Great Jim Braddock Vid

Challenge accepted. Is $100 adequate payable via paypal? I look forward to your video.

 

How would we even decide who is right?
Your whole premise is biased to the teeth.

 

The fact that you don't know your @ss from a hole in the ground about how a boxing match progresses is what's alarming. You show a Louis who is on the prowl resetting after a down parried jab and pretend it's some sort of highlight of great boxing skill is alarming. If you notice in this fight that Louis loved to counter Braddock's jab with a left hook most often. Well, perhaps he couldn't find position in this nanosecond for the counter he wanted. Whatever the reason, this snippet shows Louis to advantage and not Braddock. And if you wanted to find them, Braddock had plenty more good moments in this bout.

 

The jab lands. It was a nice stiff jab that forced Louis back. It turns Louis head, and it forces him backwards against his own volition. You are seeing what you want to see.

 

Ok. But the title spells out that the video is highlighting skills.
It's not titled "Braddock's average moments".

If Michael Caine wins an honorary film career award they don't show a reel of his most average scenes from his most average movies.

When a girl gets married she looks her best, she doesn't turn up at the wedding giving a fair and accurate representation of her average.

When reznick makes a video highlighting skills of a professional boxer he finds the bits he feels displays the best skills, he doesn't randomly choose moments to find an average.

This is how the world is. Honestly I don't know if I can explain why, but I've never really felt the need to ask.

 

Michael Caine gets honored with highlight reels because he is a great actor with a great body of work. Braddock was not a great fighter and has relatively few impressive performances so when you make a highlight reel trying to showcase skills that by and large he didnt actually display except on rare occasions its deceptive. Its all part of the mythologizing of Braddock that he was some sort of diamond in the rough who was a really talented guy that just didnt get the breaks and suddenly when he got a chance everyone discovered that he was some overlooked great. This idea that for some reason the great depression, not his limited skills, held him back while every fighter that beat him during the depression was somehow not effected by the poverty the depression brought on. He wasnt. He was a very limited journeyman fighter who actually had one of the worst win/loss ratios of any HW challenger since the beginning of the gloved era and the exact point is that when you watch the guy fight you can understand why. So your point that Reznick isnt just randomly choosing moments from Braddock's career to make him look average is funny because what he is actually doing is looking really hard to find the few moments here and there where Braddock uncharacteristically does something right and using those to tell us about his "skills" THAT is deceptive whether you agree or not. A better acting analogy than your michael caine example would be if I took the few examples of Hayden Christenson not looking like a wooden ventriloquists puppet and cobbled those together in order to give the impression that the guy isnt cardboard cutout.

 

We are over thinking this Seamus. We should just be sitting in a chair with drool coming out of our mouths and accepting that Braddock was a boxing virtuoso with a skillset far far above our comprehension. Reznick, with his "granular level film analysis" has discovered that a guy who failed to win fully 1/3 of his fights and who had losses at every stage of his career to such legendary all time greats as Paul Cavalier, Herman Heller, Joe Monte, Baxter Calmes, Tom Patrick, Martin Levandowski, Al Stillman and others, was really just masterminding the greatest trojan horse campaign in history, getting everyone comfortable thinking he was nothing more than an "also ran" before springing his trap...

 

You got all that from watching clips of his double jab? Interesting.


Since you keep calling me deceptive, let me put it in plain English for you. You cannot become a lineal heavyweight champion by being a **** fighter. It takes real skills and real performances. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

Andre Ward doesn't look pretty beating Kovalev. In fact I can probably make him look worse than you can make Braddock look. The point is he won the fights, and is now considered p4p #1. This is the kind of balanced perspective you lack. You are stuck in the 20th century Neanderthal mindset that a fighter either has to look like Thor and Odin, or he is a bum. You don't have the discipline nor the vision to apply the same standards of measurement across all fighters and all eras.

Also, you made a video on Jack Dempsey solely highlighting his fouls. If you call me deceptive, you are calling yourself a straight up con man.

I also noticed you wussied out of the colorization thread, where you erroneously thought that upscaling couldn't provide a quality boost. But couldn't support your views under scrutiny. You also couldn't man up and admit you were wrong despite coming at me like a rude idiot. And despite the fact that I've shown you respect, you belittle my work and call me deceptive without basis.

Crabs in a bucket.

 

And please don't talk about my film analyses. You think that Moorer took a dive against Foreman, which you base on nothing more than the fight film itself. When it comes to analyzing actual boxing, you are a complete and utter joke.

 

Let's take a look at Klomptons idea of fair and balanced representation:

This content is protected

Oh gee...

You see Seamus? Forget those fancy highlight reels, this is the real stuff man!

 

The thing is, you're saying it's deceptive and misleading but who is being deceived and misled ?
I'm not.
Seamus isn't.
You're certainly not.

We know Braddock was a mediocre journeyman-level fighter who somehow wrested the world title.
reznick's video is unlikely to "mislead" anyone (into thinking Braddock was great) who bothers to verse themselves in the most basic of boxing history.
And, as Seamus has strived to point out, Braddock doesn't exactly look great in these highlights either.

Even mediocre journeymen have skills though, and Braddock had some good moments (knocking down a great fighter like Louis is no small feat), so reznick's just using some footage to make a video. There's no harm in it.
Maybe he'll do one of Jesse Ferguson too. I'd like that I reckon, and I wouldn't fear some agenda to deceive people into thinking Ferguson was an ATG or anything.

Of course maybe I'm naive of reznick's intentions to deceive, or maybe you're just paranoid or looking for a reason to be negative.
I took the video at face value.

Like it or not, Braddock won the title and his "cinderella man" story was written into folklore straight away because of that. It was a feel good story at the time I guess, and something colourful to spice up a dull fight and a mediocre champion.

 

Jack Sharkey, complaining about low blows always makes me laugh!I doubt Schmeling and Scott got the joke though!

 

Anyone wanting to see a big man with skills should watch Red Cobra's thread on Loughran!

 

And as you well know that video was made in direct response to your silly ass videos showing how great skilled guys are by being exceedingly selective. Thats the entire point and the fact that you are so obtuse as to not realize im hammering the point home is almost as troubling as your pipe dream ideas about magical computer generated fights that are exact reproductions of bouts that were never filmed. Look, its obvious you are a young enthusiastic kid who is a little naive, a little wet behind the ears. So lets be clear about something: when i post my video and its much much much longer than yours illustrating Braddock walking forward with his hands down no defense or head movement swinging wild arm punches that have been telegraphed by a mile showing no movement no real creativity or thought it doesnt mean that Braddock couldnt fight a lick even though thats what he looks like. What it means is that the vast majority of his work was pedestrian. You can be an ordinary fighter and go very far based on little more than heart and toughness. That was Braddocks x factor. Not the so called skills you try to showcase which he himself RARELY did. And thats my objection to some of your goofy videos. You are trying to paint these guys in a light that is awfully rose colored. Had you made a video called "Braddocks heart" and showed him marching forward unwavering despite having almost nothing in the tool box while getting his head jabbed absolutely silly by Loughran, or getting hammered by Baer only to come out ahead in exchanges or to workmanlike score score score while Baer was content to pose, mug, and growl without actually fighting, or going out on his shield against Louis despite being incredibly outgunned and essentially going into the KNOWING he was going to lose in his first defense. That would have been an honest video. But showing a few clips of him that you had to look pretty hard for of him not throwing arm punches, not walking forward in straight lines with his hands down, not lunging in and then having to catch his balance, not throwing uppercuts from WAY outside and then painting that as standard Braddock is absolute bull****. Its as much bull**** as all the other mythologizing about him. I dont and never really have gotten all of the love for the guy except that i guess he was some kind of working class hero. Hes painted as this guy who couldnt catch a break but look at all the opportunities he had over his career. Id say getting a title shot off a victory over Slattery who everyone agreed was a wreck of a drunk at the time is pretty damn lucky, not unlucky. Going into that title shot with a heavily padded record and a ton of press pretending that he was this great opponent only to lose something like 13 or 14 rounds is pretty indicative of the b.s. used to promote him. Id say getting HW title shot by beating 2 mediocre HWs who were every bit as effected by the depression as he was and LHW then getting in front of a Baer who was clearly unmotivated, disinterested, under trained, over confident, and incredibly inactive during the fight (no fault of Braddocks) and edging a decision is pretty damn lucky. Id say avoiding your #1 contender because you KNOW he would beat you so you can cash out against Louis because you KNOW you will lose that fight as well is pretty weak and doesnt, in my mind, deserve to be held up as an example of some heroic guy who finally made good. But what do I know, they also made a movie about Mickey Ward who IMO was as bad as Braddock and didnt even win a title.

 

I understand your point but the vast majority of people who will watch that video either wont know braddock intimately or will only know him from Cinderella Man, which was equally misleading about the man himself and his career.