James J Braddock v Bernard Hopkins

are you saying that baer was in shape, or that preparation plays no part in boxing?

 

Braddock did just lose to Loughran, he could not lay a glove on him .. Hopkins is essentially the same size as Braddock who looked more like a bowler than a boxer at heavyweight .. Jim had an iron chin and a decent right hand from a power perspective .. I just see him as far too slow and limited .. He'd lose a decision in typical boring like Hopkins style .. never hurt in any way just outpointed .. I'd sure like to see his last fight w John Henry Lewis as that might be his best performance ..

 

I was just reading about this fight and the articles I was reading said that Braddock only won because JHL got three rounds taken away from him on accidental low blows and characterized it as a questionable decision even then. Edward C Foster, president of the NBA felt that Lewis won and that decision combined with the decision in Sammy Fuller-Young Peter Jackson prompted him to call for the abolishment of judges in boxing. That pretty much sums up Braddock to me. He isnt beating an elite guy without that guy having a bad day or getting a raw deal and Braddock having a rare really good day.

When he beat Baer (who wasnt the greatest fighter either) the press said Braddock fought the best fight of his life and Baer fought the worst fight of his life. Almost every report I read of that fight questioned why Baer threw no hard punches and held back when he hurt Braddock. They said Baer told everyone that he had two broken hands but that a Dr.s exam found no fractures. These reports hinted at the idea that Baer had tanked the fight. Maybe, maybe not, but its inarguable that Baer turned a very lazy performance and even then Braddock was only inches better in the rounds he won. Both guys sucked that night.

Boxing isnt just about who is bigger or who hits harder its about skill as well. Braddock is to me one of the least skilled fighters you will see in the HOF. The guy was atrocious and no amount of mythologizing will change my mind from what Ive actually seen of the guy.

 

Of course Baer was in shape, and it's the champs responsibility to come prepared and in the best shape possible, if not then no excuses if he loses the title....

I can't stand when guys lose, then blame their loss on their own lack of preparation, YOU LOST BECAUSE THE BETTER MAN BEAT YOU!!

 

Hopkins said he had never been hit that hard in his career, and he barely survived that last round..

It even looked like Kovalev let up a little bit to keep from hurting Hops.

 

i have never heard that baer was either physically or mentally prepared for this fight, the footage bears this out. What makes you think he was well prepared?

 

Interesting .. none of that is mentioned in any of the Braddock fairytale backstory ... I always knew the Lewis rematch was a questionable decision but not to that degree ..

 

Nobody is making excuses for Baer. The point is that Braddock won a title by beating a mediocre HW who didnt fight up to the limited expectations of him. Sorry but if you think Braddock beat the best Baer (which itself wouldnt exactly be an all time great achievement) then you are in a very small minority. Very few people now, and nobody back then, believe(d) Braddock beat the best Baer.



Lets just pretend for one instant that Braddock beat the very best Baer we ever saw. That puts him the same company as: Les Kennedy, Jack McCarthy, Tiny Abbot, Ernie Schaaf, Tommy Loughran, Johnny Risko, Paulino Uzcudan, Willie Davies, Lou Nova, Joe Louis, and Tommy Farr. So yeah, it didnt exactly take an all time great to beat Baer. Go back and watch that fight. Nearly the whole thing is complete. Tell me exactly how remarkable Braddock is. If ever there was a fight where a mediocre fighter won because the opponent fought god awful then its that one and even then Braddock just squeeked by in the rounds he won. Its not like he dominated or hurt Baer and was even impressive in the least. The guy was so bad that he literally, shamefully, and openly ducked his #1 challenger who was a past his prime 30 year old guy who had lost to the guy Braddock just beat for the title so that he could cash out against Louis. Nobody expected Braddock to hold that title for very long. It wasnt a matter of who would beat him it was a matter of who would get to him first. Thats why the guy hid out for two years without defending his title. Thats the guy you want to pin your hopes on defeating someone as consistent as Hopkins who in an era of 36 hour pre weigh ins has fought guys who are big as Braddock, in better shape, and more skilled? Not me.

 

well said

 

I double checked and the reports say he lost three rounds to questionable low blows.

Id hardly call Lewis a house fighter. He had just come east and was trying to get a showcase fight. Jimmy Johnston signed him off of his rep in California from where he had just come. Its not like he was an East Coast fighter who was known or being moved by east coast managers and promoters. Irregardless the press characterized it as a poor decision, as did the president of the NBA so Im not going to try to draw tenuous conclusions that because Henry had agreed to fight for the Garden in a few upcoming bouts that he was immune to getting jobbed.

Henry Farrell: "The spectators booed for minutes when Jackson and Braddock were awarded the decisions."

Ed Hughes: "Braddock dropped the colored man hard in the sixth and was near to scoring a knockout, but he was a weary, outfought s****per at the end. The decision to braddock was a poor one. Lewis was penalized three rounds for foul work but even so clearly lead on points.

Ed Van Every: "Had not several winning rounds been counted against him because a few of his blows dropped low Lewis would have taken the decision over James J Braddock."

 

"All my information comes from his two bios." LOL. Spoken like a true internet historian... Why not just quote from a copy of the "Cinderella Man" script while youre at it. I just quoted you the authors of the quotes. You can find them easily enough yourself. If you want to believe Braddock was good enough to beat Lewis without help Im certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. For my money I'll take the words of several of the most respected boxing writers of the era (I only quoted three, there are plenty of others) who were writing what happened on the ground at the time over biographers writing 70 years later.

 

Hopkins would be way to cerebral for Braddock,how does one with so many losses compare to a more dominant era champion?He doesn't.