That seems like a really long time to never defend the heavyweight title or fight at all especially for that time. Why the long layoff? If that a record for a champion to hold on to a title without defending?
No. Joe Louis didn't defend it from March 1942 to June 1946. Jack Dempsey didn't defend it from September 1923 to September 1926. Jess Willard didn't defend it from March 1916 to July 1919. Jack Johnson didn't defend it from July 1910 to July 1912. Braddock was actually signed to defend against Max Schmeling in 1936 in New York but then Braddock pulled out complaining of an injury. The fight was verbally agreed to be rescheduled and take place in May 1937. But Braddock was offered a deal he couldn't refuse (like 10 percent of all Joe's purses for every defense he made of the title if he happened to win it) and agreed to defend against Joe Louis in June 1937. Schmeling still came by ship back to the U.S. and weighed in for the fight at the stadium where he was supposed to fight Braddock. But, of course, Braddock wasn't there. A couple weeks later, Braddock lost the title to Louis. And Louis made 25 title defenses ... and Braddock got a cut of all of them.
I suspect that Braddock was looking for the biggest possible pay day to cash out on. He tried to win against Louis to his credit, but he picked his only title defense, in such a way that he would be comfortable if he lost.
Wow never knew that. Another reason Joe went broke. Although I don’t think it would have mattered. When u squander money u squander it now matter how much or little u make.
Braddock certainly did try to win against Louis, incredibly brave effort and one helluva chin on display. It’s actually a very good fight for as long as it lasted - but among all other punches, the Louis right hand that put an already well damaged Braddock out was something else - and it took that very type of ATG punch to finally see the Cinderella Man off. That 10% cut on Louis’ future defences was criminal though -
I thought I read somewhere (I'll have to dig it up) that Braddock did not end up getting all 25 title defense money from Louis, they came to some agreement after Louis' reign was going on for a long time.
As far as I'm concerned, the guy is a crook for what he did to Joe Louis. He knew if he defended it against a Schmeling caliber fighter, he'd lose. He knew if he fought Baer again, he'd lose. He only defended when he had to and even then charged a king's ransom for it.
In Joe Louis's autobiography he says that he never gave a cut of his winnings to Braddock. Says that the cut came from his managers share (if I'm remembering correctly). Not sure if that lasted through all the title defenses though...
My understanding is that the 10% cut was not 10% of Louis’ purse, but 10% of promoter Mike Jacob’s’ earnings.
Yes - a slice of all Jacobs' profits from heavyweight title bouts for the next 10 years. It wasn't long before he was suing Jacobs for short-changing him. https://ibb.co/Pr1NYSS
Wasn't there a bout that was changed from an exibiton to a real one by the NYSAC? Not really a "real real" defence to be fair but technically he i think he did. Just checked and it was vs Johnny Davis in '44.