Joe Bugner vs Duane Bobick in 1977 , 12 rds

Good points Kenmore. About Bobick's management,Smokin' Joe also dropped a bollock with his own son,Marvis,when it came to match making. Feeding Marvis stiffs then dropping him in with Holmes !

 

Smokin' Joe took over Bobick's career in early 1975, after Duane had split with his Colorado handlers (I think he was initially managed by Chickie Ferrara). At that point in time, Bobick was 25-0 (23 KO's), and hadn't yet fought "B" level or fringe-contender opposition. So, at that early stage, Bobick's limitations weren't obvious.

Things started well for the Smokin' Joe-Bobick effort, as Duane excelled in 1975, including an impressive KO over respectable fringe contender Randy Newman. That fight marked Bobick's first effort against a "live" opponent.

But in 1976, as Bobick continued to fight "B" level/fringe-contender opposition, results weren't as encouraging. Bobick struggled against smallish heavyweights Bunny Johnson and Fred Houpe, and he looked only so-so against Chuck Wepner. I think at this point, Smokin' Joe & Co. might have lost hope in him.

 

The durability of pro fighters is proven both in sparring, and in actual fights. Trust me...Bugner proved his durability repeatedly throughout the '70s.

As for Shavers, you are overlooking the reality that he had EVERYBODY hurt or on rubbery legs, if and when he hit them. Shavers was that devastating as a puncher. That he had Bugner hurt sometimes does not prove that Bugner couldn't take a punch.

If anything, the Shavers fight is additional, hard evidence that Bugner's durability was astounding. In those two rounds, Bugner took lots of bombs that would have KO'd anyone else. It was impressive to see how Bugner stood up to that power. When the fight was stopped -- only because of a cut -- Bugner very much had his wits about him, and was actually trading with Shavers.

 

Yes, it was strange that Marvis, with only ten pro fights under his belt, was thrown in with Holmes. Marvis should have had another 8 or 9 bouts, just for experience, before fighting the champ.

 

If Jack Bodell could beat Joe Bugner, than it would have been no surprise that
Duane Bobick would have a chance.

Duane gets a bad rap, because of those 'brutal knockout losses', but his
style in 1977 would have been the right combination to decision Mr. Bugner.

Joe just didn't punch that hard.

 

But Bugner was an inexperienced -- and still growing 21 year old -- when Bodell beat him in 1971. As some other posters here have pointed out, that early version of Bugner was no comparison to the Bugner of 1973-77, whom we are talking about.

We're talking a prime Bugner vs a prime Bobick.

I do, however, agree that a prime Bobick would have had an excellent chance against the inexperienced, 1971 version of Bugner.

 

Er, no, he didn't.

The claim that Frazier, Lyle, Mac Foster and Shavers were not live punchers is ridiculous.

True: Bugner's rankings in the 1970s were based on big wins AND on looking good in defeat against Ali and Frazier. Bobick never looked good when he lost.

What proof is there in Bobick's career than his chin was 12 times better than that of Richard Dunn?

 

Who won wasn't such a surprise, but the way it happened was a complete shock. Ken was a slower starter than Frazier, his power was questioned despite the fracturing of Ali's jaw (which was widely known to be due to an impacted wisdom tooth Muhammad had neglected), and it was expected Duane would have a chance to warm up as Norton also got going. This was one of the most wildly anomalous outcomes in heavyweight history, ranking alongside Ali-Liston II.

I didn't expect Duane to win, but I thought he might acquit himself well enough to prove presentable as a viable professional heavyweight contender, instead of as an SNL joke. They both went into the tenth round to beat the fading Larry Middleton the previous year (Norton failing to impress Jerry Quarry in the process), and Duane did have a little more success in the amateurs against Stevenson than the one punch knockout loss Big John Tate experienced after 90 seconds in Montreal.

Norton-Bobick looks horrible in hindsight, but Duane was seven years younger than Ken, was 38-0-0 as a professional, and had been in the punch for pay ranks for four years. Norton was going on 34, and many figured he'd be as demoralized by Ali III was Jimmy Young later was after he squared off with Ken. Sooner or later, Duane had to step up, and try to ease the stigma of the Stevenson rematch in Munich.

Duane was still just 26, and figured he'd need a couple years after the Norton loss to work his way to another top match. LeDoux II took place just a couple months after Norton (in fact, two months before Ken had his next outing against Zanon), and he seemed to be rebounding quickly after stopping Scott in eight, but Knoetze crushed him in a Johannesburg ambush the following February. Everybody then knew exactly what Tate was going to do to Duane one year later, and this first round knockout surprised nobody (including Duane himself, it seemed).

To his credit, Duane did get right back on the horse after Knoetze, stopping Schutte in eight rounds the following month, and had a total of eight wins in 1978 after the Knoetze upset. He tried his damnedest, but there was simply no point in continuing after Chaplin, and I think he got out at the right time at age 28.

 

Lets not forget that Duane Bobick was only 21 in 1971 too.

Were too many easy bouts his downfall.
He did have a tentative agreement to fight Muhammad Ali, before he
fought Ken Norton.
What would have happened if he fought a faded Ali, instead of
a well-prepared and motivated Ken Norton.

 

Shavers knocked him down and then couldn't finish him off, winning on a cut. "Killed him"? No.

(1) Bobick having a porous defence at the peak of his career does not bode well for him against Bugner.

(2) Soaking up Norton's punches would be impressive, were it not for the fact that they shook Bobick up so bad and had him staggering within 2 minutes.

Of course, getting sparked in a round would be bad enough, but it happened TWICE to Bobick i.e. when he stepped up against Tate he couldn't make it through one round. While Norton was a good (though not great) puncher, Tate was at best a good puncher. So even a light puncher like Bugner is going to take Bobick out within 12 rounds.

So Bobick's most impressive scalp is a hypothetical good performance against a faded Ali? Ouch.

No, it shows that Mundine has a terrible chin. Like Bobick.

 

So, you are asking who would have won if they fought in 1971? Bobick was still an amateur then, while Bugner was a top-10 rated professional. Thus, they would not have been allowed to fight each other, except perhaps, as a 4 round exhibition match.

I thought you were comparing the prime, 1977 Bobick to the 1971 version of Bugner, and wondering who was better.

Here's how I see it:

1977 Bobick vs 1971 Bugner: could go either way
1977 Bobick vs 1977 Bugner: unquestionably Bugner wins