James J Braddock VS Floyd Patterson

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 19:11

and patterson has good stamina, and braddock ownt be able to wear him down because patterson will be wearing braddock down.

braddock had unbeleivable stamina around the time of the baer lewis lasky louis and farr fights... youve heard of homicide hall im sure? possibly the hardest camp a boxer had ever gone through.. braddock wasnt easily worn down.. i think a boxer that is quick and throwing alot of punches would get worn down easier then a guy like JJB who was not neccessarily throwing 200 punches a round, and could take many shots n not go down.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2005, 20:03

ok well how bout this,

floyd patterson outboxed james braddock for 15 rounds. period.

-patterson too much skill, and speed, and james braddock will be beaten to the punch the whole fight. plus patterson has a powerful left hook and could very well drop a bloody braddock.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:02

if floyd is standing at the end of 15 then ill give him a 3-1 chance only because i think braddock would ko him or lose by ud because of the fact that patterson was a gifted fighter with alot of speed.

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:03

Woulda coulda shoulda. Potential and what ifs should not be used when rating a fighter. Actual results and accomplishments should. Braddock lost to so many bums because he had a bad right hand?
Jack Sharkey and Jake Lamotta had chronic problems withj both hands all their careers but adapted their fighting styes to win. Thats what great fighters do, they adapt. they finds ways to win despite physical adversity.
both Sharkey and LaMotta relied heavily on body punching, thats why though they were both physically stronger than most in their divisions they scored so little ko's. In this era Flloyd Mayweather Jr. has very bad hands and punches through pain almost to the point of crying. But he continues to be dominate because he is truly a great fighter. everyone knows the story of Greb fighting much of his career half blind. Much less known is a the story of Bill Miske, heavyweight contender from the 20's who had a very good career although suffering from Bright's Disease, a very taxing and painful disease of the kidney now known as nephritis.

How much better could Braddock have been with a better right hand?
Maybe alot, maybe it would have made no difference. We could only speculate.
what we do know is that he was beaten ALOT. He had only 3 noteworthy wins and he shocked the world by beating a clowning champion. Why the shock?
Because everyone back then knew what alot of people in this forum cant seem to accept. Jimmy Brradock was a mediocre fighter.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:05

Jack Sharkey and Jake Lamotta had chronic problems withj both hands all their careers but adapted their fighting styes to adapt. was it broken before just about every fight

theone · Post by **theone** » 17 Sep 2005, 21:06

they both suffered injuries to both hands early in their careers and never got over them.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 17 Sep 2005, 22:04

Greb had chronic hand problems as did Gene Tunney and guess who else... Tommy Loughran, the guy that made Braddock look like a monkey. Check out a photo of Leo Lomski's hands sometime. They look like gnarled, twisted tree roots he broke them so often... He beat Braddock as well.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 17 Sep 2005, 22:40

at the end of the day though the list put together by theone is a joke.braddock was much better than most on that list.also the list by klompton as to who would have beaten baer on the night.why would they?
you just want to tarnish braddocks accomplishments.most of the fighters wouldn't have had the nerve to beat baer at that time.just because you don't rate braddock it has to be baer was so poor.doesn't always work that way.i know theone and klompton also like tag team action but it doesn't make you right either.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:07

Im not discrediting anything. The fact that Im stating is that Braddock wasnt that good of a fighter, Baer wasnt that great of a champion and he didnt take it seriously which is why Braddock won. Yes, it had a lot more to do with what Baer DIDNT do than what Braddock did. The men I listed all would have been able to do what Braddock did because they all had at least as much ability as he did. They simply had the misfortune of not being in the ring with an unfocused and overconfident fighter who pissed away his title. Im not speaking out of turn and just because it isnt Greb we are talking about doesnt mean I dont know what im saying. Ive seen what exists on Braddock in terms of film, read the books and the newspaper reports (Rory take a look at the back of DeLisa book and youll see my name in the credits for helping him *spelled wrong, but its there*). Ive also seen most of the footage on most of the guys we are talking about and read about them too. As stated before if Braddock was so great then why was he such an underdog in the Baer fight. It certainly wasnt because Baer was seen as unbeatable. He wasnt. Its true that fighters back then had more losses but Braddock had a LOT more losses than any great or even good fighter should be able to boast. I dont want to hear about hand troubles and being down and out because that same story could apply to TONS of fighters during the depression. The reason it gets repeated ad naseum about Braddock is because he rose above that and won the title. The whole point of the Cinderella man legend up until this last year when it became distorted by hollywood was that an everyman like Braddock won the title by being in the right place at the right time after so many false starts. His pedigree for better or worse had already been long established before he went in against Baer. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. With Braddock it was fool me once, twice, three times, four, five, six, and on and on and on. He was a Buster Douglas, an Oliver McCall, and a Leon Spinks. The only one of those three Im remotely convinced he would beat is Spinks...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:14

Ok well sounds like we got the straight talk on his fighting ability. But let me tell you he could make one hell of pasta salad.

Oh and when he decided to put the title on the line he went out and found perhaps the best fighter the world has ever seen to fight for the title. No playing games just tested himself against the best and gave us Joe Louis.

He straightened out the whole HW picture for next decade by fighting the best fighter in the world at the time.

Can we agree on this bit of history? Or will this start another debate?

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:37

dalek wrote:at the end of the day though the list put together by theone is a joke.braddock was much better than most on that list.also the list by klompton as to who would have beaten baer on the night.why would they?
you just want to tarnish braddocks accomplishments.most of the fighters wouldn't have had the nerve to beat baer at that time.just because you don't rate braddock it has to be baer was so poor.doesn't always work that way.i know theone and klompton also like tag team action but it doesn't make you right either.

AMENNN... and those guys didnt go into fights with broken hands...

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:38

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok well sounds like we got the straight talk on his fighting ability. But let me tell you he could make one hell of pasta salad.

Oh and when he decided to put the title on the line he went out and found perhaps the best fighter the world has ever seen to fight for the title. No playing games just tested himself against the best and gave us Joe Louis.

He straightened out the whole HW picture for next decade by fighting the best fighter in the world at the time.

Can we agree on this bit of history? Or will this start another debate?

nope i agree.. nice to see you and delak bring some sense here. and BB too

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 17 Sep 2005, 23:40

I dont want to hear about hand troubles and being down and out because that same story could apply to TONS of fighters during the depression.

yeah? and how many of them became world heavyweight champion....

and by the way he would be able to handle mcall and douglas and spinks and i dont wanna hear that being a stretch.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 01:22

you just want to tarnish braddocks accomplishments.

Accomplishment. singular not plural.

the list put together by theone is a joke.braddock was much better than most on that list.

Once again, how do you come to this conclusion? Certainly not by his record.
All you do is nit pick every short comings of these fighters while explaining away all of Braddocks.

AMENNN... and those guys didnt go into fights with broken hands...

Of coarse to justify your illogical Braddock worship his injurys must have been worse than any fighter in boxing history.

nd by the way he would be able to handle mcall and douglas and spinks and i dont wanna hear that being a stretch.

The nile river doesnt stretch as far. how can any serious boxing fan reason that Braddock would have handled Douglas and Mcall? Two heavyweights who out weigh him by around 30 to 40 pounds? Not only was Douglas much bigger, but he was faster, hit harder and was a much better boxer. the hard hitting and Steel jawed McCall would have pounded him into oblivion. Braddock does have a legit shot of beating Spinks, but he also has plenty of loses to spink level fighters.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 18 Sep 2005, 03:02

klompton wrote:Im not discrediting anything. The fact that Im stating is that Braddock wasnt that good of a fighter, Baer wasnt that great of a champion and he didnt take it seriously which is why Braddock won. Yes, it had a lot more to do with what Baer DIDNT do than what Braddock did. The men I listed all would have been able to do what Braddock did because they all had at least as much ability as he did. They simply had the misfortune of not being in the ring with an unfocused and overconfident fighter who pissed away his title. Im not speaking out of turn and just because it isnt Greb we are talking about doesnt mean I dont know what im saying. Ive seen what exists on Braddock in terms of film, read the books and the newspaper reports (Rory take a look at the back of DeLisa book and youll see my name in the credits for helping him *spelled wrong, but its there*). Ive also seen most of the footage on most of the guys we are talking about and read about them too. As stated before if Braddock was so great then why was he such an underdog in the Baer fight. It certainly wasnt because Baer was seen as unbeatable. He wasnt. Its true that fighters back then had more losses but Braddock had a LOT more losses than any great or even good fighter should be able to boast. I dont want to hear about hand troubles and being down and out because that same story could apply to TONS of fighters during the depression. The reason it gets repeated ad naseum about Braddock is because he rose above that and won the title. The whole point of the Cinderella man legend up until this last year when it became distorted by hollywood was that an everyman like Braddock won the title by being in the right place at the right time after so many false starts. His pedigree for better or worse had already been long established before he went in against Baer. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. With Braddock it was fool me once, twice, three times, four, five, six, and on and on and on. He was a Buster Douglas, an Oliver McCall, and a Leon Spinks. The only one of those three Im remotely convinced he would beat is Spinks...

i never said braddock was a great fighter.if you look earlier in the thread you'll even see i went for patterson.whether or not some of the fighters had similar ability to braddock is beside the point.you don't always win titles on ability alone.guts,determination and belief also come into play.theres no way you can say those fighters possessed all these qualities equal to braddock.a lot of fighters would have entered that ring not really believing they could beat max.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 08:45

guts,determination and belief also come into play.theres no way you can say those fighters possessed all these qualities equal to braddock.a lot of fighters would have entered that ring not really believing they could beat max.

how do you know how courageous and determined those fighters were? Why would you assume braddock had more guts than they did? Some of the fighters had already fought and beat Max, why would they be scared to enter the ring with him again?
What about braddock only defending his belt against Louis if he got $500,000 and ten percent of Louis's purses for the next ten years? Sounds like someone who knew he was going to lose and needing some security.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 18 Sep 2005, 09:11

well thats exactly the point m8.you've answered your own question.you can't know.therefore to say they would have beaten baer the same night is very speculative.they could have folded for all you know.braddock rose to the occasion when it mattered most.not every fighter when given an opportunity is able to grasp it as well you know.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 18 Sep 2005, 09:43

AMENNN... and those guys didnt go into fights with broken hands...

Of coarse to justify your illogical Braddock worship his injurys must have been worse than any fighter in boxing history.

did those 3 fighters you mention go into every fight they had for several years with a broken hand..im not saying there hasnt been worse im saying its worse then those 3 hand injurys because they werent broken before fights.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 18 Sep 2005, 09:46

Louis if he got $500,000 and ten percent of Louis's purses for the next ten years?

braddock would have received alot of money to go to berlin and fight schmelling.... the deal that gould struck with jacobs to have JACOBS purses for the next 10 years was made after braddock already made it clear he would rather fight louis.

gould and braddock had to take jacobs to court cause the bastard wouldnt pay

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 10:24

he deal that gould struck with jacobs to have JACOBS purses for the next 10 years was made after braddock already made it clear he would rather fight louis.
I stand corrected. your absolutly right on the above point.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 10:44

he deal that gould struck with jacobs to have JACOBS purses for the next 10 years was made after braddock already made it clear he would rather fight louis.
the point i meant you were right about was it was Jacobs purse not Louis. Braddock expressed no interest in fighting Joe until after the offer was made.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2005, 13:06

And a very good fiscal decision it was.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 18 Sep 2005, 13:16

theone wrote:he deal that gould struck with jacobs to have JACOBS purses for the next 10 years was made after braddock already made it clear he would rather fight louis.
the point i meant you were right about was it was Jacobs purse not Louis. Braddock expressed no interest in fighting Joe until after the offer was made.

Thank you for pointing that out

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2005, 14:12

Sounds like we agree that he was helpful in putting things straight for boxing as well as his own bank account. So it was a win win situation for boxers and fans.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Sep 2005, 16:14

i remember seeing in a movie when mike jacobs gave braddock that deal to give louis the title shot, it wasnt as easy as it looked.

finally mike said "come on jim, we both know your next defense will be your last." and then he made the deal with braddock.