James J. Braddock vs Jack Dempsey

[Jmangho]

The Cinderella Man vs The Manassa Mauler.

Who wins?

I think this could really go either way, while giving the SLIGHTEST edge to Braddock.

They are in their primes for this fight.

[HomicideHenry]

Problem with Braddock is his sheer inconsistency; he's certainly better than his record suggests but what can we do? If we project too much then we're absolutely at fault for making him out to be something that he simply wasn't.

His career can be broken up into three periods: The Light Heavyweight, The Desolate Years, and The Cinderella Man. At 175 pounds he was certainly good enough to fight for the world title but was not good enough to beat Tommy Loughran. He also lost to Maxie Rosenbloom as a light heavyweight. 1926-1929 was the first era.

1930-1933 was the desolate years. He went 10-17-1 with 2 No Contests. Maybe the best opponent be beat was 32-19-6 Bob Roper in that time. Yes he oftentimes fought hurt, or at the last minute, or with an empty stomach fatigued by looking for odd jobs but.... How much of that can you use as an excuse when Dempsey lived just as poorly as a hobo from age 15 all the way through his time in New York and beyond?

1934-1938, is what everyone remembers him for. The succession of wins against men NOBODY thought he could defeat: Corn Griffin (who in reality was nothing), John Henry Lewis, Art Lasky, and of course Max Baer. But are we really talking about an era in Heavyweight boxing where the contenders and champions were really all that? No. It was probably the weakest era until the 1980s and early 2000s came along.

Not to mention the fact that Braddock ducked the #1 mandatory challenger Max Schmeling to instead face Joe Louis, whom Schmeling already defeated. He knew he couldn't beat either man, but he figured it'd be best losing to a fellow American than to an alleged Nazi.

Braddock would fight once more, a decision win over Tommy Farr who would fight Louis for the championship. But did Braddock really win it? Most experts at ringside said no. But hey, Braddock was the people's champion and he got the nod. Thus ending his career with a "win" rather than on a sad note.

Braddock was one of those guys who was probably "too tough for his own good", and though he had ringsmarts and a good punch I can't see him lasting the distance with Dempsey. 8 rounds would be my guess. And that's being generous. The Manassa Mauler was a whole other animal than anything Braddock faced in his career.

[Jmangho]

Problem with Braddock is his sheer inconsistency; he's certainly better than his record suggests but what can we do? If we project too much then we're absolutely at fault for making him out to be something that he simply wasn't.

His career can be broken up into three periods: The Light Heavyweight, The Desolate Years, and The Cinderella Man. At 175 pounds he was certainly good enough to fight for the world title but was not good enough to beat Tommy Loughran. He also lost to Maxie Rosenbloom as a light heavyweight. 1926-1929 was the first era.

1930-1933 was the desolate years. He went 10-17-1 with 2 No Contests. Maybe the best opponent be beat was 32-19-6 Bob Roper in that time. Yes he oftentimes fought hurt, or at the last minute, or with an empty stomach fatigued by looking for odd jobs but.... How much of that can you use as an excuse when Dempsey lived just as poorly as a hobo from age 15 all the way through his time in New York and beyond?

1934-1938, is what everyone remembers him for. The succession of wins against men NOBODY thought he could defeat: Corn Griffin (who in reality was nothing), John Henry Lewis, Art Lasky, and of course Max Baer. But are we really talking about an era in Heavyweight boxing where the contenders and champions were really all that? No. It was probably the weakest era until the 1980s and early 2000s came along.

Not to mention the fact that Braddock ducked the #1 mandatory challenger Max Schmeling to instead face Joe Louis, whom Schmeling already defeated. He knew he couldn't beat either man, but he figured it'd be best losing to a fellow American than to an alleged Nazi.

Braddock would fight once more, a decision win over Tommy Farr who would fight Louis for the championship. But did Braddock really win it? Most experts at ringside said no. But hey, Braddock was the people's champion and he got the nod. Thus ending his career with a "win" rather than on a sad note.

Braddock was one of those guys who was probably "too tough for his own good", and though he had ringsmarts and a good punch I can't see him lasting the distance with Dempsey. 8 rounds would be my guess. And that's being generous. The Manassa Mauler was a whole other animal than anything Braddock faced in his career.

He lasted against a young Joe Louis and knocked him down, are we talking about the same Braddock? The dude was an incredible boxer, in my opinion, and we can't say that Joe Louis was inexperienced or not that great at that point, because he'd already fought Max Schmeling, not to mention Braddock hadn't fought for years and was suffering from ring rust. A lot of people do put him down, and say his fight against Baer was a fluke, but honestly you can't say the fight still wouldn't have been relatively even or that Baer would have destroyed him if he trained, Braddock nor Baer was gonna give that up, and Baer just didn't have the heart that Braddock did, I believe Baer never would have won the fight due to Braddock's sheer willpower.

Yes, he can use that as an excuse because the great depression was something much worse then what Dempsey went through in his career, not to mention Braddock was constantly suffering from hand injuries, some of which were irreparable, and definitely had an impact on whether we like it or not, and with all this, he still came out and beat some big names, with hand injuries, despite suffering all those setbacks, while Baer is sitting pretty, being the world champ and all, always probably had good grub to eat, and generally had all the opportunities Braddock did, if not more.

I believe 100% that he could beat Schmeling, someone that Baer had defeated.

[HomicideHenry]

The thing with Joe Louis is that he was an incredibly fast learner. If he looked like crap the first time around, he was death in the return. The fact that he pretty much picked off Braddock from the 2nd round onward is a testament to Braddock's toughness, but also to the limitations of Braddock against punchers who had a good ring IQ.

Dempsey is underrated as a boxer. Sure he wasn't as tactical as Louis, but it was his skillset that carried him through in decision victories over Gibbons and others. Tommy Loughran was Dempsey's sparring partner, the same man Braddock couldn't beat. So there is something of a disparity between Dempsey and Braddock that cannot be ignored.

[Jmangho]

The thing with Joe Louis is that he was an incredibly fast learner. If he looked like crap the first time around, he was death in the return. The fact that he pretty much picked off Braddock from the 2nd round onward is a testament to Braddock's toughness, but also to the limitations of Braddock against punchers who had a good ring IQ.

Dempsey is underrated as a boxer. Sure he wasn't as tactical as Louis, but it was his skillset that carried him through in decision victories over Gibbons and others. Tommy Loughran was Dempsey's sparring partner, the same man Braddock couldn't beat. So there is something of a disparity between Dempsey and Braddock that cannot be ignored.

I guess, but the fact that Braddock had that string of wins, and after 2 years, was still able to give Joe Louis a very decent fight, can't be ignored.

[HomicideHenry]

A good fight for essentially one round. Joe Louis after the knockdown systematically broke Braddock down from that point on. Braddock was never in the fight from that point on.

Don't let the knockdown be bigger than it was. Louis was also dropped by Tony Galento, Buddy Baer, etc. Braddock was a tough guy with good skills, but alot of his success depended on being at the right place at the right time, against grade B opposition who completely overlooked him.

[Jmangho]

A good fight for essentially one round. Joe Louis after the knockdown systematically broke Braddock down from that point on. Braddock was never in the fight from that point on.

Don't let the knockdown be bigger than it was. Louis was also dropped by Tony Galento, Buddy Baer, etc. Braddock was a tough guy with good skills, but alot of his success depended on being at the right place at the right time, against grade B opposition who completely overlooked him.

You can't talk about the entire fight being overlooked by the opposition after he's already in the ring and winning the fight, at some point they need to start taking it seriously so they don't... y'know... lose.

I feel if a boxer, or even a human in general, is being pushed in a physical altercation, they are going to fight their hardest, we saw how Max Baer's temper was, and I'm sure, realizing he might lose, he took Braddock seriously, as did Louis (though only at the time, I can't see Louis taking Braddock too seriously during Louis' boxing prime), though we also have some quotes from Louis saying Braddock was one of the toughest men that he ever fought, later in his career.

[HomicideHenry]

No.... Louis said Braddock was the most COURAGEOUS man he ever faced.... Don't forget that Louis was at ringside for Baer vs Braddock and at it's conclusion, in a rare moment of ego, Louis was quoted as saying: "Nobody can tell me that these are the two best Heavyweights in the world."

Louis admired Braddock. Thought he was a ballsy guy who overcome much in his life. However, Louis did not think of Braddock as much of a fighter. He always perceived him as a guy well below his league in boxing.

[BitPlayer]

Braddock was hard as nails and carried a solid punch. He put up a very respectable fight with Louis and was meant to have been a mess going into it.

I think a prime Dempsey would be too much, but if we are talking about the older Dempsey of the Tunney fights I think Braddock has a real chance, if he caught Dempsey coming in he could really do some damage.

[gilgamesh]

One of Braddock's biggest issues in his career was that his hands were always injured, and due to the circumstances of the day, and his family needing money he never could afford to take the time off to allow them to heal properly. A lot of his losses against lesser opposition his hand injuries probably played a big part.

That being said I don't think he'd beat Dempsey.

The older Dempsey...MAYBE, but even then I'd favor Dempsey honestly.

[cfang]

Dempsey is a whole level above braddock. We're talking about a legendary and iconic fighter who dominated his era Vs a guy who beat a few contenders and outboxed an overconfident Baer. I'm sure braddock would have fought bravely but Dempsey would have stopped him.

[DrDuke]

Dempsey is a whole level above braddock. We're talking about a legendary and iconic fighter who dominated his era Vs a guy who beat a few contenders and outboxed an overconfident Baer. I'm sure braddock would have fought bravely but Dempsey would have stopped him.

I agree with this.

[Ambling Alp II]

One of Braddock's biggest issues in his career was that his hands were always injured, and due to the circumstances of the day, and his family needing money he never could afford to take the time off to allow them to heal properly. A lot of his losses against lesser opposition his hand injuries probably played a big part.

That being said I don't think he'd beat Dempsey.

The older Dempsey...MAYBE, but even then I'd favor Dempsey honestly.

I think Braddock could have beaten the Dempsey of the first Tunney fight; Dempsey had been off for three years. However, I think the Dempsey of the 2nd Tunney fight would have beaten Braddock.

[gilgamesh]

One of Braddock's biggest issues in his career was that his hands were always injured, and due to the circumstances of the day, and his family needing money he never could afford to take the time off to allow them to heal properly. A lot of his losses against lesser opposition his hand injuries probably played a big part.

That being said I don't think he'd beat Dempsey.

The older Dempsey...MAYBE, but even then I'd favor Dempsey honestly.

I think Braddock could have beaten the Dempsey of the first Tunney fight; Dempsey had been off for three years. However, I think the Dempsey of the 2nd Tunney fight would have beaten Braddock.

I can see that