Joe Bugner Tribute Thread: All Time Great Contender

Ellis was washed up by 1973; nobody denies this. Kirkman, Lyle, and Bugner beat ringworn version of Ellis.

Lyle scored a near-shut out decision over Ellis. Bugner won every round against Jimmy, flooring him in round ten for good effect.

Kirkman was knocked down by Ellis in their 1973 bout. After that, Kirkman basically outmuscled Ellis to get the nod. Neither guy was hurt in the fight. Afterwards, Ellis compared Kirkman to Bonavena, physically and stylistically.

Kirkman was a clubfighter on par with Scott LeDoux or Chuck Wepner. He was never rated higher than 9th or 10th worldwide, and even then only for brief periods.

Don't forget that Memphis Al Jones -- a fighter with a 6-21 record -- knocked Kirkman cold in just three rounds in 1974. If that doesn't tell you the truth about Kirkman, then nothing will.

 

You know your stuff better than most of the guys who've contributed to this thread (most of whom I now have on ignore). We're you around in the '70s, and we're you following boxing then? As a Englishman, you must know a lot about Bugner.

I say it's too bad that Bugner retired in 1976, then again in 1977. The following periods of inactivity ruined him. He was only 26 or 27 years old at the time; he should have been entering his prime. He lost his best years, I think.

I think part of the problem in 1977 is that Mickey Duff just didn't want to promote Bugner anymore. I'm not certain, but I think that's part of the reason Bugner stopped fighting for five years after the Lyle bout.

 

It's not a fighter's wins that count: it's more about the ability the boxer displays in his fights, even if his best fights are loses.

Ali is the greatest heavyweight of all time, and Frazier is one of the all-time greats. Bugner's losing efforts against each champion required more skill than Cooper displayed in beating Folley, London, or anyone else.

Just for emphasis: it takes more ability for a fighter to accomplish what Bugner did in 1973 against Ali and Frazier than what Cooper did against Folley. That's a fact.

Can you imagine Cooper lasting more than four or five rounds against Ali and Frazier in 1973? Of course not. But, could you imagine a prime Bugner beating the Folley of 1959? Certainly.

By the way, Cooper's win over Folley was widely regarded as a robbery. Also, Bugner's win over Cooper was not nearly as controversial as Henry's groupies have made it out to be. The London Times picked Bugner as the winner. I've watched the fight twice -- once in slow motion -- and I'm more than satisfied that Bugner edged it on left jabs alone.

 

Let me address some of your distortions.

1. Frazier was not trying to reinvent his style against Bugner. I am very well read regarding the fight, and have watched it multiple times.
2. Cooper was TKO'd by Ali in five and six rounds respectively during the 1960s. There's no reason to believe that the frail, chinny Cooper could have done better in 1973 against Ali.
3. Cooper wouldn't have lasted two rounds against the 1973 Frazier.
4. The issue here isn't Bugner's "underachievement." The issue is how good was the guy -- athletically and physically as a fighter -- based on his best performances. Those two performances, against Ali and Frazier in 1973, mark him as better than anything Cooper ever showed.
5. Just for emphasis, I'm talking about demonstrated ability in the ring, and not achievement. Let's not conflate things.
6. The New York Times reported that Cooper's win over Folley was a robbery. That newspaper is credible source as far as I'm concerned.
7. Folley was far too small to beat the prime Bugner. Bugner's defensiveness was something that came out chiefly against huge punchers. Folley was not a puncher in the sense that Lyle or Frazier were.
8. Bugner wins a boring UD over the 1959 Folley.
9. That Cooper got lucky and decked Ali says little about Cooper's prospects against a prime Bugner.
10. Could you imagine any version of Cooper going the distance with Ali or Frazier in 1973, never mind making a competitive fight? Of course not.
11. The "post exile" Ali was good enough to KO Quarry, Patterson, Foreman, Lyle and others...I see no reason why that version of Ali couldn't make mincemeat out of Cooper.

 

Based on these statements, you aren't capable of analyzing fighters' abilities. Most reasonable fans would agree that a superb losing effort against an all-time great champion trumps a win against a contender (who is obviously vastly inferior to the all-time champion).

You need to put things into perspective.

 

I already explained to you why the "underachievement" issue is inconsequential. Read my post. As for the Kuala Lumpur fight, I didn't say that was a superb losing effort. Dont' distort my words.

Of one thing, however we can be certain: Bugner's Kuala Lumpur performance was vastly superior to anything Cooper could have achieved against Ali. If a prime Cooper had met the Ali of Kuala Lumpur, Ali would have knocked him out.