BoxRec

-Wasn't ever knocked out until his 85th professional fight out of 86 total by the greatest puncher of all time, and arguably the greatest HW champion ever Joe Louis.

-Was so great as a LHW that he was on the cover of Ring Magazine as THE best in the world next to champion Tommy Loughran.

-Won 44 of 46 fights before facing off with Loughran, losing a 15 round decision to the champion.

-From 1930-1933 he went a mediocre 10-15-1 with 1 ND and 2 NC's. Most of these fights were on short notice, was fighting injured and was during the Depression, so malnutrition could have played a part.

-1934. Comes out of inactivity to face prospect Corn Griffin, a HW, and scores upset KO. Few months later he wins a 10 round decision over future LHW champion and former foe, John Henry Lewis.

-1935. Wins decision over HW contender Art Lasky. Gets a surprise title shot at HW champion Max Baer. In what was called "the greatest upset since Corbett beat Sullivan" Braddock manages to win a 15 round decision over the wild swinging, clowning and ever dangerous Baer.

-1936. Was scheduled to face Max Schmeling after the German defated prospect Joe Louis, but the bout was cancelled.

-1937. Faces "The Brown Bomber" Joe Louis and drops him in the first round, only to lose by KO in the 8th round. Joe Louis would always say that "The Irish Bulldog" was the most courageous man he ever fought.

-1938. Braddock is called for one final fight against tough Welshman Tommy Farr, who had just given champion Louis a hell of a time in his first title defense. Braddock, though worn by years of wars, managed to win a unaminous ten round decision. He retired soon after.

Braddock seems to have 'matured' later in his career, but this is deceiving considering the 1930-1933 years was during the Depression and he fought with broken hands, often on short notice so no time to heal, had to have an operation because of a car wreck and malnutrition could have been a factor as well; fighting as often as he did, he may very well have been 'burned' out.

Oh jeeze give us a break!...

Braddock never was great...at heavyweight, or light heavyweight...he was just very fortunate that he caught a Max Baer who was not serious, or he would never have been the "Cinderella Man."

Braddock was a very solid, good fighter who was more of an underachiever than he ever was an achiever! Under-rated...just look at his record overall...nothing under-rated about that!

Braddock deserves credit for sticking with it and not giving up. He did make the most of his opportinity when he beat Baer, and he also beat Farr. However, he won less than 2/3 of his fights. If anything, he is overrated.

Respect to him that he survived some hard times and then took his chance when he got it, but I dont see how you can say that Braddock was or is underrated... the truth is that is Baer had been in shape mentally or physically he would have beaten Braddock in their fight... but Max didnt care by then and virtually gave away the title in what was probably the worst fight ever for the title...

Irish....I'm more with ya' than against ya' on this one.

is that you rory????

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:is that you rory????

I say thats not Rory but I won't be suprised if he shows up to defend his guy. Just start talking about Braddock and he magically appears.

We know that Max Baer underated him.

Braddock was a top 5 light-heavyweight and a top 10 heavyweight during the great 1930s.

Walcott was highly inconsistant yet some people make a big deal about Marciano beating him despie the fact that he lost to the likes of Rex Layne. If people are so impressed with Walcott than I would think that Braddock certainly is deserving of praise.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Walcott was highly inconsistant yet some people make a big deal about Marciano beating him despie the fact that he lost to the likes of Rex Layne. If people are so impressed with Walcott than I would think that Braddock certainly is deserving of praise.

Oh, great. Yet another chance for Brocky to post for the 100th time his 47 reasons why Walcott was one of the all time greats.

I just hope he doesn't mention that old fraudster Ted Spoon...

Braddock and Walcott have a few things in common. Both were capable of beating some very good fighters, or losing to less than stellar opposition. What bothers me most though, just think of how many fighters we could name below heavyweight, who are more deserving, but not in the Hall of Fame.

It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

There's no way Walcott was more deserving the Floyd Patterson. Absolutely no way.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

Didn't Fitz win titles in 3 divisions? How does an upset over the rather limited Baer have more historical significance than that?

John L - I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that you could argue that Walcott (not Braddock) was more deserving than Fitzsimmons.

evndrbsn wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

There's no way Walcott was more deserving the Floyd Patterson. Absolutely no way.

Walcott seems to me to be about even with Patterson. Do you think Patterson was a lot better? If so, why?

Ambling Alp wrote:John L - I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that you could argue that Walcott (not Braddock) was more deserving than Fitzsimmons.

Yes, I misunderstood your post. However, I would also question how Walcott could be more deserving than a true 3 division champ like Fitz. This also seems like a pretty hard argument to make.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

I must have missed Walcott winning world titles in 3 divisions if he is better than Fitz!....

Ambling Alp wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

There's no way Walcott was more deserving the Floyd Patterson. Absolutely no way.

Walcott seems to me to be about even with Patterson. Do you think Patterson was a lot better? If so, why?

Patterson was 8-5 in title fights, with one of the losses being a robbery against Jimmy Ellis. Walcott was 2-6 in title fights, with one loss against Louis being a robbery and one decision win over Ezzard Charles being pretty controversial. Patterson was much more consistent at a high level while Walcott constantly fell short. As Brockton would say (although not about Walcott), Jersey Joe WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!

IrishRufusMurphy wrote: -1936. Was scheduled to face Max Schmeling after the German defated prospect Joe Louis, but the bout was cancelled.

Yes...it was cancelled because Braddock made a contract to fight Louis instead. Braddock ran away from the fight that Schmeling deserved. I think Max would have beaten Braddock easily to become Champion for a second time.

silkov wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

I must have missed Walcott winning world titles in 3 divisions if he is better than Fitz!....

I’m not sure if better is even relevant when it comes to HOF membership. Obviously, since boxers in the HOF fought during many different eras, no one really knows who is “better”, so I think someone is voted into the HOF more because of accomplishments and historical significance. Based on that criteria, I think Fitz is clearly more deserving than Walcott. I think Corbett as more deserving as well.

However, if all Alp wants to argue is who was a better fighter, then yes, it’s open for discussion.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's true that heavyweights are over represented in the Hall of Fame. Braddock isn't deserving. However, despite all the negatives concerning Walcott, he did do enough to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He was certainly better than Braddock,Johansson, Burns and Willard. You could also argue that he was more deserving than Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Baer, Schmeling, Sharkey, Patterson, Norton and possibly a few others as well.

NOT Schmeling, NOT Sharkey, NOT Patterson, NOT Corbett, NOT Fitzsimmons.

All these were considered the clear #1 heavyweight for several years (well, perhasp except Fitzsimmons, but Fitzsimmons is a three-weight champ), something Walcott never was.

The other folks can be debated.

Prime verses prime I would bet on Walcott in head to head matchups against the list of fighters that Ambling Alp presented, but I would have to do more research before I could decide who is more worthy of being in the hall of fame.