Braddock was versatile that night, great combinations, great set ups, times the jab well, great counters, was able to get low and come over the top, just brilliant all round that night, I pick him comfortably over Carnera, maybe even finds the stoppage. Who wins this matchup?
Braddock would make him look ridiculous. Again, people act like Braddock was some bum off the street ... IMO, it's playing on a "sense of fairness" in that he didn't give Schmeling the shot he deserved and people don't like him because of that ... and he's not among the greatest of heavyweight champions, far from it, but the guy at his best was an excellent prize fighter.
Neither man is getting knocked out. Braddock is probably the harder puncher, has the better timing and a good jab. Carnera has a long jab that he relentlessly pushes against his opponent, a right uppercut and good clinching game. I think Primo can get this one because of his stamina, reach and clinching. Braddock could rock him good and put him on the back foot but he doesn't hit hard enough to score the 31 necessary knockdowns to keep Carnera down.
Braddock edges a decision in a fight that will be used as an example of why the old timers were inferior in the decades to come
Yes but Braddock had more power and the much better chin and was bigger which are more relevant in this matchup and most HW matchups of this era. I wouldn't neccessarily say Sharkey was "much" more skilled than Braddock either. Braddocks skill translated way better at HW he was losing decisions because he was either fighting at LHW or fighting super light at HW as a power guy. If Sharkey can knockdown Carnera in spite of the size difference Braddock can do it. If Sharkey can win nearly every round against Carnera, Braddock can win a lopsided decision as well. As a 6 ft 2 guy Braddock only fought above 190 or even 185 his last 3 fights with Max Baer, Louis and Farr. He had one NC weighting 188 where he broke his hand. While Braddocks resume is inconsistant there is a clear diagnosis for why. Theres no reason to doubt those last 3 fights are who he really was at a fighter. The biggest reason Sharkey didn't win the rematch with Carnera is his chin. Braddocks got a great one. You can say Uzcudin had the best chin of the period and he lost to Carnera, yeah he couldn't outbox Primo but he survived their fights.
I feel like Sharkey's loss to Carnera had more to do with his flabby physique than his chin. Schmeling hits Sharkey with his signature right that's cracked so many sturdy chins plenty of times in their rematch, Carnera does hit him occasionally in their first fight as well. I don't think being chinny was Sharkey's downfall here. I don't think Braddock was really bigger than Sharkey either, Braddock was usually in the 180s except in his last three fights. His highest was 199 against Farr, Sharkey was 202 in the first Carnera fight and 205 in the Schmeling rematch. His prime weight seemed to be 188-198, so at their peaks Braddock and Sharkey were probably roughly equivalent. I'd personally consider Sharkey to be on another level of skill compared to Braddock.
I think that we need to make Carnera the favorite, even though Braddock beat the man who beat him. Neither of them is among the best lineal heavyweight champions, but only one is in the argument for being the worst. Carnera had depth of resume, he had consistency, and of course he had a size advantage over Braddock. If we are talking real timeline scenario's, then that probably favor's Braddock a little.
