Rahman has wins over corrie saunders, the draw with tua, and wins over decent contenders like monte barrett. I say he wins, upsetting lewis is much bigger than upsetting baer.
Braddock was far more classy and had the better story, he was no great, but he is greater than Rahman IMO.
Lewis is undoubtedly better than Baer but look at how they won. Ramhan landed an arguably lucky punch against Lewis while Braddock beat Baer on the score cards. For what it is worth (perhaps not much) Ramhan was an underachiever who got lucky, while Braddock was an overachiever who made thigs happen against the odds.
yeah but rahmans performances against tua, saunders and barrett tell me that he's a good fighter. It shows he isnt the one hit wonder everyone thinks he is.
I dont think that Ramhan was not a one hit wonder. I dont think that Braddock was either. John Henry Lewis and Art Lasky were ranked heavyweight names when Braddock beat them. He got the fight with Baer on the strength of those wins. He went on to beat Tommy Farr after he lost to Louis.
Although I have more respect for Braddock's toughness and ability to overcome great odds both out of the ring and in, I think Rahman's resume is just a tad more solid. He has far less defeats, and some wins that are either equal or slightly greater than Braddocks.
Braddock between Griffin and Faar is horribely underated. He's by far the greater, better heavyweight and if you include his LHW career (Why would you chose to exclude it given the terms of the question?) he leaves Rahman in the dust.
He did break his hand an extraordinary number of times, rebroke it, Jesus...guy got in to lose, you know? Got in there with no chance, LITERALLY couldn't win becase of his physicaly condition, still had a lot of fight in him as he showed against Louis.
Rahman his knockout win over possibly a prime Lewis (top 10 heavy maybe top 5) is one of the biggest in heavyweight history. While Braddock did beat Baer he never fought Schmeling who should have got a title shot after defeating Louis.