Braddock vs Hart

I think he had more merit than that, even if isn't beating Jeff, Corbett etc.

He was pretty good at spoiling, and tended to rally well when needed. He was gutsy, his power was decent if not devastating and his chin was excellent.

 

Sure, I get it that he was better than initial appearances suggest, but I don't think that he had what it took to beat the best of another era.

Not barring unusual circumstances.

 

I agree when talking about him beating everyone pre Johnson, but for the overall question I'm not convinced Hart could either.

They both have their big win in a fight where people said their opponent didn't even try.

 

Yeah, he's not.

Unfortunately, that doesn't disqualify him from beating those that I mentioned.

 

Yes it does.

There is going to be some kind of talent in any era.

 

Even if I were to believe this to be true, and even if the available talent was given equal opportunity to thrive, this isn't a discussion of talent alone.

 

You are implying that there could be an era where nobody could either outbox or outfight Jimmy Braddock.

That is tantamount to saying that nobody in that era was particularly good at anything!

You are very fond of accusing the supporters of the old timers of looking at the world through rose tinted glasses, but it is the opinions of people like yourself that are truly extreme and unrealistic!

 

It's all a matter of who you are comparing them to.

 

Even in a weak era, you get the same range of talents.

There is always somebody who is an exceptional boxer, and somebody who is a devastating puncher.

You might get an era where there is not a great fighter in the division, but you are not going to get an era where nobody excels at anything.

 

Are you not even aware, how funny that statement is, coming from you?

 

You the guy hung up on weight advantages, I'm just showing you at heavyweight, Hart was usually bigger than Braddock.

Some numbers to chew on:

Braddock

This content is protected

of this fights! He lost to more no names than I can count on two hands. And he was likely in some funny business, he did not deserve the Farr fight based on what I have read.

Hart won a more respectable 71.7% of his fights.

Hart has the better big win, over Johnson. Hart beat the following hall of fame fighters, Johnson, O'Brien, Maher, Root and Choynski. How many hall off fame people did Braddock beat, just 1?

I was unaware that Braddock lacked effort. The 1930's had their share of fixed fights and fights that ended in fouls. Maybe Jimmy was on the take for those three fights, maybe he wasn't. It could explain his lack of effort.

But going by the numbers, I'd say Hart the better fighter. The thing we like agree on is, it would be a good match.[/QUOTE]
I dont think there is much to choose regarding the stats.Im not hung up on weight just pointing out in response to you saying Braddock was an ex lhvy that Hart was an ex middleweight!
If they fought I imagine it would be a close fight that could go either way.Braddock is likely to floor Hart who was dropped several times by average punchers.The rule set would probably be crucial . Hart has a win over a pre prime Johnson ,true but that victory is accompanied by an asterisk as many though Johnson's early work was enough to gain the decision,reports say he finished the fight unmarked whereas Hart was bloody and cut up.
Braddock beat Baer the reigning champion clearly so that's a better win as far as I'm concerned.Johnson was a lazy fighter inclined to periods of passivity in his fight's its very probable this cost him against Hart.Their respective performances against Burns certainly suggest so.We will never know for certain so lets leave that one there.

 

I dont think there is much to choose regarding the stats.Im not hung up on weight just pointing out in response to you saying Braddock was an ex lhvy that Hart was an ex middleweight!
If they fought I imagine it would be a close fight that could go either way.Braddock is likely to floor Hart who was dropped several times by average punchers.The rule set would probably be crucial .
Braddock may have been lucky against Farr ,Hart may have been equally lucky against Johnson take both wins away Braddock still has that win over Baer,what is Hart left with?
He beat a washed up Maher ,a washed up Choynski and as many gave him the win over Joe gave it a draw. He beat O Brien who was 158lbs for that fight, 24lbs lighter than Hart! But was also beaten by him and nearly ko'd and O Brien was no hitter,He was floored and nearly out against so -so Tony Ross ,heading for defeat when Ross hit him whilst he was down,he was beaten by Gardner whom a young Johnson had no trouble with

Hart has a win over a pre prime Johnson true, but that victory is accompanied by an asterisk as many thought Johnson's early work was enough to gain the decision,reports say he finished the fight unmarked whereas Hart was bloody and cut up. Johnson was a lazy fighter inclined to periods of passivity in some of his fights ,this probably cost him the win here. Their respective performances against Burns certainly suggest so.We will never know for certain ,so lets leave that one there.
Braddock beat Baer the reigning champion clearly so that's a better win as far as I'm concerned.
BTW Braddock beat both John Henry Lewis and Jimmy Slattery ,I believe both are in the HOF?

[/QUOTE]

 

You need to flip the tables around, and look at what your own argument would be the equivalent of.

I might pick Joe Louis to beat your heroes, but I don't pick Tony Musto to beat them, just because he fought in Joe Louis's era!

You guys have zero restraint when arguing the case of new over old, even to the extent of introducing obvious double standards/inconsistencies into your argument.

Frankly you would probably do better if you picked your battles more carefully!