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

Only by the newer generation standards for champions who fight every election cycle

 

You think a Peak Liston against Ingo being 50-50 is reasonable? Or that Ingo had "probably the best right" in the division's history? Or (my favorite ) their's evidence that Ingo could be Liston's boogeyman? Seriously?

Cmon Unforgiven, you're not stupid. You're one of the best posters here ffs!

 

It seems you may not have read my answers properly. I'm not sure choklab even said exactly what you think he said.
I'm not sure you understand what words like "reasonable" or "objective" mean either.

I thought my answers were clear. I wouldn't say Johnasson had "probably the best right" in division's history. I'm not going to run around saying it's such a terrible comment though, because if I did have a list Johansson would certainly be a good candidate for a top 10 and I don't actually care much about ranking the best right hands in division's hitsory ....... but to be clear, NO, if I did do so, Johansson's wouldn't be #1.
I'd probably go for Joe Louis or someone like that.

 

Maybe so, but you're saying that now Instead of just admitting you're wrong. You made a completely false statement and I pointed it out. You persisted with it, so you got the long explanation on how wrong you are. Just another poster here who can't admit they are wrong.

 

As I understand it choklab would favour 1958-'59 Ingemar slightly against 1958-'59 Liston because he thinks Liston was slightly pre-peak at that time, and Johansson was at his absolute peak and formidable. I think he says a 1960 Liston beats a 1960 Johansson, and perhaps even favours a 1960-'62 Liston over any version of Johansson, but if he doesn't, again, it's hardly "unreasonable". It's not something I agree with, I rate Liston from 1959 to beat Johansson and Patterson at that time if given the chance, but I have to admit I don't have that much stronger evidence for my pick that the "evidence" choklab uses for his pick. It's just opinion, isn't it ?

You seem to think him picking the world champion to beat a guy who was still climbing from the lower end of the top 10 is outright unreasonable.
And you haven't actually said why ?
You just ridicule the opinions and declare that we should all consider them "unreasonable".
I'm sure you could explain it if you tried.

Honestly, choklab might be talking absolute crap much of the time, I don't know, but you'll have to show me some more concrete examples than these.

 

Imagine if Ingo had knocked out Floyd Patterson on the night of June 20 1960, then defended against Sonny Liston in November 1960. Because back then champions defended their titles, not like today, blaming Covid 19, when other fighters fight. and fighting near the next election, 2024. Too much drama. Sonny vs Ingo would be interesting.

 

People in 1960 and '61 were already speculating on Johansson being damaged goods ever since they saw him flat on his back, out cold with a trembling foot, after Patterson exacted a revenge KO on him.

And, yes, you're right Johansson's conditioning and dedication went downhill after the win against Patterson, hence why he was washed-up by the time he faced Brian London in 1963.

 

Ingo vs Sonny would be interesting in 1960. Sonny was always going to become champion. By 1960, he was far too good for Ingo.

 

"Franco Cavvichi, Heinz Neuhaus or Hein Ten Hoff in the 80s" --> Would these guys be in the positiion of

LeDoux
Eklund
Coetzee
Tillis
Bugner
Ribalta
Coetzer
Williams
Ferguson
McCall

in the 80s/90s, yes or no? As a reminder, 2 of them never put a footstep overseas.
If you insist to finally answer a direct question: Its up to you to go that low.

Exept the usual suspects, literally everbody on this thread picked Bruno. For the discussion of "completely false statements" :

• "Everybody Bruno fought was crap. The names he beat equal Franco Cavvichi, Heinz Neuhaus or Hein Ten Hoff"
• "Johansson beat Floyd Patterson (at least 1/3 of the time he tried)"
• "202lb Weaver and 202lb Johansson are comparable in size, and these fellows can give ATGs (Larry) all they could handle, so...."
  
• "Since Machen went 10 with Frazier and Liston, we can assume KO1 is inside legit expectations if he´d fight him another ten times (as a more mature fighter)"
• Bruno vs Johannson at HW today: "I can't see any good reason why either of them would "do better" than the other.
  Both could make the top 10 today at heavyweight, and Johansson could do well at cruiserweight as well."

After I merged it into a direct comparison of them both against HWs, "surpsirsingly", you refuse to vote. What´s next? Johansson does better than Bruno at cruiserweight?
I mean I give you persistence, its up to you to step down to chok or janitor kind of posts. Just go and insist that everybody else is wrong here, that all of Brunos resume is shyte and that a 28 bout CW with a 2-2 record has to be favored of knocking out a 230lb fighter whos 40-2 (38 KOS) plus three fights with ATGs.

Well, I guess we won´t see your loss of patience in the "Tua vs Gibbons/Carpentier/Firpo" thread, going for another round of pushing "logic & common sense" to its limits

 

The question in that thread is which would do better in today's HW division, right ?
Correct me if I'm at all wrong here.
The two options are : "Bruno", "Johansson", right ?
Since I've clearly stated they'd do "about the same", which one would you suggest I vote for ?

See, the standards of this forum are so warped and agenda-filled, you probably genuinely believe you've made some sort of point, and somewhre my points fly over people's heads despite being 100% HONEST, CLEAR, LOGICAL and very very UNCOMPLICATED.

Yeah, I could be a complete dick and vote in the poll just for the sake of it, to satisfy your twisted logic perhaps, I dunno. But no, I won't bother.
All it would take would a third option on that poll though.

 

I see this all the time. A shame, because classic boxing discussions are very interesting when they are run properly.

 

Yeah, I've found this to be one of the few places where speaking in CLEAR, SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD terms actually makes no difference whatsover, these agenda-driven cretins are so disturbed by their own agenda they can't even begin to address a straightforward honest argument. They have to complicate things to satisfy their muddled disturbed little minds. I wish that wasn't true, because it sounds like an exaggeration. But when I'm sat here typing things and expressing myself in clear unambigious terms and getting the kind of response these guys come back with, i really don't know what else to think.

 

You´re right, fantasy matches deserve draws too. Fixed it, so you can vote neutral grounds "without having a problem."

 

Those guys are a mixed bag, the "position of" those guys varies, so you're not being clear ..... and I haven't researched Cavicchi enough, for example. I'm sure you haven't researched Cavicchi at all.
I'm sure you haven't got a ****ing clue, to be honest.

But, yes, of course, my point is that guys like LeDoux and Eklund, for sure, are NOT a level above Cavicchi, who was European champion (Eklund's level), was 42-3-2 and had never been knocked out before.
Obviously I wouldn't say Cavicchi would be WBC champion like McCall was.

I'll take the minimum level of your "great ten" as the threshold for now though.
So, YES.

 

It's not a fantasy match. This thread is a fantasy match.
I don't have a problem, but honestly you really do seem to have problems.