The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

Yes he was a diamond in the rough. I see a man there who definitely would have been an ATG light heavyweight and cruiser. And if he had been around in 1988, he would have moved up to heavyweight and had a trilogy with prime Mike Tyson.

 

Braddock would lay waste to the modern day heavyweight division.

 

Bump.

 

Do we have a source on this statement?

 

I get it that Braddock is one of the weakest lineal heavyweight champions, but we still have to take the facts into account.

He literally went into his ultimately successful title run, with one of the weakest hands in the history of the division.

Something else about him must have stacked up I guess.

To navigate the path that he did, he must have had some exceptional fundamentals.

Let's face it, he did better against Louis, than Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling (second effort), Lewis, or Conn (second effort).

I am not saying that he was a misunderstood ATG, but there was clearly some substance to him!

 

Jim Braddock had enough skills. Enough to knock down the next heavyweight champion, who would rule the division for 12 years, in the first round. Jim Braddock was not a spectacular boxer.

 

I don’t know how skillful of a fighter Braddock was (did anyone seriously make a claim that he was a master craftsman or just put together a video showing he had some skills that maybe had been underappreciated?) but he was good enough to become heavyweight champion of the world.

That counts for something. Lot of guys didn’t. Probably to include fighters who lost to Max who Klompton would argue were more ‘skillful.’ See where that got ‘em.

Because that’s how sports works. You have to be better than your opponent on the night (or day) you face them, and that’s what counts. I’m sure we can argue that a lot of Super Bowl champions and World Cup winners weren’t as good as some teams that didn’t win it that year, but those teams did what it took to win it and the others for whatever reason didn’t. Same in tennis or bowling or … boxing.

And since when is boxing a sport that’s always about skill? Lots of great fighters had other attributes — power, conditioning, speed, athleticism — than skill that made them better than most fighters they faced. I’m sure Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles could be said to have had more skill than Marciano, but we all know who won.

No, I’d say Jimmy did all right for himself.

 

very interesting discussion.

on the thread: I think klompton is misreading the point of the videos. ricky carmichael, the best motocross rider ever, said something like 'i'll watch the guy in last, maybe he does one thing i can learn from'

on braddock: he's one of the worst looking hw champs and i think baer either threw it or was injured. doesn't mean he sucked and couldn't fight, but hw champ is a high level to be graded against.

 

And then there are mental attributes. And luck.

 

I'd start worrying if Jackomano liked my posts !lol

 

I think they would all pop his balloon.

 

There would be balloons popped all right. And those balloons would belong to Holyfield and Qawi

 

Good point. This whole topic presupposes that mental strength and determination and resilience and durability and conditioning aren’t also skills.

They may not be things you can demonstrate on a Tik Tok video, but they are a very big part of the equation of success for a boxer, and to downplay those kind of says someone who does that really DKSAB (but thinks they know it all).

 

I mean, I clearly DKSAB, and even I know it. So yes, I agree.

 

LOL. Was talking about OP.