Jim Braddock vs Frank Bruno

Art Lasky, John Henry Lewis, Tommy Farr, Joe Louis and Tommy Loughran are others Braddock hung with. Braddock is not defined soley by the Max Baer win.

 

Who knocked down Joe Louis.

Braddocks one of the best mixtures of durability, power and talent the HW division has ever seen.

 

Loughran and Lewis were light heavies. Loughran dominated Braddock to the point of embarrassment. His fights with Lewis and Farr were gift decisions. He was knocked out by Louis and while he dropped Lewis people forget that Lewis squared up while trying to take Braddock out and was simply caught. Its not like he was hurt or anything. Art Lasky never beat anyone. Using him as an example of how good Braddock was is weak. Despite going 15 with Braddock he was knocked out in his next fight by a bum and less than a year later was stopped by Jack Roper.

Saying Braddock career isnt defined by his win against Baer is topsy turvy. His career is absolutely defined by his win over Baer. We wouldnt even be discussing him if he hadnt beaten Baer and, as stated above, it wasnt like he looked good beating Baer who looked like he just showed up to collect a paycheck.

 

Then you would be very unwise.

You would be betting on Bivol to do something that he had never shown himself to be capable of doing, and against Baer doing something that he had repeatedly shown himself to be capable of doing.

 

I get it that Braddock was very beatable, but he is not a man with one good win either.

Lewis, Lasky, and Farr were also world class heavyweights when he beat them.

When you are comparing him to a man with one or maybe two world class wins, then any sort of wins at that level carry weight.

This might be a good argument if Bruno had a slew of wins over elite guys, but the fact is that he didn't, so wins over any sort oelite men count for something.

The lineal champion while Bruno was active was himself a former light heavyweight, and would have been by far Brunos best win if he had beaten him, so I do think that wins over a great former light heavy like John Henry Lewis count for something here.

Bruno only lost to five fighters because he feasted on cans, and avoided fighting anybody with a pulse unless there was a belt on the line.

Worse for him when he does step up, we are not seeing a particularly mixed picture.

He might well have beaten Braddock, because Braddock was pretty beatable, but nobody should have any confidence that he would do so.

As for Baer he was levels above him.

 

I give more credit to the judges for Braddocks wins over Lewis and Farr than Braddock.

Besides, its not like either of those guys are all time great heavyweights anyway. Trying to build up Braddock based on gift decisions really says a lot about just how thin his win ledger is.

If Bruno feasted on tomato cans then Braddock would have felt right at home losing to him. Its not like Braddock was never defeated by a tomato can. Bruno certainly wasnt so my point that he was a higher level than Braddock stands.

 

Bruno Robotic no engine but what he had was heart and could bang Hard

 

The evidence is not strong enough to reach that conclusion on either case.

Some decisions divide opinion.

 

You are not seeing the important point.

Bruno literally only has one or perhaps two elite wins.

If I am building Braddock up on gift decisions, over contenders who were not great at the weight, then you are building Bruno up on nothing.

 

I think you also have to look at Bruno's losses. He was competitive with Smith and Witherspoon. He was beating Lewis and he hung with Tyson in fight one, certainly better than most had done until that point. In my opinion, Bruno ices Braddock and is a much better fighter than many give him credit for.

 

You have to look at his losses, and you have to look at his wins, and you have to look at the men between that he wasn't fighting.

Why wasn't he taking fights against men like Berbick, or Weaver, unless a title was on the line?

The answer is probably that his team had worked out, that he was likely to lose against men of that caliber, and they wanted to protect their investment.

Bruno is not better than most give him credit for, the opposite is the case.

He was a guy who feasted on tomato cans, lost every time he stepped up, then went back to knocking over tomato cans again, until he could get another title shot through politics.

 

Agree to disagree man, and ain't that what these discussions should be about...peace and love, Px

 

This
And Bruno was the first one to wobble Tyson and that was no easy feet
Bruno had heart and would dig deep and like u i dont think he gets the credit he deserves
He fought Tyson Lewis and held his own so what does that tell you