BoxRec

He beat Jimmy McLarnin, Mickey Walker and Young Corbett III. Won the World title at WW, a share of the title at MW, and was ranked and beat several top LHW's. In 1937, it was said according to some news sources, that he appeared to have scored a clear knockout of world champion and future Hall of Famer Marcel Thil in Paris. Thil was counted out by the referee after apparently being hit with a right to the jaw, but after consulting with ringside judges the KO was reversed to a DQ loss for a low blow. I've seen the film and it appears inconclusive.

He was very good, but not one of the greats. On the plus side, as mentioned he did have some big wins. However, he also had quite a few losses. Some were to great fighters, but some were not.

Seamus wrote:He beat Jimmy McLarnin, Mickey Walker and Young Corbett III. Won the World title at WW, a share of the title at MW, and was ranked and beat several top LHW's. In 1937, it was said according to some news sources, that he appeared to have scored a clear knockout of world champion and future Hall of Famer Marcel Thil in Paris. Thil was counted out by the referee after apparently being hit with a right to the jaw, but after consulting with ringside judges the KO was reversed to a DQ loss for a low blow. I've seen the film and it appears inconclusive.

A lot higher than most, on account of the fact the majority wouldn't know how to spell his name, much less adequately appreciate his under-rated career.

Btw, not saying this wipes them from the slate, but it was a hell of a lot easier to acquire losses on your record, regardless of your ability, in Brouillard's day than it was in the later eras of Leonard, De La Hoya, & Mayweather. A hell of a lot easier.

He was a double champion, but few have heard of him.

He was the only fighter to beat Jimmy McLarnin where McLarnin did not later avenge the loss.

It is standard procedure for a European fighter to claim a foul as he is being knocked out by a visiting US or foreign fighter.

George Carpentier tried that when he lost to Battling Siki, but they still gave Siki the title.
Earlier Carpentier was successful when he worked that in his bout with Gunboat Smith.

Thil tried that in his US fight with Apostoli but it didn't work in the US.]

Usually a loss on a foul by a US fighter visiting Europe means the US fighter scored a knockout or was about to.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Seamus wrote:He beat Jimmy McLarnin, Mickey Walker and Young Corbett III. Won the World title at WW, a share of the title at MW, and was ranked and beat several top LHW's. In 1937, it was said according to some news sources, that he appeared to have scored a clear knockout of world champion and future Hall of Famer Marcel Thil in Paris. Thil was counted out by the referee after apparently being hit with a right to the jaw, but after consulting with ringside judges the KO was reversed to a DQ loss for a low blow. I've seen the film and it appears inconclusive.

A lot higher than most, on account of the fact the majority wouldn't know how to spell his name, much less adequately appreciate his under-rated career.

Btw, not saying this wipes them from the slate, but it was a hell of a lot easier to acquire losses on your record, regardless of your ability, in Brouillard's day than it was in the later eras of Leonard, De La Hoya, & Mayweather. A hell of a lot easier.

True, guys often fought much more often so mathematically they are going to have more losses. Taking fights on short notices will lead to some upset losses. Still there some great fighters who won more fights and had better winning percentages against good competition. Don't mean to rip the guy. He just was not an All-Time Great.

That's not to say he isn't underrated. You don't hear much about him at all.

I've never seen Brouillard fight. I'll have to check too see what's available.

On another note, I just don't accept that mathematics and winning percentages mean very much at all. Especially in an era where people didn't see their earning potential as being linked to such numbers.

In a competition like a league (round robin) and every competitor competes against the others then you can make some statistical analysis... In boxing it's at best meaningless and at worst will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Anyone know any details of Brouillard's 2nd to last fight. He had Lloyd Marshall down for a 9 count but lost the decision.

Ezzard wrote:
I just don't accept that mathematics and winning percentages mean very much at all. Especially in an era where people didn't see their earning potential as being linked to such numbers.

In a competition like a league (round robin) and every competitor competes against the others then you can make some statistical analysis... In boxing it's at best meaningless and at worst will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Good comment.

Benny Leonard was stopped twice in his first 12 fights.

Fritzie Zivic had more losses than anyone.
Henry Armstrong said Zivic was the best fighter he fought in his entire career.
Both Billy Conn and Ray Robinson said they learned more from fighting Zivic than they would have learned from years of fighting other fighters.

Brouillard was a double champion.

Nothing more needs to be said.

granberry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:
I just don't accept that mathematics and winning percentages mean very much at all. Especially in an era where people didn't see their earning potential as being linked to such numbers.

In a competition like a league (round robin) and every competitor competes against the others then you can make some statistical analysis... In boxing it's at best meaningless and at worst will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Good comment.

Benny Leonard was stopped twice in his first 12 fights.

Fritzie Zivic had more losses than anyone.
Henry Armstrong said Zivic was the best fighter he fought in his entire career.
Both Billy Conn and Ray Robinson said they learned more from fighting Zivic than they would have learned from years of fighting other fighters.

I think both these posts are right on the money.

these are exactly the points I've been making on these boards for years...

" years at the TOP, Champion or Contender, Longeivity with wins and competitive losses against other greats... make for GREAT Fighters! "

achievement alone ISN'T accurate, as many never got their proper chances and equally fighters in the last 30 years have to be measured in this context - and as stated above, losses years ago were "not only going to happen with the amount of fights fighters took part in," they were EXPECTED and detered NOT the Top Men!

Brouillard was/is a great!

He was only stopped once in 139 fights, and it was a corner stoppage.

Ezzard wrote:I've never seen Brouillard fight. I'll have to check too see what's available.

On another note, I just don't accept that mathematics and winning percentages mean very much at all. Especially in an era where people didn't see their earning potential as being linked to such numbers.

In a competition like a league (round robin) and every competitor competes against the others then you can make some statistical analysis... In boxing it's at best meaningless and at worst will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

I did not mean to say that if one guy guy has a worse winning % than another guy that he was automatically worse. There are plenty of medicore guys who fought weak opponents most of their career and racked up high winning percentage.
Obviously you have to look at factors like the quality of competition that a fighter fought during his career, and the stages of a fighter career when he fought someone. (And the stage of his opponetns career for that matter.)

What I am saying is that you can't just brush off every loss that each fighter has and only count the wins when rating a fighter. If you are only going to count the wins, then Brouillard had a helluva career. What does that make all of the guys that beat Brouillard? Are they all legends? After all they beat Brouillard! Remember you can't count their losses either!

Again I'm not trying to rip Broulliard. He was obviously very good. You just have to factor in the wins, losses, and the circumstances of those fights.

Here's a Time article about Brouillard winning the MW title from Ben Jeby.

When Mickey Walker retired as middle-weight champion, his title went, after an elimination tournament last winter, to a lean, stubborn, hard-muscled New Yorker named Ben Jeby, who in all his fights showed much more courage than finesse. Last week in New York Jeby had his first chance to defend his championship against a really high-grade opponent. Barrel-chested Lou Brouillard, of Worcester, Mass., much the same type fighter except that he is lefthanded, came running out of his corner in the first round and planted two lefts on a chin that Jeby's previous opponents have found impervious to punishment. Jeby backed away and clinched. By the end of the round, Brouillard was breathing hard but Jeby had absorbed half a dozen more lefts to the face and there was a small cut on his left cheek.

By the end of the sixth round, the cut on Jeby's cheek was an ugly purple welt, his large, hooked nose was bleeding and everyone in the crowd of 12,000 except his managers knew he was a beaten man. At the beginning of the seventh, they counseled him, cruelly, to "go on in." Stumbling, Jeby tried to obey. Brouillard, still fresh after six rounds of arduous butchery, smashed his ribs and then his face with jolting lefts. Jeby stepped backwards, staggered, slipped slowly down to one knee, then fell flat on the canvas, face down. When Referee Pete Hartley's count reached eight, he dragged himself to one knee, then pitched forward while the count went on to ten.

The middleweight championship he won last week is the second title that ferocious, thick-shouldered Lou Brouillard has held in the two and a half years that he has been a professional fisticuffer. Born in Saint Eugene. Quebec, he was moved to Danielson, Conn., when he was nine. Three years ago. a peaceable weaver in a Connecticut cotton mill, he went to watch an amateur boxing tournament, substituted in a lightweight bout and won it. After six months as an amateur, he turned professional. When an opponent broke two ribs on his right side, he tried boxing lefthanded. Says he: "When the ribs are cured, I can't go back to fighting right-handed again. Je reste gaucher." Shortly after his first professional bout, Lou Brouillard won the welterweight (147 Ib.) championship, lost it three months later to Jackie Fields. Now 22 and 160 lb., he plans to win the light heavyweight championship from Maxie Rosenbloom next year. When he goes to a strange town to fight, Champion Brouillard makes a habit of selecting favorable sites for lunch-wagons. He owns one at Worcester, Mass., expects soon to have a chain.

Seamus wrote:Anyone know any details of Brouillard's 2nd to last fight. He had Lloyd Marshall down for a 9 count but lost the decision.

Shamus Baby,
You'd-we'd be extremely fortunate if Harry B. Smith of the San Francisco Chronicle gave his attention to this fight as he was onna the bestis boxing writers who ever lived! Give me some time to check cause ya got me all intrigued!

HARRY B. SMITH
$3.95 - New York Times - Dec 15, 1951
SAN MATEO, Calif., Dec.14 (ITP) -Harry B. Smith, dean of West Coast sports editors, died here to night in Mills Memorial Hospital. ...

cohn-ing tower by art cohen sports editor
Oakland Tribune | Oakland, California | Thursday, December 07, 1939 | Page 33

..an hour later, in the main event. brouillard floored marshall twice, once for the count of eight. marshall, in turn, never hit brouillard hard enough to jolt him. yet, marshall won the nod and didn't hear single squawk. repeat, how important is knockdown? brouillard, of course, is has-been. and marshall's never-was and never-will-be. there was day when the likes of marshall would not have lasted two heats with brouillard but that was eight or nine years ago. lou's all through now, just hollow shell of the man who won two world titles and licked such champions as jimmy mclarnin, young corbett and mickey walker. now it can be told. just how far brouillard has slipped.
Thursday, December 07, 1939 Oakland, California
Oakland Tribune
...to pay more than hew couple nights ago to see ancient, washed-up lou brouillard huff puff for ten desultory rounds against lloyd marshall, an agony with...see ancient, washed-up lou brouillard huff puff for ten desultory rounds against lloyd marshall, an agony with china chin, would be interested in paying...the gallery wwu "its uolidi. al thfe uljl pilccs. illz llousc ttc'jld "ct we grossed and marsalli would have lost his 39-suit wardrobe....
Saturday, December 09, 1939 Oakland, California
The gist of it was Lou was washed up and much older than his 1911 birth date due to someone checking the T.S. Andrews record book, but had Lloyd down twice. Flat on his back in the 6th for an 8 count and again in the 7th in a quick flash, Lloyds glove touching canvas, both done with lefts.
"woozy, palpably frightened, but ready 4 biz after an 8 count."
Other than that the fight reads like a clinch fest stinker with Jack Dempsey ringside being referred to as the star of the show.

Thanks for that, slakka.

The writer was sure wrong about Lloyd Marshall's potential.

Right, thats why I included his name for hate mail!

Early in Marshall's career, but he still had already beaten some good fighters. Hitting Brouillard with little effect was nothing new though.

Interesting reading, however I'm with alp on this one. He's worthy of great respect, but I don't see him rising to the level of first level greatness, thought some writers obviously were impressed with his performances. And you can make the case that on occasion he fought some brilliant fights no doubt.....OK make that many occasions.

granberry wrote:Thanks for that, slakka.

The writer was sure wrong about Lloyd Marshall's potential.

You should check out what he has to say about Apostoli!

Just read Harry B. Smith-San Fran Chronicle account of Brouillard vs Lloyd Marshall, great boxing writer that Smith! Anywho, its basicly more of the same account detailed in the Oakland pap above. Harry has Lou left hooking Marshall to the canvas in the 6th for a nine count, with Lloyd looking very woosy but surviving to re-dominate the fight and win clearly. The expert eye of Smith also notes that Lou is, by this time, a washed up middle who saw his prime as a welter many years prior.
I must say at the end of the day with history rating Lloyd
so well, old washed up Lou gets credit for damn ne'er koing him!!

Here's a short report from the Montreal Gazette about Brouillard's victory over the outstanding Young Corbett III.



8000 See Brouillard Defeat Young Corbett
San Francisco, July 4.-(AP)-Lou Brouillard.Worcester.Mass.French Canadian, pounded his way to a conclusive victory 10-round decision here today over Young Corbett III of Fresno, Calif. before a holiday crowd of about 8000.

The Massachusetts boy, former welterweight and middleweight champion, gave Corbett, one time king of the welters, a terrific body beating, and won without difficulty. He had Corbett in distress several times in the closing rounds with his two fisted attack to the mid-section.

The Associated Press score sheet gave Brouillard seven of the rounds with two for Corbett and one even. There were no knock-downs. Corbett weighed 155 pounds and Brouillard 157.

He sure beat enough great fighters.

He has been shortchanged by history.

I can't think of a worse case.

He was a double champion!