Hi Fergy! Eras aside, I'd agree with you. Henry might dump him early with a semi-solid wallop but IMO a Jimmy UD. One positive about Cooper was he knew how to pace himself; he went the full 15 rounds on a number of occasions.
Off topic but I just went to YouTube and got Henry on a 60's episode of "This is Your Life". As everyone already knows he was a gentleman, quite comfortable in front of a camera, with a wonderful sense of humor. And, lo and behold, his wife was very pretty ("you go 'enry"!!) hubba, hubba.
Why does his twin brother never get a mention? He was a boxer as well so being identical in looks and I assume all physical attributes like strength and speed, how come Henry became a decent fighter but his twin couldn't achieve much if anything at all?
Both guys had a lot of flaws. But I'd take Henry Cooper. It took me years to get around to watch all those Cooper fights that didn't involve Ali and Patterson. And Cooper, after a slow start as a pro, became a real beast in the ring. You watch him against Jose Urtain, the Jack Bodell fights, Joe Erskine, Billy Walker, Zora Folley, Karl Mildenberger, Brian London on up to his final performance against Joe Bugner ... and it's not surprising he laid out Cassius Clay the way he did. Frankly, I'm surprised Floyd Patterson beat him by brutal ko the way he did. Probably one of Floyd's best performances EVER. Jim Braddock, from what I've seen, wasn't too impressive against really anyone. He had kind of a weird stance. He held a lot. I give him all the credit for outboxing Baer that night. But I think Cooper could've outboxed Max Baer that night, too, (ALOT of people would've the way Baer fought) and dropped Louis with a flash knockdown, too. I don't think Braddock beats all the guys Cooper beat. I'd go with Henry. Natural heavyweight. Better classic boxer. Punched harder.
Other than people like the Olsen Twins and the Winklevoss Twins, I don't necessarily think having identical looks means you possess the same skillsets, too.
Great post! Well said about Cooper. I’d have to disagree a bit on Braddock. I’ve come to realize that Braddock achieved a level of class at HW he doesn’t typically get credited for. His win against Baer is often attributed to what Baer didn’t do. But a keener observer would note that Braddock was also difficult to beat for Joe Louis, the best finisher in history. Baer threw hundreds upon hundreds of punches at Braddock. I don’t think Cooper would withstand the same level of attack that Braddock did. And I don’t think he’d have the capability to capitalize on opportunities like Braddock did. He was extremely sharp in his HW championship days. In sparring and against opponents in the ring he had a real knack for timing his window of attack. He also had very good distance control, and an overall sharp sense for fighting. He was a pretty intuitive fighter at that stage, and he had some helpful tools like a decent chin and a decent punch to boot. Braddock wins this one for me. They say there is levels to boxing. And as impressive as Coopers best performances were, I don’t think he is of the class required to beat the best HW Braddock. Good matchup though!
Cooper was able to get inside on just about everyone and really work over their bodies. So I don't know if Braddock could control the distance on him. I agree that Braddock was very impressive in the Baer fight. But I didn't see that in his other fights, although he employed a similar strategy against others. Cooper wasn't sloppy like Baer was. I don't think Braddock would be nearly as effective with his odd style against Henry because the fight would be more on the inside and I think Cooper would just rip Braddock's body. But it's a good matchup. I agree.
