Wlad Klitchsko vs Buddy Baer primes

Its not just him, his brother looks way uncoordinated and wild punching on film too.
Adressing it humble, some of these fictive matchups appear chronological incompatible.

 

Bottom line is that Louis wasn't stopped by any of them. Wladimir was stopped by a few weak contenders. Rose Purrity was worse than Buddy Baer or Braddock.

 

I'd comfortably pick Braddock to outpoint Brewster too.

 

Exactly. That max baer vs galento bout on YouTube is shocking

 

Maybe this is what I mention it. Wlad would bomb out Braddock and B. Bear inside three rounds. Galento might not last a round, because he going to press it. How these three less than skilled boxers aged to floor Louis speaks to Luis lack of defense and balance.

Now comes the part where other posters get upset. Purity was a super durable rubber man type. He won when a young Wlad , who happened to be ill and was fighting in-front of his own town fans gassed out. If he had a better corner, he probably wins this fight, but he went for the KO vs a man who's very hard to stop and gassed. It was learning experience.

“I just let him punch himself out. I’m sure he would’ve knocked out a lot of guys before that. I just happened to take a good punch,” Puritty said years later. "I feel to this day that had he been more patient and boxed, he would’ve won."

After winning his next seven fights, Klitschko hoped to have a rematch with Puritty in Hamburg, Germany on March 18, 2000, but Puritty rejected the offer made by [url]Universum Box-Promotion[/url], Klitschko's management. Puritty lost to [url]Vitali Klitschko[/url], Wladimir's older brother, by an [url]eleventh-round TKO[/url] on December 8, 2001.

 

Baer KO 11

 

Why? Braddock lost 27 times and drew 3 times. Look who beat him! Brewster would wreck Braddock.

Jimmy was neither big, nor fast, nor strong, nor skilled. He was a tough journeyman who won the title from an apathetic Max Baer. It is possible than Baer tanked the fight, he lost three rounds for fouls ( Backhands and low blows ) and did not try at all. This was the 1930's...a time when boxing had issues with fixed fights, some of which ended on low blows. Baer was well paid for this fight. Braddock wasn't. And the odds were 10-1.

 

Not an easy fight - Buddy had size, some skills and some power - I think Vlad fights defensively keeping Buddy at bay with some fire and Takes Buddy out late like he did Thompson and McCline
If we are talking about the best version of Vlad but was Buddy as good as Corrie Sanders or Brewster - I think so, so no walk in the park

 

So you are making Purity looking good now? Sure, he was durable and so was Baer. Buddy was far more dangerous fighter with more power, bigger frame and comparable chin. No way that Wlad from Purrity fight would knock Buddy Baer out within 3 rounds.
Braddock was also extremely durable. Wlad didn't stop his smaller opponents quickly, he wouldn't do that to Braddock.

 

Prime Wlad stops Buddy late on.

 

You are woefully uneducated. He had 24 losses, and 4 draws for a start. Second, he spent the majority of the 20s starving, poverty stricken and injured due to the Great Depression. He physically wasn't able to get ready for fights. Similar situation to Jersey Joe.

Whilst he had the capabilities to train for fights and was healthy, he managed to beat Max Baer, John Henry Lewis, Tommy Farr and fought Joe Louis. He's a case of his prime being late in his career. Which you'd know if you knew about him and just have his Boxrec account.

 

LOL, okay just 24 losses then. My mistake. No, I didn't' check box rec to count his losses. That must have been you!

You hate to call fighters names, but he lost too many guys who were not very good, because he wasn't skilled. End of. Braddock had an amateur career. He wasn't green. Don't give me any crap, his opponents, for the most part, had the same problems with the Great Depression.

After Baer gave him the Championship, Braddock sat on it and didn't fight for two years. Then he made a business deal to fight Louis and 10% of his future purses.

Eyes test. Check yours if you think Braddock would defeat Brewster or any other ranked modern heavyweight. I'd pick the worst alphabet champions like Mike Bentt or Bruce Seldon to beat him. You are trying to prop up what is universally accepted as one of the top 5 worst heavyweight champions of all time.

 

Nah I'm just a sad ******* who knows his **** about LHWs.

This just isn't true.

No, they didn't. They weren't injured, they weren't all starving. And what amateur career? He didn't have a decorated one from my recollection. Only that he was an amateur when he met Gould.

You're barmey if you think Bentt beats him.

Yeah, just coz he's a poor lineal HW champion doesn't mean he's a bad fighter. His wasn't a natural HW for a start. And he is a damn-sight better than Corbett, Leon, Willard and Briggs.

You were propping up Purity in this very thread.

 

1 ) If you think Braddock has the skills to stand with top modern heavies you are insane. Like you said he's a blown-up light heavyweight. His problem is he had limited speed and power. He wasn't very defensive either. You can watch Braddock vs Loughran, Jimmy does not look good.

2 ) Do I really need to show you the records of the 24 people Braddock lost to? Come now. Braddock was on the card as the opponent, and lost often. End of.

3 ) I don't think Bennt was very good, but he could box and was a good amateur. That's enough to beat Braddock.

4 ) Braddock better than Willard or Corbett? Oh sure! Jimmy is absent on all time lists for a reason than they are not. Briggs would crush him by the way. You lost all credibility by saying that.

5 ) I wasn't propping up Purity other to say that he was very durable and if you punch yourself out, you can lost to him.

This thread is a joke. Wlad drills Buddy Bear.

PS: I checked, and Braddock is listed with more than 24 losses from other sources.