BoxRec

cannonball wrote:Bruno KO 1

Love to be your bookie. Your prediction would sink faster than any cannonball, that's for sure.

Did someone really say that Braddock was without skills? Is that how he beat Baer? He had some skills friends.....he really did. Yes he had a great fight that night, but that's because he had it in him. I think I was miffed about this in 05.....and I'm nothing if not consistent.

Bruno wins this. I mean your comparing a fighter from the 1930s to a fighter from the 90s. Bruno was much bigger hit harder, and about as fast. Braddock would of been laid out around the 8th round.
There is no way you can compare a 1920s athlete with an athlete from the 1980s unless it's Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis or someone of that ilk.

Duran Fan wrote:Bruno wins this. I mean your comparing a fighter from the 1930s to a fighter from the 90s. Bruno was much bigger hit harder, and about as fast. Braddock would of been laid out around the 8th round.
There is no way you can compare a 1920s athlete with an athlete from the 1980s unless it's Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis or someone of that ilk.

Telling, in my view, that the only man picking Bruno is more interested in the, "Modern Day Fighter Owns" philosophy than actually stating what, if anything, Bruno does better than Braddock.

Of course, Bruno didn't do anything better than Braddock &, shock-horror, he'd lose the fight accordingly.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Duran Fan wrote:Bruno wins this. I mean your comparing a fighter from the 1930s to a fighter from the 90s. Bruno was much bigger hit harder, and about as fast. Braddock would of been laid out around the 8th round.
There is no way you can compare a 1920s athlete with an athlete from the 1980s unless it's Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis or someone of that ilk.

Telling, in my view, that the only man picking Bruno is more interested in the, "Modern Day Fighter Owns" philosophy than actually stating what, if anything, Bruno does better than Braddock.

Of course, Bruno didn't do anything better than Braddock &, shock-horror, he'd lose the fight accordingly.

This is an interesting bias. I agree on one hand that things "evolve"....and perhaps the "best of the best" are better today than the greats of the past due to better nutrition regimens, a greater science regarding the best ways to build stamina, and technique. Strategy is a different thing, and I'm not sure your "time frame" makes any difference. So with the natural "evolution" accounted for, I have to say there are also some distinct disadvantages to todays time frame that I believe are substantial and should be considered.

I believe the following applies to the "typical" fighter of today, and is highly responsible for creating a gap between the current "best of the best" which MAY be better than their "ancestors"...vs the typical contemporary fighter which overall were MUCH better in the past. And this is huge it's CULTURAL issues. There are simply THOUSANDS of additional distractions that have been added to the minefield of life that today's fighters must deal with. And though there has been improvement in nutrition...the AVERAGE person is WAY worse off (See the movie SUPERSIZE ME). So the fast foods are a huge minefield. Also, drugs, gambling, and of course the oldest distraction in the world which have been ramped up via technology (lips breasts and hips lol),...and so many more things money can buy today than it could years ago. (I'm not blaming the money alone per se....just making my point regarding the infinitely larger variety of distractions the money can buy. Also boxing is less socially appealing and is no longer attracting the best athletes as it once did.

I think this alone explains why overall the fight game may well not have evolved with the possible exception of the creme de la creme.....I do think there are a few souls out there that can parley all the advancements AND have the discipline not to be distracted. I've given this matter a lot of thought and I've commented on it countless times....and I really think this explains why this may be the one sport that is on average NOT producing better competitors. But some of today's group like Floyd and Manny may well be as good as the game has ever produced.

Oh and the way I see it... Braddock puts a whuppin on Bruno. Braddock knew what it was like to be hungry, and would put it all out there to win....Bruno wouldn't want to work that hard to do what he would have to do to put someone like Braddock away. Not to mention Braddock is pretty under rated in the skills dept.

Better technique? You've got to be kidding?

Stamina? 1930s fighters blow away today's fighters when it comes to stamina and workrate over an entire fight.

Dempsey....I think you missed a lot of what I said. Overall...I agree with your tiny snippet of a comment. lol

This seems to be a tossup. Bruno had the big edge in power, but Braddock had the better defense, chin and stamina.
If Braddock survives the first few rounds, he would probably win. However, he was an inconsistent fighter who lost to several fighters worse than Bruno. If he puts it all together, he would probably win.

dempseyfire wrote:Better technique? You've got to be kidding?

Stamina? 1930s fighters blow away today's fighters when it comes to stamina and workrate over an entire fight.

I didn't get through all the usual froth and bubbles, but is that what he said? Better technique and better stamina today?

If so, he understands boxing even less than I thought possible...

To the point.....For the best of the best...it can be done...the options are available. But the distractions tend to keep that from happening.

Regarding the sub plot....Somewhere in the constitution you will find that you have rights.....but you have to read through all the froth and bubbles.

Which is why they likely won't be there for many more generations.

BoxBuzz wrote:To the point.....For the best of the best...it can be done...the options are available. But the distractions tend to keep that from happening.

Regarding the sub plot....Somewhere in the constitution you will find that you have rights.....but you have to read through all the froth and bubbles.

Which is why they likely won't be there for many more generations.

Imagine likening that banal shite to the brilliant prose put together by the founding fathers.

Whatever will you come out with next?

BoxBuzz wrote:Dempsey....I think you missed a lot of what I said. Overall...I agree with your tiny snippet of a comment. lol

I understand your total point but you still put it forth as a given that fighters today have access to superior training (despite other external factors), which I vehemently disagree with.

Darling....I'm one of those founding fathers so pipe down about it.

Dempsey.....So the advancement of the knowledge of what to do and how most effectively to do it...as it relates to nutrition, and endurance training or technique development is lost on everyone? Or simply does not exist except in my feeble mind? Because this is a sport that was already honed to the absolute state of the art and has been rendered static? If so just say so and I'll accept it....because I know you wouldn't mislead me.

I often get caught up in imagination due to the awful ravages of dementia. Ugly thing dementia....it strikes in such insidious ways. I suppose this means that any of the greats from back in the day could not and would not be able to turn in better performances if exposed to what I imagine to be "advances" which don't exist. Too bad all the "good ones" were born back then.....if only they had been seeded in this generation boxing wouldn't be devolving.

Or...is it just the damn culture of diversions and distractions? Hey look at that Lamborghini! And that blazin' hot babe drivin it! Sorry I gotta go!

BoxBuzz wrote:Darling....I'm one of those founding fathers so pipe down about it.

Surely Bazza was the alpha and the omega. He certainly expected us to bow down before his knowledge of all thing pugilistic.

Do not take the name of thy bazza in vain. You're barely worthy of making reference of him within the forum.

Bradddock easily out boxes Bruno cuz Braddock was old school.
and Not a muscle bound twit either.

BoxBuzz wrote:Do not take the name of thy bazza in vain. You're barely worthy of making reference of him within the forum.

Good point. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Baz.

BoxBuzz wrote:Darling....I'm one of those founding fathers so pipe down about it.

Dempsey.....So the advancement of the knowledge of what to do and how most effectively to do it...as it relates to nutrition, and endurance training or technique development is lost on everyone? Or simply does not exist except in my feeble mind? Because this is a sport that was already honed to the absolute state of the art and has been rendered static? If so just say so and I'll accept it....because I know you wouldn't mislead me.

I often get caught up in imagination due to the awful ravages of dementia. Ugly thing dementia....it strikes in such insidious ways. I suppose this means that any of the greats from back in the day could not and would not be able to turn in better performances if exposed to what I imagine to be "advances" which don't exist. Too bad all the "good ones" were born back then.....if only they had been seeded in this generation boxing wouldn't be devolving.

Or...is it just the damn culture of diversions and distractions? Hey look at that Lamborghini! And that blazin' hot babe drivin it! Sorry I gotta go!

Don't you get Box Buzz? In the 1920's everybody was better than today. All fighters today suck except for the guys who beat De La Hoya. Frank Bruno never beat De La Hoya, hell he couldn't even beat the feebl-minded Mike Tyson, who was apparently doing every drug known to man before his fights and had to be woken up from his heroin binges to fight. Therefore Braddock was a "harder man" because he fought during the Great Depression and once KO'd a man after eating some laftover hash with his hands, no fork, HIS HANDS.

Braddock KO1

Diamond WEAPON wrote: Don't you get Box Buzz? In the 1920's everybody was better than today. All fighters today suck except for the guys who beat De La Hoya. Frank Bruno never beat De La Hoya, hell he couldn't even beat the feebl-minded Mike Tyson, who was apparently doing every drug known to man before his fights and had to be woken up from his heroin binges to fight. Therefore Braddock was a "harder man" because he fought during the Great Depression and once KO'd a man after eating some laftover hash with his hands, no fork, HIS HANDS.

Braddock KO1

Darling wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Darling....I'm one of those founding fathers so pipe down about it.

Surely Bazza was the alpha and the omega. He certainly expected us to bow down before his knowledge of all thing pugilistic.

The internet is my temple

Boxrec is my prayer-mat

Bazza is my idol

precisely.

Everyone likes to make fun of Bruno... but he wasnt as bad as people make out.... he was beaten by big punchers.
He was even dominating Lewis for periods, as well as Witherspoon/Crusher .... his chin let him down in his big fights.... and Braddock wouldnt have had the power to really hurt Frank.
Against Tyson Bruno was simply overwhelmed.... but Braddock didnt have Tysons agression or power.
Sure guys were alot smaller in Braddocks era.... but Braddock is no Joe Louis (who would easily take out Bruno), Jimmy was a small guy who was average.

Bruno KO in 6

In some ways Bruno's a bit like Baer.....Except Baer was better.

They were similar in many ways. Big punchers, wild. However there was a crucial difference; Baer had a much better chin. Against Braddock it might not matter much. Unless Bruno tired late and Braddock would nail him with a barrage of punches.
There sems to be two keys to this fight:
1. Can Braddock surivie the early rounds? He did have a great chin. It took Louis 8 rounds and that was after a 2 year absence. So there is a good chance that Braddock does survive the early Bruno onslaught.

2. Which Braddcok shows up? He could be a good fighter sometimes and mediocre at other times. If the good Braddock shows up, he probably wins by decision.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:Everyone likes to make fun of Bruno... but he wasnt as bad as people make out.... he was beaten by big punchers.
He was even dominating Lewis for periods, as well as Witherspoon/Crusher .... his chin let him down in his big fights.... and Braddock wouldnt have had the power to really hurt Frank.
Against Tyson Bruno was simply overwhelmed.... but Braddock didnt have Tysons agression or power.
Sure guys were alot smaller in Braddocks era.... but Braddock is no Joe Louis (who would easily take out Bruno), Jimmy was a small guy who was average.

Bruno KO in 6

Bruno was actually a pretty darn good fighter. Unfortunately most only seem to remember the fights where he foundered late and seem to forget the solid wins over world class HWs during his career. While I think Braddock wouldn't have been easy, I'd favor Bruno in this one.