Jack Dempsey v Jimmy braddock (if it happened) could have been the equal of Georges big record breaking fete, and whos to say Jack could not pull it off if Dempsey was allowed to miss out hungry contenders to get his chance? George Foreman beat Moorer to become the oldest HW champ ...but a whole lot of unique circumstances allowed this to happen. Moorer was not regarded as the best heavyweight at that time, a rare and unusal thing when there has been an undisputed title. Lets not pretend Goerge was ever regarded as the best in the world second time around! Moorer did happen to be the linear champion but Foreman did not happen to be a rated fighter who deserved another poke at the title. Nor would a comeback JD IN 1937! Even so wat do you think??
Most past it boxers can't do what Foreman did. Foreman was well past it against Moorer but had a big size and strength advantage, which allowed him to time the occasional big shot against a Moorer who stood in front of him too long Braddock would box smart the way he did against Baer and win a wide UD. If he turns up the pace though he could quite possibly knock out an old tired 42yo Dempsey. When you get tired in boxing your a knock out waiting to happen
Perhaps. Sometimes a champion is too tired by the time he defends the title. Its not age its often miles on the clock. fighters like Ellis, moorer, Douglas, smith, sharkey and Braddock were perhaps destined not to sucsessfuly defend a title. Usualy a fighter is groomed to reach a peak by improving against lesser opponents until he is ready to take on anybody and if matchmaking allows the idea is to have him reach this point when defending the title. Some fighters just dont get a smooth run at it and are prety burned by the time they get there. unique circumstances alowed for Foreman to win the title second time around. As a novalty act, Old george could take time off and wait for a champion to suit him. Obviously George was capable at world level but so were a lot of more deserving contenders and they all had to stay busy fighting one another. usualy a contender has to climb the ratings. George could wait in the wings. Nobody else could ...apart from sugar ray leonard in the lower weight classes.
Dempsey was 42 years old and had not had an official fight in the last 10 years. It would be, in my opinion, quite disrespectful towards Braddock to pick Dempsey here. In their prime, it's Dempsey without a doubt, but in 1937 it is Braddock. Jim wasn't the lucky-easy to beat some people think he was. He had some good fights in 1934-1935, beating guys like Baer, Lewis and Lasky who were better at this stage than Dempsey. I don't believe that a guy who was good enough to knock Joe Louis down in 1937 could've lost against Dempsey, a fighter from the previous generation.
I think Dempsey was too far gone to be honest. He considered a comeback a few years after he retired, but changed his mind after he got the worse of an exhibition with King Levinsky. Like the older Sonny Liston, he could give anybody a miserable time in sparring, but in an actual 15 round fight it would be a different matter.
All very true and I agree. However ,what put Jack off after the Levinsky scare would not have been a title fight in itself but the fact that he would have been expected to climb over more real contenders just as capable and "up for it" as young, keen and able as kingfish was before jack could get a crack at the title. Jack knew he did not have the time or fights in him to climb the ranks. An unheard of "gift shot" would have been a different matter. If Dempsey knew the public would stand for 5 or even 15 quick wins over the level of Fighters Jack was indeed laying out in exhibitions anyway in order to get a crack at the big one he would have jumped at it. Braddock was a game but shop worn champion- if Dempsey could by pass a "climbing of the ranks" and felt he had even a 40% chance against Braddock it would have been worth it ...and possibly acheivable. Brave, inactive Jimmy (with bum hands) was ripe for the next serious opponent. who ever that was going to be.
I think with Moorer it was more styles of not matching up too well to HW punchers, although perhaps complacency too and wanting to show he could stand in the pocket Braddock is certainly underrated, people act like the Baer win was a fluke but Braddock outskilled the bigger man. He put Louis down too Here's a question, if Braddock draws the colour line how long does he reign, who can he beat and who's too much for him??????
Perhaps you have your answer there though? Dempsey was game, as long as he didn't have to go through some serious contenders. Not a recipe for beating a champion, including the well motivated Braddock.
I think he would've been the champ until 1940 or 1941, losing his title to the much bigger Buddy Baer.
For sure. Braddock had balls but his great run and win over Baer was his last roll of the dice. I would favour Braddock but I would put a sneaky bet on old dempsey. Foreman was not favoured against Moorer was he?
Braddock would have lost to schmeling and was lucky to beat Farr. Old Jimmy wasnt getting past both Farr and schmeling over 15.
Jack was finished after the second Tunney fight, exhausted and ,on the verge of being stopped according to himself, his legs and stamina were gone.James J gives him a painful boxing lesson in 37.