An intriguing matchup. Hart likely hit harder, was probably more active, and beat the better competition. Braddock was maybe a bit more durable and had better vision. Hart seems have a better won to loss ratio.
After looking into Hart, its apparent he's better than I thought he was. I'll take Braddock due to his seemingly better boxing and good chin ... with the caveat that I really don't know enough about either to make a proper informed opinion and that Braddock could be a bit hit n miss with regard to form.
I might lean towards Hart here. I suspect that his activity, and all action style, might catch the judges eye.
Braddock wasn’t very good as his record shows but he came to fight and would not pull a jack Johnson with limited activity. You comment doesn’t make much sense. I favor Hart who hit harder. Although there is no film on Hart I have seen jack Root and he looks decent. Hart beat Root for the vacant title.
. I favor Hart who hit harder. Although there is no film on Hart I have seen jack Root and he looks decent. Hart beat Root for the vacant title.[/QUOTE] Braddock was slung out for not trying in3 fights against Willie Daly Maxie Rosenbloom Al Ettore You don't really know much about him do you. Greggains gave the decision to Hart against Johnson based on Hart's aggressiveness,what's hard to understand about that? I'd have to say I wouldn't be surprised if Hart took this with his," make the fight" style. It's pretty even steven,imo. Root at171lbs was giving Hart 19lbs .
Braddock was slung out for not trying in3 fights against Willie Daly Maxie Rosenbloom Al Ettore You don't really know much about him do you. Greggains gave the decision to Hart against Johnson based on Hart's aggressiveness,what's hard to understand about that? I'd have to say I wouldn't be surprised if Hart took this with his," make the fight" style. It's pretty even steven,imo. Root at171lbs was giving Hart 19lbs .[/QUOTE] Braddock was a former light heavyweight who lost more and drew more than any other lineal heavyweight champion I can think of. I've likely seen more on Braddock than most. The Baer fight, the Louis fight, and a semi-rare film of Braddock sparring where he looks slow and unrefined. In my opinion, Baer did more to lose it than Braddock did to win it. If Braddock lacked effort in other fights as you mentioned, he's not beating Hart. Marvin Hart was something like a poor man's Rocky Marcianio when it came to effort. Back to the weights, Braddock defeated Art Lasky just before he met Max Baer. His weight in this fight a listed 182 1/2 half pounds. IMO Hart would have about 10 pounds on Braddock. From what I have seen Jack Root was better than Braddock, and head to head would beat him too, just like 20+ other men did.
Braddock was a former light heavyweight who lost more and drew more than any other lineal heavyweight champion I can think of. I've likely seen more on Braddock than most. The Baer fight, the Louis fight, and a semi-rare film of Braddock sparring where he looks slow and unrefined. In my opinion, Baer did more to lose it than Braddock did to win it. If Braddock lacked effort in other fights as you mentioned, he's not beating Hart. Marvin Hart was something like a poor man's Rocky Marcianio when it came to effort. Back to the weights, Braddock defeated Art Lasky just before he met Max Baer. His weigh in this fight a listed 182 1/2 half pounds. IMO Hart would have about 10 pounds on Braddock. From what I have seen Jack Root was better than Braddock, and head beat him too, jus like 20+ other men did.[/QUOTE] It's very possible ,however none of your post refutes my points in any way. If you knew that much about Braddock you would have known he was slung out 3 times for not trying,but you didn't, and he was. BTW Braddock also weighed 194lbs for Baer,197lbs for Louis and 192 1/2lbs when he fought Farr. Braddock had 78 fights losing 24 being stopped twice. Hart had 47 fights and lost 10 of them, being stopped 4 times. So he hardly has superior stats there does he? Also Hart was a former middleweight and had 14 fights whilst scaling under 170lbs so that ploy wont work! Emphasizing weight advantages here only weakens your argument. Hart scaled 192 1/2lbs to Burns 175lbs yet was defeated handily.
Hart is an under rated , pretty much forgotten guy but he was a very tough, high volume , aggressive style fighter. Braddock was game as hell. Maybe Hart by decision on volume and aggression.
I also don't think much of Braddock (relative to other champions) and I can't see him beating Fitz and Jeffries. Corbett was also likely better than him. Even Burns would be tough opponent.
What did Corbett ever do outside of beating a whiskey soaked, hog fat Sullivan and draw against a one-legged Peter Jackson? A dubious victory over a lightheavy? Corbett was rarely even an active boxer. Sorry, I look at the footage of Fitzsimmons and Jeffries and Corbett and see fresh meat. Of the three, Fitz would probably translate best, and be molded into modern form best, at the newly created lightheavy limit. But I can not take an alternate universe form of them but the actual form that occurred.
Then feel free to disagree, because Corbett, Fitz and Jeffries (Ruhlin fight) didn't look worse than Braddock at all for me.
That seems very far fetched, even if they were as bad as you say they were! I mean seriously, what had Braddock got that somebody isn't going to be able to beat, in a different era? He is not a particularly good technician, not a particularly devastating puncher, and just not that good generally!