Suppose there had been a Braddock-Baer II ?

Braddock boxed well and had a great gameplan to neutralise Baer as Loughran had also managed previously. But then again Wills said he picked Braddock when he heard Baer was partying on the tiles on the run up to the fight. So maybe a focused Baer wins or styles make fights? Who knows

 

hard to say, baer took time off after louis but the quality his opponents in 36' wasn't too high.

braddock hadn't fought so his momentum must have slipped.

i'd make max favorite, maybe 1.80-1.90, but wouldn't be too suprised if braddock won

 

Could be a styles thing, but as you said... Perhaps the temperament simply wasn't there [outside of that provoked exhibition slaughter of King Levinski].

Max certainly reversed his loss to Farr impressively, but looked very focused in the Nova rematch to no avail. Aside from Nova though, he was good in rematches

Looking at the first four rounds of Louis-Braddock and then watching Braddock-Farr, I'm not sold in Max reversing his loss to Jimmy in 1936. Some of it might depend on the progression of Braddock's arthritis [which he cited as his primary hindrance against Louis beyond round four, although he NEVER went so far as to say he could have defeated Joe without arthritis issues].

Braddock said those opening four rounds against Louis were as well as he ever fought, suggesting he might have actually improved from Baer I to Baer II in 1936. We saw what a peaking Joe did to Max later in 1935, a situation where one would expect Baer to be motivated to get back to the title.

Max was no ball of fire in the rounds where Carnera kept his feet [all of which I have the Italian winning], and I think there are some serious questions about what the outcome of that one might have been if Primo had not severely injured his ankle during that first knockdown. [As it was, Baer was letting an about to be hospitalized Carnera back into it, thanks to the rounds system of scoring. There were questions about Maxie's conditioning going into Carnera, questions rendered academic by that opening round ankle injury of Primo's. Baer-Carnera II was considered a viable rematch prospect at the time.]

Tough times make tough men, and stevedore Jimmy was simply tougher than Hollywood Max in that respect.

 

If we take into consideration that Baer was thrashed by Louis in September 1935, just 3 months after losing to Braddock,I don't suppose Max would have improved after the Louis defeat. His confidence and appetite for the sport are unliley to have improved as a result of the Louis loss.

I think it's quite possible, in fact likely, that Braddock's combination of skill, durability and grit are enough to beat (post Louis) Max again if they had boxed in June'36.

 

I dont see this great gameplan Braddock had. If you watch the whole fight, not the highlites, you can see that Braddock won by a whisker. It was surprising they took the title on such a close decision given the era.

I dont think Braddock could improve on his performance any. Baer could, particularly after what he learned from fighting Braddock. I wouldnt have any doubt about picking Baer in a rematch.

The only thing that would give me pause would be Braddock's durability. At this point in his career Baer didnt seem overly eager to go to war for the full distance. He might get discouraged at Braddock's staying power but thats about it and even that shouldnt come as a surprise after their first fight.

 

if they fought very soon just a year later braddock would beat him again by decision

 

Well, again, did Braddock improve from Baer to the opening four rounds against Louis in June 1937?

Max was very active in 1936, going 20-0 that year, but against knockoffs and tankers. His next opponent of consequence after Louis was Farr in April 1937, and he lost over 12 in London, two months before Louis unseated Braddock. The Farr rematch was a good win for Max, but Tommy was also in the midst of a five fight losing streak when it took place.

Clearly, Max displayed some measure of improvement after Loughran, learning something about jabbing and not to telegraph his punches so much, but is there evidence he also improved after Braddock? The loss to Farr suggests otherwise. Tommy had a great number of wins on his record by then [and had won no less than 15 times over the 15 round distance], but he was also still just barely 24 years of age, and had been owned by a late career Loughran just one year away from retirement [despite getting awarded a decision which even pissed off the crowd in Royal Albert Hall].

Braddock had very serious competitive experience against the likes of peak Loughran, Slattery, Latzo, JH Lewis, Shaaf, Lasky, Rosenbloom, Lomski and Retzlaff, etc... A substantial veteran resume. How much did he improve from Loughran to Baer, Louis and Farr? We have the films to ascertain that.

For Max, we have Ben Foord, Comiskey, Nova I & II, and Galento on film. Those movies just don't show enough to convince me that he would definitely have won a rematch over Jimmy in 1936. One might have expected Louis to finish Braddock off. Jim proved at Farr's expense that Joe did NOT finish him off, and Braddock had plenty of offers on the table when he decided to retire on his own terms. [He had two goals. Win the heavyweight championship. Win his last fight. He achieved both.]

 

Braddock won a gift decision against Farr by a lot of peoples estimation. Yes he beat some names, some of whom were just names at that point, Latzo who was fighting over twenty pounds above his best weight comes to mind. But the point is that Braddock couldnt not string those wins together. We are talking about a guy who lost or drew in over a third of his bouts. Braddock could not be depended on to win. Some of the guys Baer fought after Braddock have just been called knockoffs and tankers and yet thats exactly what Braddock was considered. They didnt call him the Cinderella Man because he was a feared and dependable fighter. It says enough that Baer knocked out a better version of Schmeling than the one Braddock blantantly ducked after defeating Baer. Even he and his handlers understood his limitations and cashed out. Baer may not have been the same fighter at this point either but he only lost four fights of something like 30 fights after this point and all four were to top contenders or the champion in fights that he was very competetive in. Given Braddock's record I dont know if he could have posted the same success. I sure dont think he was a better fighter than Baer or able to improve upon his performance. He fought the best fight of his life against a very unmotivated Baer and won by a round or two at best. I think Baer could come in more motivated even past his prime and win three more rounds against Braddock.

 

A different result in a rematch, i.e., a Baer victory, would be predicated on only one thing...that would be if Max wanted to win it back bad enough. I think that if Max wanted it bad enough..and lets say that if he did regain the belt, then he could go to Nazi Germany and repeat his slaughter of Max Schmeling, then he would have had to motivate himself into being the killer that he was physically capable of being....but I'm not so sure that he was mentaqlly able to pull that off. Max was a real head case who would rather clown that hurt a guy...but if he wanted to bad enough, then I believe that he would have regained the title from Braddock by a knockout, and then would have done a real number on Max Schmeling...being pumped up to stick it up the Nazis asses.(I'm not considering Schmeling a Nazi)..

 

Good, well articulated reply. Enjoyable and interesting discussion. Our views, and the reasons behind them are securely established. I'm going to sit back now, and wait to see what others have to say about this.

 

Me too. Nice chat.

 

This content is protected