Jim Braddock vs Frank Bruno

Lewis was a HW too like Archie Moore he campaigned at both weight classes concurrently. Lewis beat Gastanaga who had an 88 inch reach while not being able to see. He beat Elmer Ray. The Lewis fight was considered a robbery(the Farr one not really) but Lewis is great enough where that doesn't matter. Its a 10 rounder if a fight is close thats really more important than who won.

Art Lasky was 6 ft 4. Lasky like Mann and Godoy preferred staying on the regional scene. That doesn't mean he wasn't elite. Lasky lost a close decision to Carnera. He knocked out Tiger Jack Fox who was a HW state champ. Lasky avenged the Roper loss which was kind of flukey. While Jack Roper was one of Louis's worst title opponents that doesn't mean he was bad he just wasn't as good as those guys.

If Braddock fought at 190-195 pounds after going to HW he might have been the champ the whole way between Tunney and Louis.


Loughrans a P4P ATG and the Loughran Braddock lost to was one of the highest peaks a LHW ever reached. Loughrans a peer of Tunney and Greb. Braddock was 22-1 at LHW going into that fight.

This content is protected

 

Just to be clear here: Frank Bruno fought tomato cans but John Henry Lewis has some kind of impressive record as a heavyweight and Tommy Farr is in the top 2 or 3 best British heavyweights in history? Really? Ive seen guys make a desperate attempt at legitimizing their argument but this is ridiculous.