Butterbean vs ?

Bruce Seldon

 

We have a footage of Willard dealing with Frank Moran, who was much better than Butterbean. We also have him against Jack Johnson, who even past his prime was galaxies ahead of this fat bum.

So at first it was 2002 that wasn't his prime, you referenced to 1997/98. I give you a fight from 1997 and he's not his prime either. So Butterbean's prime lasted two fights? Or maybe one? All against complete scrubs?

 

His absolute peak was when he won the 4 round superheavyweight championship, but he was also quicker and more of a combo puncher ing he early days and Toughman days.

Btw Willard didn't really beat Johnson. He just stayed upright for 26 rounds while losing and the aged and out of shape Johnson got tired.

You can watch these two reels and objectively there's only one guy who looks better:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Why do you post highlights video and documentary? Who rates boxing ability based on highlights - 5 years old child?

As I said, we have full fights of both. Willard beat Frank Moran comfortably in a fight that is filmed and Moran is much better than Bean.

You can cry all you want about Willard's strategy against Johnson, but Bean wouldn't last five rounds against that version of Jack.

 

Frank Moran has nothing to do with Bean's overhand right and Willard looks awful on film.

 

Moran has better overhand right than Butterbean's wild rushes. Willard looks unskilled compared to pro boxers, not to circus acts like Bean.

 

Butterbean was never a real professional fighter; his career was actually what people claim of Carnera. He fought wrestlers and guys off the streets. His team of matchmakers was fired when he lost to Mitchell Rose because they thought that he was still living on the streets and doing heroin and were unaware that he had been clean for months and was in the gym.
To even suggest that he would beat Bruce Seldon or Jack Sharkey or any other real pro fighter you are either taking the ****, looking to argue just to argue, or abysmally ignorant.
I sparred a lot of rounds with a guy back in the mid 80s that was paid 50k to go to the Holmes v Bean fight because they were expecting Butterbean to pull out and my friend was to fill in and get another half million for the fight. My friend had a record on 30-25, or 35-30, something like that, and he fought Michael Moorer, Razor Ruddock, and generally went some rounds. His opinion mirrored that of anybody that knows boxing- Butterbean was a pro wrestling type gimmick and was never a serious pro fighter. Nobody in boxing took him seriously as a fighter.

 

What ****ing issues? He wouldn’t even come close to touch down he’d be slaughtered like a ****ing lamb.

 

You’re odd. Very odd.

 

You do know where you are right?

 

What about Corbett?

 

I had only seen Butterbean vs. Mitch Rose and I was not impressed at all with BB. In this video, BB did things that I didn't think he could do. He showed heart when he got up after getting caught cold by a big left hand from a southpaw, and he fought back, sometimes effectively on the inside, particularly with his short uppercut. Whoever found this Eaton guy as an opponent made a mistake. The guy was a southpaw, strong, took what BB was throwing, and threw his own back. He was the wrong type of opponent for BB to knock out impressively.

BB did seem to be improving, at least he looked better to me than what I remember from the Rose fight.

 

Are you serious ?!?
The Ali that lost to Holmes, that might be plausible, but the rest, hell no.
Despite not having the best chin or not being a huge puncher, Patterson clearly beats him. So does Leon. Both are just way too skilled for Bean. As for Tyson, it isn't gonna be close, Tyson destroys him.

 

Bean also took out Louis Monaco who beat McNeeley, McBride (undefeated), and Dokes, and ended Douglas’ career.