Joe Bugner vs Duane Bobick in 1977 , 12 rds

Bugner was the more accomplished of the 2 and more durable as a pro...I give him the win over Duane

 

Bugner. Bobick just lacked the durability to win any fights against a live contender, which is why he never went anywhere.

Faced with a chinny opponent, Bugner could be very effective- see Bugner's 1rst round KO of Dunn, for example.

 

Bobick primed in the amateurs although his fights vs Wells were no cake walks and were wars, his professional training I was not impressed with and he never really fully recovered from the Stevenson KO (Bobick beat Stevenson 1st time and stopped Holmes despite the DQ verdict, watch the tape and see Ali say Holmes quit by holding because he was gonna get KO'd....Bugner was a better pro...I like him to stop Duane

 

Holmes was young and had very little power in the amateurs and didn't hit Bobick with anything big. If he had, given what we know about Bobick's chin he may well have been floored or even KO'd.

Bobick never fought Holmes because he was too chinny to beat significant opponents as a pro. He'd had the same problem against Bugner: no chin, no win.

 

I more or less agree, although I think Bobick wasn't as nearly as chinny as Dunn.

There's no doubt that Bugner would have beaten Bobick in 1977. The only question is whether it would go the distance, or end in stoppage. Sometimes, Bugner could really sit on his right hand (like against Frazier, and Dino Dennis), and hurt guys. That was the exception for Bugner, but possibly he could have hurt and KO'd a wide-open, stand-up slugger like Bobick.

More likely, I think Bugner wins a wide UD. Bugner was much stronger and more durable than Bobick, and could easily have manhandled Bobick in the clinches. Also, Bugner was the faster, superior boxer, and had a much better left jab.

Bobick had fair punching power, but I don't think he could hurt Bugner. Also, Duane's lack of hand speed and agility would have undercut his ability to connect cleanly or frequently against a good defensive fighter like Bugner.

Lyle was much stronger and more powerful than Bobick, and in 1977, Bugner lost a close, hard fought bout to Lyle. Based on this result, I think Bugner would be that much more effective against Bobick.

 

I have also heard that Bobick, as a pro, barely improved over his amateur days. That's very strange...I wonder what went wrong.

I remember some said that Bobick's pro trainers were teaching him to fight in a style that did not come naturally to him...trying to make him a Joe Frazier-type pressure fighter.

 

LeDoux was never a big puncher. At best, he was a clubbing hitter who had average power in his right hand, possibly even below average power.

Norton was a shot fighter at the time of the LeDoux fight. The two knockdowns in round 10 were due not so much to LeDoux's power, but more to the fact that Norton's legs were gone (due to aging), he was exhausted, and lacked the vigor to hold off the mauling, bullying assault of LeDoux.

As for Weaver, you are correct that he had pretty good power. However, Weaver was inexperienced and out of shape when he fought Bobick in the pros. I doubt that Weaver was able to hit Duane with much in that fight, due to the vast disparity in experience.

Bobick's KO over LeDoux was a good performance, I've heard. That's a nice win for Duane. But remember: Bugner was bigger, stronger, better, and more durable than LeDoux, who had minimal boxing skill and was easy to hit.

 

No, he wasn't that bad. The point is that Bugner could be an effective aggressive fighter if he was sure that he could get a KO without getting KO'd.

Mostly agreed, though Bobick never showed the survival skills to convince me that he would be able to handle getting hurt by a top class fighter (and he would be against Bugner).

 

That makes my point even stronger: Bobick beating Holmes when they were both young proves nothing about Bobick's chin.

Mike Weaver didn't really develop into a notable fighter until he fought Holmes and rose to the moment. LeDoux was a good journeyman, but not a puncher and much less able to land good shots than Bugner.

 

Didn't someone named kent Green ko Ali in the amateurs? The amateurs mean nothing. Holmes progressed greatly as a pro and Bobick never truly did..it means nothing what he did in stopping Holmes as an amateur...nothing at all. Bugner was a more durable, accomplished pro than Bobick, who didn't have the best of chins and tended to freeze under fire, much to his detriment. It's probably good that Duane never fought Gerrie Coetzee, for that matter, as well.