James J Braddock VS Floyd Patterson

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 09:52

klompton wrote:On that night:

Max Schmeling (the guy Braddock wouldnt defend his title against)
Primo Carnera
Tommy Farr
Johnny Risko
Tony Galento
Jack Peterson
Larry Gains
Len Harvey
Walter Neusel
Paolino Uzcudan
King Levinsky among others that could have accomplished what Braddock did that not ON that night.

the only people that coulda won in this night is max schmelling and maybe tommy farr or paolino uzcudan.

but if baer already beat schmelling, then how come the night that he fights braddock he has to all of the sudden become a D fighter and lose to the likes of people he beat?

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 09:54

theone wrote:I dont think putting Canera over Braddock is any kind of stretch at all. beisdes upseting Baer all of Braddocks most impressive wins were against light heavy weights. His victory over Corn Griffith is sooo overrated. Griffith had only fought 11 times when he fought Braddock. john Henry Lewis was a soon to be light heavyweight great and Lasky an okay fighter was in the middle of a five fight winless streak when Braddock beat him.
Caneras win over some quality fighters like Paulino Uzcudun and Tommy Lougran (one of many Braddock conquerors) were never suspect, and his win over Sharkey overtime has been excepted as legit. Canara would have just used his size and strenght to club out a descision win against Braddock.
Now im not saying Canera was good. He was at best, like Braddock a mediocre fighter who had some good moments. In a battle between to such fighters I'll take the bigger mediocre fighter.

carnera would never have amounted to anythign if 3/4 of his fights werent fixed.. so how can a guy that got KO and knocked down 12 times by a guy that braddock beat, all of the sudden find the talent to beat braddock? big heavy hitters were made for braddock because of his endurance his stamina his heart and his chin.... that is a ridiculous statement to say that primo carnera would have beaten braddock and is a better fihter.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 10:27

theone wrote:I never said Baer was a push over. He may be one of the top 25 heavies of all time; so if Braddock is also, then whats the big deal? By the way, all of the fighters below fought in the 30's and were better than Braddock.

Joe Louis
Max Baer-still better, eventhough he was upset that night.
Tommy Farr- was robbed
Palolino Uzcudun
max schmeling
Jack sharkey
bob Pastor
tony Galento
Abe Simon
Arturo Godoy
Lou Nova
Nathan Mann
Buddy Baer
Primo Carnera
Young stribling
Lee savold
Al Mccoy
Lem Franklin
tuffy Griffith
Ernie Shaaf

well braddock beat 3 people on this list which is funny.... ill give you- louis baer schmelling and maybe uzcudun.

tuffy griffith- proved to be a joke when he came over from the west after fighting a bunch of clubfighters to pad his record. he came over and got KO by braddock in 2 rounds.... so what did he do to get ranked ahead of braddock?

lem franklin/nathan mann/buddy baer/abe simon/bob pastor/lee savold/al mccoy- those names must be a joke, noone will attest to these guys being betetr then braddock that is a JOKE.

tony galento- tough as nails but got his ass whooped by baer and louis and never won a title...

ernie schaaf died in 1933 so how in gods name did he get on the list???? what did he do in those 3 years that got him higher then braddock? id love to know....

lou nova- didnt start his career until 1936... beat max baer. lost to maxie rosenbloom. his 2 big fights of the 30's. congrats to him?

arturo godoy- beat tony galento in the 30's... and that WAS IT... he didnt fight anyone in the 30's and lost to louis twice in a row.. his career wasnt as accomplished as braddock.

young stribling- retired in 1933.......he was past his prime and his biggest win in the 30's... his only big win in the 30's came against tuffy griffith..who braddock KO in 2 rounds.

primo carnera- he won a fixed fight against jack sharkey.. then proved his worth when he suffered the saddest defeat of any heavyweight "champ" in history.. carnera was a joke led by the mafia.

tomy farr- lost to braddock. his greatest claim to fame was almost beating joe louis..spent most of his time fighting for the welsch heavyweight title.... lost ot braddock louis baer nouva and clarence burman all in a row.

paulo uzcudan- okay if we're talking "lifetime" acheivement this might change but we're not... paulo lost EVERY big fight he had in the 30's except a 20 rounder against max baer that baer just fought to please dempsey.. paulo lost to carnera 2 times.. louis...loughran..levinsky..walker..schaff..schmelling.. i dont even know why people rank this guy so highley he lost about every big fight he ever fought....

so that leaves- Louis Sharkey Baer and Schmelling.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Sep 2005, 11:48

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:floyd is no tommy farr or corn griffin or jimmy slattery. floyd is a much better boxer with more power and with possibly the fastest hands in heavyweight history.

if floyd outboxed machen,chuvalo, quarry, ellis, and bonevena, why cant he do that to braddock??

BB, I agree Patterson wins, but you are really under-rating Braddock. Braddock was nothing like George Chuvalo . . how you equated Braddock, who was a fast stick and move artist, with a plodding slugger-body puncher like Chuvalo shows you need to see more Braddock on film.

Rory-on the other hand you are really under-rating and dismissing the opponents above just by going on boxrec and trying to splurge their records. Lou Nova and Godoy are two off that list for starters who I'd feel comfortable picking over Braddock.

And Stribling died in 1932, he didn't retire. He was something like 30 years old.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 12:55

my mistake there.. i dont know anythign on young stribling.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:04

First of all the challenge you set fourth was to name twenty fighters in the 30's who were better than Braddock. not who had the best one night.
I already stated why i dont think you could rank him above Canara, and i stand by that, so:

You said-
lem franklin/nathan mann/buddy baer/abe simon/bob pastor/lee savold/al mccoy- those names must be a joke, noone will attest to these guys being better then braddock that is a JOKE

A joke? akll these guys werw top contending heavyweights in the decade.
if braddock was such a great fighter that the thought of any of these fighters beating him was a joke, than why the whole cinderella man thing?

tony galento- tough as nails but got his ass whooped by baer and louis and never won a title...

But he knocked out Nova who owned Baer. He would have been much too tough for braddock.

ernie schaaf died in 1933 so how in gods name did he get on the list???? what did he do in those 3 years that got him higher then braddock? id love to know....

By winning 32 fights with only six defeats in those 3 years while braddock could only must 14 wins and had 18 losses for the decade. Among Shaafs victorys were Uzcdun,Max Baer,lougran twice,Young stribling,Tony Galento and the one and only Braddock.

lou nova- didnt start his career until 1936... beat max baer. lost to maxie rosenbloom. his 2 big fights of the 30's. congrats to him?

The decade didnt end until 1940, and in those four years he should he was a much better fighter than Braddock was except for one night.

arturo godoy- beat tony galento in the 30's... and that WAS IT... he didnt fight anyone in the 30's and lost to louis twice in a row.. his career wasnt as accomplished as braddock.

Huh? Godoy won over 50 fights and lost only about 6. He was one of Louis's hardest title defenses.

young stribling- retired in 1933.......he was past his prime and his biggest win in the 30's... his only big win in the 30's came against tuffy griffith..who braddock KO in 2 rounds.

In those 3 years 34 wins and only 3 losses. Braddock, except for his lucky night, could not compare.

tomy farr- lost to braddock. his greatest claim to fame was almost beating joe louis..spent most of his time fighting for the welsch heavyweight title.... lost ot braddock louis baer nouva and clarence burman all in a row

One fight does not a decade make. Buster douglas beat Tyson, shoud he be ranked as better? Overall record for the decade farr was better.

paulo uzcudan- okay if we're talking "lifetime" acheivement this might change but we're not... paulo lost EVERY big fight he had in the 30's except a 20 rounder against max baer that baer just fought to please dempsey.. paulo lost to carnera 2 times.. louis...loughran..levinsky..walker..schaff..schmelling.. i dont even know why people rank this guy so highley he lost about every big fight he ever fought....

And Braddock lost more than half the fights he fought. For the decade Uzcudun was without a doubt the more successful heavyweight.

I left Tuffy Griffith for last because this one I would concede. I went on what i already knew and didnt do any research on him. I have know idea why I erroneously thought he had a better career tha braddock. He was almost as bad, but since he lost to braddock, the cinderella man deserves to be ranked higher than him.

Ok so 19 fighters not 20 better than braddock in the 30's. You Win!

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:18

look im not going to go back and forth and have the same arguement over n over, okay i went a little far by saying they were jokes, but in my mind braddock is way ahead of them, sure they were contenders but they never really amounted to champions, how many of them even fought for th3e title? i dont know im j/w...

tony galento..ive never known of a single fighter that was too tough for braddock...you cant play the whole he beat him who lost to him so he would beat him game here.. galento was a small bruiser who was really tough... guys who fought with power n toughness were made for braddock, as i said before because he never went down n he never let you hit him with your hardest...he was cute like that.

as for godoy and farr... your ranking them over braddock basically because they put up a decent fight against louis... and you exaggerated that i said braddock beat him, becasue i said his greatest claim to fame was almost beating louis....

braddock did lose alot of fights in the 30's, but those can mostly be attributed to a broken hand that he continuously redamaged... im not saying he would have beaten everyone he ever faced, but his record would have been much better.... but anyway braddock won just about every big fight he had in the 30's except for 1 to joe louis. paulo uzcudan beat alot of scrubs but in his "big fights" he lost to carnera twice tommy loughran joe louis mickey walker king levinsky ernie schaaf and max schmelling. his big win came against max baer.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:21

as for lou nova.. max baer said himself that towards the end of his career that he lost his killer instinct..i would imagine after the joe louis fight, after he had been obliterated... lou nova said himself that a real max baer would have knocked him out.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:44

dempseyfire i am one of the few ones that DONT underate braddock.
i think guys like quarry and peak jimmy ellis would have beat braddock.

it may seem harsh, but braddocks not the cinderell man for nothing. he will always be known as not a great fighter who pulled out the fight of a lifetime to beat a guy who decided to be a clown that night. i mean max baer is barely a top 25 heavyweight yet everyone calls james braddock a huge huge upset. doesnt that tell u something about brraddockss ability????

u cant win fights on heart and toughness alone. braddock was a good fighter IMO and a true inspiration but

IMO braddock is just another lou nova, tommy farr, arturo godoy, buddy baer, abe simon, tony galento, paulino uzcuden, etc

use the braddock-tommy farr fight as an example , they both fought on even terms

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:47

rory mate just dissect the careers of that laughable list he's put together.it really is amusing.most of them wouldn't have lived with braddock.it really is utter bollocks.lol.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Sep 2005, 14:31

Spirit, will to win, desire, motivation, inspiration all these things are part of every fighter and can not be quantifed to the last dubloon, which is what is being attempted here.

There are over-achievers that you just can't figure out how the hell they got their feats accomplished and some where you just shake your head and say "why did they fail?"

So this is so subjective. You can quantify and say what should be, but it is pretty much impossible to say what will or would be. Otherwise I would have a much better prediction record than I do now. I tend to try to predict based on the empirical things. Current record, displayed skills, historical temperment. And lately I'm comin up with some pretty lame outcomes. Spirit is unquantifiable.

You can lay out some names that achieved more than might have been expected of them. Marciano comes to mind. Many of his success were raw will. Braddock's win over Baer was will. Pryor over Arguello was will.

Sometimes guys come to the fight with fewer skills and tools and manage to beat the odds. The ones that do it spectacularly or chronicaly are remembered forever.

LaMotta was one willfull fighter on a more consistent basis than even Braddock. When truly great skills come in the same package as truly great will we then see the Super Nova's of the game. Ali, Louis, Johnson, Marciano, Holmes, Monzon, Duran, Hearns, Sanchez, Nelson just to name a few.

I would have to say that we can not predict how the great fighter would really do against one another because of the intangible "spirit" aspect. We can do a pretty good job of rating skills but not predicting outcomes.

It's actually more interesting to work the "what ifs" with the Braddocks of this world because they are the hardest to calculate because of the inconsistencies.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Sep 2005, 15:16

But many people seem to look at Braddock, his un-inspiring musculature, and his hard luck story and assume he was a Marciano-like boxer. He wasn't. IN his light HW days he was known as a SLICK, fast, boxer-puncher.
Even against Louis one can see that an old, inactive Braddock was a very good boxer-fine jab, good defense. Very sneaky.

Braddock didn't beat Baer b/c of sheer will. The reason he outpointed Max was skill. Max could be outboxed by tough, good chinned guys with technique. Braddock fit that mould and he basically gave Max a boxing lesson and painted him with the left all night.
Simply put, you don't beat John Henry Lewis without being a VERY good boxer.

Now that being said, I seem him as being in the upper echelon of 1930s light HWs-Hws but not in the very elite.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Sep 2005, 15:22

Hey Dempsey I agree with you on this completely, I see no mutual exclusivity in our two statements. I was just trying to get the attention of those who truly underate the guy on skill to consider other qualities.

As I read what I said I have overstated "inconsistencies" I suppose. But in his case it was not skill inconsistencies I was referring to but health.
(His hands were always healing)

Sometimes writing can not explain certain subtle nuances as well as simple conversation can.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 17 Sep 2005, 15:22

Rory you crack me up. You dissect these guys records based on what they did and didnt do, who they beat and who they lost to, yet you seem to forget that Braddock was not only beaten in his career but was beaten many, many, many times by fighters that werent as good as anyone on either of the lists that were posted for you. Just because Braddock or Baer beat one of those fighters doesnt mean he owned them. They could come back and beat him on the same off night he had against Braddock. Which is the point that you miss. Braddock beat Baer because he was able to raise his modest "A" game slightly on a night when Baer, who was never great, was performing sub-par. Thus why should I assume that anyone who was even remotely world class or at least on Braddocks "C" class level if not better could not have done the same thing that night?

And for the record: Carnera was better than Braddock and head to head at their best Id pick Carnera over Braddock any day.

Its like everyone is saying. Baer wasnt that great but Braddock was a LOT worse which is why his accomplishment has become something of a boxing legend.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Sep 2005, 15:28

There we go with the Carnera rumpswabbing again. May need a lot more Lysol than I thought to clear up this stench.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:34

Who else has seen the Farr-Braddock fight? I have never heard that Farr was robbed and have never seen the fight myself. If the win over Farr wasn't legit, that does hurt Braddock's ranking a little bit. Farr was probably the second best heavyweight that Braddock beat.

Regarding the huge difference of opinon regarding how good Braddock was, I do think not rating him in the top 75 of all-time heavyweights is a little unfair to Braddock. The win over Baer, the respectable showing against Louis, and a few decent wins puts him in the top 75.

However, there is no way he is in the top 30 either. A guy that won less than 2/3 of his fights and only one win against a heavyweight who is in the top 100 can't rated that good.
I think he is probably around #60.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:37

klompton wrote:Rory you crack me up. You dissect these guys records based on what they did and didnt do, who they beat and who they lost to, yet you seem to forget that Braddock was not only beaten in his career but was beaten many, many, many times by fighters that werent as good as anyone on either of the lists that were posted for you. Just because Braddock or Baer beat one of those fighters doesnt mean he owned them. They could come back and beat him on the same off night he had against Braddock. Which is the point that you miss. Braddock beat Baer because he was able to raise his modest "A" game slightly on a night when Baer, who was never great, was performing sub-par. Thus why should I assume that anyone who was even remotely world class or at least on Braddocks "C" class level if not better could not have done the same thing that night?

And for the record: Carnera was better than Braddock and head to head at their best Id pick Carnera over Braddock any day.

Its like everyone is saying. Baer wasnt that great but Braddock was a LOT worse which is why his accomplishment has become something of a boxing legend.

actually his accomplishment is so great because he was past his prime, max baer was in the middle of his prime.. he just beat carnera worse then any other heavyweight title fight every.. he was responsible for 2 deaths in the ring... braddock had barely been back fighter for a year, and baer is a top 20 heavyweight. some people disagree but i dont think its a stretch to see him put at 17 or 18 ive seen people put him in there top 25.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:38

Ambling Alp wrote:However, there is no way he is in the top 30 either. A guy that won less than 2/3 of his fights and only one win against a heavyweight who is in the top 100 can't rated that good.
I think he is probably around #60.

ok so jh lewis art lasky max baer tommy farr.... they arent top 100?

and name the 60 ahead of him.. you pulled that one out of your arse

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:39

ACTUALLY ,

braddock was defintely not past his prime. he didnt even have a prime before that fight he was losing to so many journeyman.

its safe to say braddock was at his peak against baer. he was only 29 when he fought baer!!!!!!

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:42

braddocks "prime" came at the lgith heavyweight division around the time he fought for the championship... baer was young and still the best around... braddock okay i guess you could say that since it was his biggest win ever, i guess you could say it was his prime, although he was a better fighter when he was younger.. he just had unbelivable heart, he got stronger.. and he always had a good chin... so i guess you could say he wasnt totally past his prime

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2005, 18:05

rory wrote

although he was a better fighter when he was younger

then why did he lose to club fighters????

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 18:51

the losing started mostly after the loughran fight.. he broke his hand. and continued to fight although it never healed... as for the beginning of his career..its not that uncommon for a good fighter to start off with some loses... we cant all be rocky's.. though i wish mine was....

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 17 Sep 2005, 18:55

Rory McCloskey wrote:actually his accomplishment is so great because he was past his prime, max baer was in the middle of his prime.. he just beat carnera worse then any other heavyweight title fight every.. he was responsible for 2 deaths in the ring... braddock had barely been back fighter for a year, and baer is a top 20 heavyweight. some people disagree but i dont think its a stretch to see him put at 17 or 18 ive seen people put him in there top 25.

So his prime was when he fought Loughran for the title and put up one of the worst exhibitions of skill you will ever see of a title challenger? That doesnt say that much for Braddocks prime then does it? Have you seen this fight Rory?

Baer beat Carnera worse than any other HW title fight in history? Thats a joke I hope.

Baer was not responsible for the deaths of two people. He killed Frankie Campbell. The other death is an obvious reference to Ernie Schaaf who died after his KO loss to who? Carnera. Many people who dont know better today think this was residual effect of the Baer fight. Thats because most people have only seen the highlite version of that fight which only shows Carnera landing a jab that snaps Schaafs head back and KOs him. What they dont see is that Carnera was snapping Schaafs head back with that same ramrod jab all night long. They also dont know that it was later discovered that his death was the result of fighting while suffering from Meningitis. Meningitis packs deadlier punch than Baer ever did.

I feel Rory's overrating of Braddocks ability based on his affection for the man (nothing wrong with appreciating a fighter, just dont let it cloud your judgement) is rapidly eroding.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2005, 18:58

i acutally rate braddock in my top 50 heavyweights.

- i think braddock was just another tommy farr, godoy, nova, simon, etc
but i rate him over them because when his chance came, he made the most of it, and unlike those guys he was a heavyweight champion.

whhy did braddock get a shot against baer anyways????

- as for hte patterson fight, its a horrible matchup for braddock. cuase as skillfull and fast as braddock is, patterson is even more skillful and fast. braddock will always be beaten to the punch in there fight and be outboxed, and he will not be able to cope with floyd pattersons handspeed and floyd has the power to knockout braddock. braddock will get pummeled and outboxed for 15 rounds and after 10 rounds, he wont be able to do much because he has taken to much punishment. if he tries to outbox patterson, he will get outboxed. patterson has too much talent. and patterson has good stamina, and braddock ownt be able to wear him down because patterson will be wearing braddock down.

- its one of those fights where braddock doesnt have enough talent or speed to outbox floyd, and he doesnt have enough power to knock floyd out.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 19:07

well first off, okay i can accept im wrong about the schaaf thing then thank you for bringing that to my attention, i always heard it made out that the viscous beating baer gave him was responsible... jimmy was at his prime AROUND the title fight with loughran, 1 loss doesnt ruin your prime.. as i said he had many unfortunate things happen to him, he was in a car accident.. he broke his hand and kept fighting... we never know what braddock would have accomplished if not for these things.... my affection for braddock has grown even more since joining this sight, but it has also brought me more down to earth..ive always loved braddock so much..for at least 7 years now.. i always read abotu him and didnt know much abotu anything else.. i even ranked him top 15 at one time when i first came

woops... my affection for braddock does affect the way i judge close boughts, but i try my hardest to not let it cloud my vision... braddock will only be remembered for 1 fight his whole career, but with the sheer magnitude of that fight, i guess it could be worse..

BB he got a shot against baer because he beat several top contenders at the time... but i wont be a total fool and say it was all him.... if mike jacobs wasnt totally against the garden then he might have let louis fight baer.. and since carnera was fighting louis they were both eliminated.. and max schmelling refused to fight braddock because he thought jjb was a bum (this is part of the reason jjb didnt defend his title against max, someone brought this up... and because jjb didnt want to see the title go to germany because of the whole nazi thing going on there he woudl rather fight an american)

althgouth thats true i dont think its fair to say it was qall luck either he beat 2 top contenders and a contender that was well on his way to becoming a top contender