'Comeback' Foreman or Frank Bruno ?

I think Foreman did...

Winning the lineal crown against a 34-0 michael Moorer was a better scalp than any that Bruno had claim to, and surviving for 10 years without a single stoppage loss says something as well, considering that Frank was KO'd by a 13 fight Smith... Neither man has much depth in terms of quality wins under THESE circumstances, but the Moorer victory and no stoppage losses are what sets them apart... As for who was better head to head, I'd say its a toss up..

 

foreman hands down!! and he would ko bruno as well.
old foreman knocked out michael moorer and he was competent against peak holyfield, he was stolen against briggs. bruno was destroyed by the version of tyson post prison( who lost against holyfield 96).

 

I think Bruno was the better fighter as far as being able to matchup with a wider variety of styles and besides his weak chin which only failed him against top opposition, he didnt show the weaknesses stylisitically that Foreman did in his comeback.

Foreman had to be matched very carefully, and even the most limited of mobile fighters could give him all kinds of trouble.

Bruno's win against Mcall is probably comparable to Foremans win over Moorer if not a bit better, and Bruno's loss to Lewis is probably comparable to Foreman's loss to Holyfield if not a little worse.

I think its somewhat close with a slight lean to Bruno because he was more competitive against his opposition overall, but both failed at the bigtime.

 

I agree with this

 

The fact that both Morrison and Briggs survived the distance with big George while having the same type of fitness problems and less "boxing" ability that Bruno has gives him a good chance of seeing the final bell in my opinion. George could be complacent if you didn't go to him.

 

Agree for the most part.

Foreman's crowing achievement stands out more than Bruno's even though Bruno's body of work was slightly better.

After all Bruno gave Lewis all he could handle until his chin failed him.

 

noway:nono

ruddock could not with morrison . morrison would ko bruno

 

Did you see that fight, and were you aware of the circumstances? Ruddock was past his prime, and fought only once in nearly 3 years against a journeyman... He still managed to deck Tommy and went on to losing in what might have been an early stoppage... Ruddock had nothing common with Bruno, and if you want to take that route, Morrison was stopped in one round by michael Bent, plus fought Purity to a draw....

 

Foreman probably out cutes Bruno...:nut

And I would of never thought I begin any sentence Foreman out cutes...

Also Foreman won THE Heavyweight World Championship in the time period, Bruno won a piece of alphabet crap, but, boy did we love The Bomber for it!!!

 

ruddock was past his prime? he was 31, he was still good at this time, it is an excuse. he won every fight post morrison. and he won the belt of canada.
tommy morrison was better fighter than frank bruno.
bruno was ko by every good rival that he faced,( smith, spoon,lewis and past prime tyson.)
morrison was better than smith for sure. and harder puncher.
morrison lost by ko early against bent because he did catch him when he was still cold. he took shots from ruddock,lewis and foreman.

 

:good Your spot on!

Also regarding Bruno V Morrison. I see Frank having the edge over Tommy.
I did a thread on it a while back, it was a matchup that always interested me, and would of been fun to watch because of both mens strengths and weaknesses.

 

Ruddock was shot to pieces compadre. There isn't even an argument there, and if you think winning the Canadian title and beating guys like Rudolpho Marin were an indication of still having world class ability, then I might as well go play solitaire as opposed to continuing this discussion.

 

He's obviously trying to make Morrison's victory over Foreman look that much more impressive. I think Lefthook summed it up regarding this debate. Would have been nice to see a Foreman-Bruno fight, though!