Ezzard Charles v.s Frank Bruno

Charles was wee.

 

I've outlined his prime years, he never lost during those.

 

Yeah, just like you can't outbox Wilder, right?

 

Never fought a live opponent either. For what it's worth, I think Bruno's physical advantages would have been to great for Charles to overcome but please don't try to have us believe that Frank was ever anything better than capable.

 

No one came close to beating him at his best.

He's more than capable, he's a legend.

 

Quite. He was clearly head and shoulders above Bill Sharkey, Ali Lukusa, Chuck Gardener et al.

 

Exactly. I've read reports of him being described as peerless in best years.

Guaranteed had he got a title shot in his prime he'd have been crowned undisputed champion.

 

Hilarious ! When exactly was this mythical "Prime ?"

 

82-83, 85, 87-88, 91-92 or 94-95

Any objective viewing of his fights would tell you the same.

 

So any time Frank wasn't losing, mostly in Title fights was his peak ? Like 82-83 when he turned down fights with David Pearce and Joe Bugner ?
Comedy gold.

 

He only lost when he wasn't at his best, this is obvious to anyone.

 

He only lost when the other fella was better. That's the game. Frank was the David Price of the 80's just much more carefully managed.

 

I feel like you are trolling me here.

I've never once heard anyone claim Frank lost to a better fighter, he only lost when he wasn't at his best e.g he was over training.

 

Ha ha ! I've just read your post on the Nelson v Saldivar post fella. You know way too much about Boxing not to be having an enormous laugh with this thread.
Nice one.

 

There is only one.......FRANK BRUNO!!!!!!!!!!!!