Jim Braddock vs Frank Bruno

You have to look at his losses, and you have to look at his wins, and you have to look at the men between that he wasn't fighting.

Why wasn't he taking fights against men like Berbick, or Weaver, unless a title was on the line?

The answer is probably that his team had worked out, that he was likely to lose against men of that caliber, and they wanted to protect their investment.

Bruno is not better than most give him credit for, the opposite is the case.

He was a guy who feasted on tomato cans, lost every time he stepped up, then went back to knocking over tomato cans again, until he could get another title shot through politics.

 

Agree to disagree man, and ain't that what these discussions should be about...peace and love, Px

 

This
And Bruno was the first one to wobble Tyson and that was no easy feet
Bruno had heart and would dig deep and like u i dont think he gets the credit he deserves
He fought Tyson Lewis and held his own so what does that tell you

 

Perhaps that he should have a couple of ranked contenders on his ledger?

 

Baer beats Bruno more times than Braddock

 

No way is Bruno better than Max

 

That's a silly take imo laughable

 

oh boy alt of the day time

 

Spot on .

 

What does that mean?

 

it means you are not worth my time

 

OK your not very knowledgeable anyway

 

Those fighters are good enough where the judging doesn't really matter. Just Braddock being good enough to

John Henry Lewis is one of the most talented fighters to ever live. Tommy Farrs like the 2nd or 3rd best British HW ever. Would beat Tyson Fury like a bad habit. If Braddock deserved to lose those fights and he did the Lewis one not the Farr one who cares. It still elevates him to another level above Frank Bruno.