James Braddock vs Ken Norton

Braddock's only wins of note at heavyweight are over
Baer who had damaged hands.
Lasky
Farr a highly controversial win.
Baer has wins over;
Levinsky x2
Farr
Schmeling
Campbell
Risko
Heeney x2
Galento
Schaaf
Carnera
Kennedy

Schaaf has wins over;
Uzcudun
Griffiths
Braddock
Baer
Loughranx2
Galento
Poreda
Stribling
Maloney x2
And he died in1933!
Loughran beat;
Renault
Levinskyx2
Baer
Schaaf
Griffiths
Uzcudun
Hamas
Sharkey
Godoy
Ettore
I put a lot of weight on H2H ,but you can't discount resume.
All wins in the 30's.

 

Braddocks also got John Henry Lewis, Griffiths,Jack Roper, Slattery and Latzo. Braddock beat Les Kennedy who you listed for Baer who was not a contender. You listed a lot of non contenders too. Schaaf technically isn't a contender but I count fighters who had 15 round eliminators or semi finals of tournaments in this parrticular era. Even with that generous interpretation Hamas, Poreda, Renault, Kennedy, Campbell and Comiskey are not contenders.

 

Braddock decision.

 

I respect Braddock for rising to the occasion when it counted. But I also believe that Ken Norton was generally a better fighter.

 

I didn't list anyone as a contender but I will now.
This is your statement.
"I rate Braddock much higher than most and think he was a top 2 or 3 HW"

Lewis was176lbs
Slattery was168 lbs and that was in 1929 so it doesnt count.
Latzo was171 and that was in1928 so doesn't count.
Grififths was173lbs so that doesn't count
Braddock has 3 wins over ranked heavyweights.
Baer Champ
Farr no3
Lasky no4

Schaaf beat
Poreda no3
Griffiths no 9
Baer no 10
Stribling no7
Loughran no8 x2.


Baer beat.
Schaaf no 5
Carnera Champ
Levinsky no4
Levinsky no7
Risko no 9

Schmeling beat.
Sharkey no 1
Stribling no 2
Nuesel no7
Hamas no7
Louis no1

Loughran beat.
Baer no 10
Griffiths no3
Levinsky no7
Schaaf no7
Sharkey no6

 

Pretty much my opinion.
Norton is by far the superior fighter here.
Norton by UD.

 

Braddock was a gutsy, courageous, tough journeyman with a terrific chin and a decent right hand. He edged an inconsistent, overconfident, Max Baer in a feel good story but he really was an average fighter at best ... Norton does a number on him.

 

And I stand by that statement

By contender I meant people who fought for belts or fought in title eliminators maybe won some major regional titles. Not rankings. I'm not a rankings guy. To me they're little more than fun trivia.

The way I rank decades is I rank fighters whole career of that generation because otherwise its all about the timing of someones career. Same with sports all decades team someone spltting their career between 2 decades is at a serious disadvantage.

 

You are entitled to as I am to disagree .
I don't think Braddock was in the top 4 of heavyweights for the 1930's and his record supports my opinion.
Braddock ducked Schmeling everybody knows that,the German would have been a warm favourite to become the first man to ever regain the title.
Braddock got a very questionable decision over Farr.
"According to the Pittsburgh Press, amongst others, Farr won rounds 4 to 8 and only lost round 3 because of a call by the referee. Most objective observers felt the worst Farr deserved was a draw and that it was sentiment and a late rally that won the decision for Braddock. [Referee Johnny McAvoy was the third man in the ring when Braddock "The Cinderella Man" upset Max Baer.]"

And a win over Lasky.
Lasky had drawn with Levinsky and lost to Hamas in his 2 previous fights.
He would lose by stoppage in his next 2 fights,to Ford Smith and Charley Retzlaff beat a nobody and then be stopped in 1 rd by Jack Roper,and he is one of Braddock's 3 best heavyweight wins!
Those are Braddock's heavyweight credentials in the 30's.
All those I named have better wins,and two of them have wins over Braddock ,albeit not in that time frame.
You made the criteria, heavyweights in the 1930's
In the 1930's Braddock fought about 24 men who could reasonably be called heavyweights during that era,and I'm including guys around 178/180lbs, he lost to 9 of them.