong they are pretty close in rankings. I won’t argue this one to much I just don’t think all that highly of Douglas. He doesn’t impress at all and Braddock only barely. Both kind of flash in the pan fighters that had only a handful of good victories.