Page 1 of 1
Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 23 Jan 2016, 22:26
by Ambling Alp II
Neither Jimmy Braddock and Jersey Joe Walcott had impressive win/loss records. Just how highly should each be rated?
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 24 Jan 2016, 01:28
by BoxBuzz
Tony Galento would make mince meat out of eitter of deez bumz.
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 25 Jan 2016, 11:45
by Ambling Alp II
littleton wrote:Jimmy Braddock knocked out master boxer Jimmy Slattery as a lightheavyweight, which got him a shot at Loughran's lightheavyweight title.
As a heavyweight Jimmy Braddock beat high rated contender Art Lasky
gave champion Max Baer a boxing lesson to win the heavyweight title
knocked Joe Louis down in the first round of their title fight
then outpointed Tommy Farr, who had just given Joe Louis a tough 15 round fight.
Jersey Joe Walcott knocked out Ezzard Charles with a single left hook to win the heavyweight title
knocked Marciano down in the first round of his title defense against Marciano
knocked an older Joe Louis down twice in their first fight and once in their second fight.
Yes they each had good results. However, they each also had several bad results. Where does that put each of them when you weight it all?
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 25 Jan 2016, 19:10
by BoxBuzz
I honestly believe that both are better than their respective records would indicate.
I would rate Braddock only in the LHW division though he did campaign for a while in HW division with success.
In my mind he is a genuine LHW that simply moved up.....and his success in the HW division simply puts a gloss on his LHW status.
Along the lines of Foster, Spinks, Conn etc. And yes...he dabbled more in the HW division......but that's still my take.
Jersey Joe.....only a HW.......and probably not as highly rated a HW as Braddock would be LHW. But his best performances were better than his overall record.
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 27 Jan 2016, 16:46
by Ambling Alp II
Braddock had 31 fights in which he weighed at least 180. He had 34 in which his opponent weighed at least 180. I think it's fair to say he more than dabbled at heavyweight.
Braddock does belong in the lower level of fighters who were heavyweight champions. (Not WBS titleholders).
You argue that he was better than Hart, Willard, Carnera, andLeon Spinks. Burns and Johansson would be a stretch.
Walcott belongs in the mid-level with fighters such as Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Scmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Patterson, Norton.
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 27 Jan 2016, 20:07
by BoxBuzz
Ambling Alp II wrote:Braddock had 31 fights in which he weighed at least 180. He had 34 in which his opponent weighed at least 180. I think it's fair to say he more than dabbled at heavyweight.
Braddock does belong in the lower level of fighters who were heavyweight champions. (Not WBS titleholders).
You argue that he was better than Hart, Willard, Carnera, andLeon Spinks. Burns and Johansson would be a stretch.
Walcott belongs in the mid-level with fighters such as Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Scmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Patterson, Norton.
Though I am aware of the old 180 HW limit, I was sort of contextually imagineering todays weights.....Which is why I classify Braddock as a LHW.
I get where you are coming from....and just want to clarify my take, and why we perhaps differ.
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 28 Jan 2016, 11:49
by Ambling Alp II
I picked 180 just because Braddock was clearly not a light heavyweight in those fights.
By today's rules, Braddock could have fought as a cruiserweight. I don't go by todays' standards; a fighter can go only go by the rules of the time.
Really, going by today's standards, Walcott could have been a cruiserweight as well. He only had two fights in whole career over 200. He had four where he could have been under the Super Middleweight limit.
Walcott looked like he was way over 200, but somehow he wasn't.
Should we not count Walcott as a heavyweight either?
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 29 Jan 2016, 20:41
by BoxBuzz
So at the end of the day.....Braddock is a Heavyweight, and thus all assessments must be done with this as the benchmark?
Re: Braddock and Walcott
Posted: 30 Jan 2016, 18:55
by Ambling Alp II
I think you could rate him at light heavy and you can rate him at heavyweight. He had quite a few fights at each.
Like many guys, he can be rated in multiple weight classes.