James Braddock vs Ken Norton

Got to be Norton in my book. Braddock had some ok skills and was tough but Norton to me looks like a complete boxer with his own slightly peculiar style that gave a lot of guys fits. I don't think Braddock has the firepower to take it to Norton whereas I think Norton can light Braddock up in turn without giving him too many chances.

 

Norton could out hustle him or out muscle him and Braddock doesn't have the size or stopping power to do anything about it imo.

 

I'm for Norton, but I do believe that Braddock could make it go the distance. I know that Baer isn't the best measuring stick due to how limited he was, but he was still a ferocious puncher. He's still got a chance.

 

I rate Braddock much higher than most and think he was a top 2 or 3 HW H2H for the 30s but I'd still give it to Norton.

 

I wouldn't say that - he scored a flash KD early, but then Louis pretty much took him apart after that.

 

It took longer for Louis to take control than that.

 

Norton by TKO ...

 

Braddock displayed a terrific set of whiskers and courage against Louis.

He was taking some of Louis’ best punches and it took no less than an ATG right hand to ultimately see him off.

At the least, I’d guess Norton by decision but a stoppage is possible late in the fight. Can’t see Jimmy hurting Ken but he still could provide for a few awkward moments for Norton I think.

 

You think he is over
Baer?
Schaaf?
Schmeling?

 

Norton has significant advantages in skill, technique, timing, defense, accuracy, hand speed, ring IQ, etc. Only things I'd give Braddock are chin, experience, right hand power, and possibly stamina (although Norton is no slouch in stamina whatsoever).

Considering all these advantages, I would have to say Norton takes a convincing decision or stops him late. Norton takes his time walking Braddock down with his jab, attacking the body, then throwing strong hooks upstairs once Braddock has slowed and softened up. Can't see Braddock winning outside of a freakish puncher's chance right hand to the jaw when Norton's off guard, and he'd probably need to land several to get the job done. Braddock had respectable power but was neither an elite hitter, nor an amazing finisher. I don't think Braddock wins more than 2 rounds. He simply isn't in Norton's class and lacks the style and athleticism to really trouble the former Marine.

 

Its more H2H than resume but yes. Despite all his losses Braddock was only stopped one time other than Louis a stoppage due to a cut from his previous fight. When Braddock weighed 190 plus hes 2-1 with victories over Baer and Farr and the Louis loss where he got the knockdown and held his own for a few rounds after that. He was 3-1 weighing 185 plus but the John Henry Lewis win is considered a clear robbery. Braddock was a slugger at 170-180 pounds who couldn't outpoint the best LHWs/HWs but was too light to knock them out. He was giving up 20 pounds to Schaaf when they are the same height and reach. At 6 ft 2.5 Braddock really should have weighed 190 or 195+all along and should never have been at LHW.

In his LHW title fight against Loughran he weighed 170 pounds and was trying to knock out arguably the best LHW ever at that point. If he'd been at his proper weight from the start he could have been the guy at HW in the early 30s. But since he was knocking people out under 170 in the beginning he was targeted for LHW instead and when he couldn't keep doing that at the top level his career turned into a trainwreck.


Anyhow Braddock beat Baer while Schmeling got destroyed by him and did better against Louis than Baer when coming off a 2 year layoff where hed been nursing a broken hand. Also Farr went the distance with Louis in the previous fight and was coming off a Max Baer victory of his own. While Schmeling did beat Louis in the rematch he was destroyed in half a round. The Louis I wins really holding up Schmelings resume(compared to his peers) cause he could have lost both Sharkey fights and theres no Baer, Carnera or Farr on there. No Loughran or Schaaf either. Schmeling still has good wins but his legacy comes from a DQ and beating Louis who could not have beaten him easier the second time.


I'm torn between Braddock and Max Baer for 2nd and its entirely possible Baer beats Braddock most days. But Baer like Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera etc have bad losses. Braddock really doesn't. He has a lot of losses but was reliable to go the distance and almost always was competitive.

Schaaf is top 10 but its really hard to put him higher than 8th or 9th given how things ended.

 

Norton by decision but this would ABSOLUTELY be a winnable fight for Braddock because Norton may have looked like Adonis but when the spotlight was on you sometimes never knew what you were going to get with him but you pretty much know what you are going to get with Braddock.