15 Rounds Heavyweight Bout
"The Cinderella Man" would use his height and reach to outbox Burns behind his jabs, right hands and counterpunches to take a decision. What do you guys think and who do you got?
Jim Braddock vs. Tommy Burns
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15105
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Jim Braddock vs. Tommy Burns
Maybe Braddock would be able to use his height and reach. Burns very good at darting in and out without being nailed. doubtful Burns could stop Braddick, who had a very good chin. Would almost for sure go the distance. Braddock was probably not big enough of a puncher to stop Burns. Braddock was very inconsistent, and you never knew how well he would perform.
-
tiny_acres
- Middleweight
- Posts: 9431
- Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43
Re: Jim Braddock vs. Tommy Burns
Burns by a comfortable decision.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Jim Braddock vs. Tommy Burns
Burns is perhaps the most underrated heavyweight champion of all time. He's largely dismissed today because of his size, but in his day plenty of men 190-200+ pounds weren't able to keep up with him.
His legacy was destroyed the moment he lost to Jack Johnson and everybody dismissed him strictly because he lost to a black man period. He was better than history has suggested.
He was a solid middleweight who skipped light heavyweight altogether and won the heavyweight title, challenging the world and not drawing the color line. His best win was defeating Philadelphia Jack O'Brien in defense of the title, and he easily could've claimed O'Brien's light heavyweight title because both men were under 176 but Burns said he didn't need it or want it.
Much as I like Jim Braddock he is a difficult one to gauge. As a light heavyweight he lost pretty comfortably to ATG Tommy Loughran. Then he had the horrible heavyweight record for years before turning his career around with wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky, John Henry Lewis and winning the heavyweight title from Max Baer thank Jesus Christ Almighty God in the "greatest upset since Corbett defeated Sullivan" as the press said at the time. Then he lost a semi-competitive fight with Joe Louis, and was basically gifted a win over Tommy Farr and retired.
I guess it depends which version of Braddock are we talking about? The one who had the win over Max Baer or the one who lost to Tommy Loughran? Both were considered his "prime" or "best" outings, even when losing. Are we talking about the Tommy Burns who defeated O'Brien? Or the Burns who lost to Johnson?
I'd say it's perhaps a 50/50 contest. Burns I think was more skilled and quicker. Braddock had a helluva right hand and wasn't too shabby with his feet either. Both had great chins. Perhaps Burns edges it over 15 rounds, although Braddock was a lot bigger of a man than you'd think. There's an old picture of him with Rocky Marciano and he dwarfs The Rock so the size difference definitely would have been quite apparent to all observers.
I think if they fought a trilogy it's possible Braddock comes out on top. He did lose to John Henry Lewis only to defeat him years later. I guess the question boils down to who had the most wins against solid fighters who still kind of stand the test of time. Does the win over Lewis mean more than the win over O'Brien? I guess that's for the public to decide.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
His legacy was destroyed the moment he lost to Jack Johnson and everybody dismissed him strictly because he lost to a black man period. He was better than history has suggested.
He was a solid middleweight who skipped light heavyweight altogether and won the heavyweight title, challenging the world and not drawing the color line. His best win was defeating Philadelphia Jack O'Brien in defense of the title, and he easily could've claimed O'Brien's light heavyweight title because both men were under 176 but Burns said he didn't need it or want it.
Much as I like Jim Braddock he is a difficult one to gauge. As a light heavyweight he lost pretty comfortably to ATG Tommy Loughran. Then he had the horrible heavyweight record for years before turning his career around with wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky, John Henry Lewis and winning the heavyweight title from Max Baer thank Jesus Christ Almighty God in the "greatest upset since Corbett defeated Sullivan" as the press said at the time. Then he lost a semi-competitive fight with Joe Louis, and was basically gifted a win over Tommy Farr and retired.
I guess it depends which version of Braddock are we talking about? The one who had the win over Max Baer or the one who lost to Tommy Loughran? Both were considered his "prime" or "best" outings, even when losing. Are we talking about the Tommy Burns who defeated O'Brien? Or the Burns who lost to Johnson?
I'd say it's perhaps a 50/50 contest. Burns I think was more skilled and quicker. Braddock had a helluva right hand and wasn't too shabby with his feet either. Both had great chins. Perhaps Burns edges it over 15 rounds, although Braddock was a lot bigger of a man than you'd think. There's an old picture of him with Rocky Marciano and he dwarfs The Rock so the size difference definitely would have been quite apparent to all observers.
I think if they fought a trilogy it's possible Braddock comes out on top. He did lose to John Henry Lewis only to defeat him years later. I guess the question boils down to who had the most wins against solid fighters who still kind of stand the test of time. Does the win over Lewis mean more than the win over O'Brien? I guess that's for the public to decide.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all