The actual skill level of Jim Braddock

I read an interview once with Eddie Futch. He was asked what his favourite game plan was. He said it was the one he used for Micheal Spinks on Dwight Qawi and he had learned that from the jimmy Braddock v Max Baer fight. He said fighters like Baer who set everything on landing a right like Max did were very clever and that there was a pattern of moves and traps that went into place before he could pull the trigger. He said one particular trick was max knew a fighter instinctively steps forward when he feels a rope touch his back. He would circle a guy in such a distracting way that he could get a guy step forward from the rope onto a right hand without him knowing -but that Braddock had diffused this by jabbing Baer at just that exact moment to entirely throw the counter. Max could not understand how he couldn't get off with his right. And it was down to Braddock.

 

Isn't the definition of a journeyman someone you meet on the way to a championship?
Wouldn't a lineal champion not be a journeyman by definition?

Augustus is less accomplished than Braddock.
He wasn't a lineal champion.
And even calling him a journeyman doesn't quite do him justice, let alone Braddock.

At any rate, putting that aside, all I did was make a video showing Braddocks moments of skill.
This guy felt the need to dedicate tons of man hours in producing a crappy video and a crappy essay to counter it.

The interesting thing is that there is a direct correlation between the growth of my channel, and his disdain towards me.
He certainly didn't give a damn when I didn't have subscribers and views.
Now that I'm growing something, he feels jealous and bitter.

 

It just seems odd referring to a champion as a journeyman.
And the Louis bout, along with Joes testimonial leads one to believe that he was more than a one time lucky guy.

At the same time you have his spotty record.
Could it be that he started as a journeyman, but developed into a legit world class fighter?
The tail end of his career, and other variables seem to indicate that it is possibly so.

In regards to the Baer fight, I see what you mean.
Especially when you contrast that performance with the Carnera one.
But here is this burning question:
Why did Louis show the same tentativeness as Max did against Braddock?
They were both unusually tame, unusually kept at bay, and unusually honest.
Were they both under the influence of the same conspiratorial out of the ring influences?
Or, as I would personally presume, is Braddock a truly worthy competitor with enough strength, IQ, and ability to earn their respect?

I personally think Baer wanted to have fun and make a show out of the early portion of the fight, mixed with a genuine respect for his opponent. In hindsight, especially with the Cinderella Story film, we know that Braddock came to fight that night. But Baer may have been caught off guard by Braddocks tunnel vision focus, and let the fight slip away from him.

What is certain is that from the very first round, Braddock was beating Baer to the exchanges, landing better cleaner punches.
He was matching and nullifying Baers intensity. That is just the reality of what unfolded.

 

I'd assume he'd have less pressure, having just been defeated by Schmeling.

I think it's too coincidental that two dynamite punchers, Baer and Louis, both fought unusually tentatively against the same opponent.
Braddock knocking Louis down (when Joe tried to close things early) goes to show why.

The punches that Braddock landed in the Baer fight were snapping throughout the arena.
The guy hit with some mustard, and had the timing and the style to catch a puncher off balance.

It's tempting to want to see Baer pounce on him like he did Carnera.
He tries that from the first round, and it wasn't working out.
Braddock came to fight. Grit, skill, and all.

 

So its safe to say that you would not pick Braddock to beat a prime Evander Holyfield???

 

Many, many heavyweights would have beaten that version of Baer he was awful ,and Braddock wasn't much better.

 

What are you yammering about??? If I've ever saw an old time fighter that I KNOW DEEP DOWN IN MY SOUL would have been the conqueror of Anthony Joshua, this one is it!

 

Less pressure challenging for the worlds heavyweight title?

 

I don't see many stiff jabs from Braddock in that fight. In fact he complained that he couldn't use his left hand effectively because he had developed arthritis in his left arm after the Baer fight and was being injected to alleviate it right up to the fight.

 

Don't know what you're looking at, but I see a guy who would have handed a prime Riddick Bowe his one and only defeat by brutal and agonizing KO!

 

Great thread.

Wish there was more of this in the forum.

No matter what side of the fence people fall on there's some good debate here.

As it is, I've not seen enough of Braddock to comment.

 

There you have it.

Braddock was helped by a ref ( the same guy who docked three points from Max Baer in the Braddock vs Baer title fight )

Had the ref NOT taken a point away from Farr you have a different result.

The other fight to look at with the same ref ( Ref's scored fights back then and controlled them ) is Braddock vs Baer. Did Max really deserve to lose three points? What that fight on the level?

Scoring and fixed fights were a problem in the 1930's.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Is there film of the fight available for viewing in its entirety? If the answer is no ,then no definitive conclusion can be drawn as to the rightful winner ,imo.