Ingemar Johansson, 1958 vs Frank Bruno, 1986, who wins and why?

Yes, I believe he falls well with the perview of the "because there were no fighters as weak as Ingo between him and the belts" explanation.

 

You don't have a single piece of data to back this statement up.

 

Tim Witherspoon was more than ready to be taken when Bruno fought him.

He was overweigh, getting arrested for mamajuana possession, and got destroyed by Smith in his next outing.

Witherspoon is one of the best heavyweight contenders of all time, but the version that Bruno fought, was not a difficult champion to beat.

 

Because by Bruno's era the slow twitch 6 foot power puncher had become extinct.

There's you data.

 

But you still had supermiddleweights getting to the top, and fat disinterested men holding titles?

 

is he giving up a lot of size?
Ingos giving up A lot of “weight” but the swede has the speed and mobility advantage and the class advantage.

Size as in “reach and height” is not as insurmountable here as you think.

Frank was no giant. He was regular height and reach for a heavyweight. It’s negligible.

 

It would obviously help his case, if got at least mixed results against the top ten!

 

Johansson was knocked out 2 times by the 180-190 pound Floyd Patterson. Bruno would destroy Ingo. Bruno lost 5 times in his career. 1 time to the 6'4 230 pound James "Bone Crusher" Smith, 1 time to the 6'3 230 pound "Terrible" Tim Witherspoon, 1 time to the 6'4 1/2 230 pound Lennox Lewis and twice to 5'10 220 pound Mike Tyson. Bruno would have no problem with a 190 pound fighter.

 

Are you referring to Toney?

 

3" in height isn't negligible. 30+ pounds isn't negligible. It's not that Frank was a giant, it's that Ingo was a cruiserweight.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Men Ingo's size don't become heavyweight champions anymore. As Seamus said, they're extinct. This point, which is the crux of the matter, cannot be emphasised enough.

 

Frank Bruno frankly wasn't very good. I don't care if he put rounds in against Tyson and Lewis, lots of fighters did. Bruno's pedigree is that of a well groomed fighter still lacking substance wins, his career apex, a shaky cautious workmen win over McCall, while getting himself bombed out every other time he stepped up against someone with a pulse.

You know what lots of fighters don't do, including Frank Bruno, but Ingo actually did, beat the best.

Ingo KO. His fans disappointed they bought the local hype again.

 

My money would go on Ingemar Johansson against Frank Bruno, and, judging from a lot of the comments in this thread about size trumping quality once again, I might get some attractive odds. I would sure like that!

 

The best in Ingo's day were Patterson, who he went 1-2 against, and Liston who he refused to fight despite lucrative offers.

The best in Bruno's day, were Lewis a top 10 H2H fighter who many thought Bruno deserved the verdict against, and Tyson, another top 10 H2H fighter.

See the difference?

I'm sorry Bruno didn't fight primarily cruiserweights, and washed up has-beens, and run away like a little ***** from the best fighter of his era.

 

It's not just size. Bruno is stronger, more powerful, has a much better jab, is a better boxer, and imo has a better chin.

 

In Ingo, we're not talking about someone who managed to string together decent wins against world-class opponents. His stay at the top was very brief.
2-2, with 2 knockouts and also being knocked out twice. It's the very definition of average, and this against cruiserweight size opponents.
Bruno's no better in that regard, but he also faced better opponents who also were far larger and more powerful than Ingo.