Bruno didn't fight many British boxers. Not relevant ones. He never even fought for the British title, despite it being a very winnable title (held by Neville Meade and David Pearce) in the first couple of years of his career.
He was going through the motions. Compared to the fights on film against Valdes (which he lost on a cut even though he was winning), billy Hunter and Amos Johnson he fought with much less vigour.
Comes a time where most fighters have to be Matched 50-50, without it being a title fight, or even to take a bout as the away fighter on someone else’s promotion. Bruno never did. Unless he was fighting Mike Tyson, Frank was always the house fighter.
If you're referring to Zora Folley ,Chuvalo caught a prime 30 years old Folley ,London a jaded 37 years old version who was on the slide.
London didn't beat a prime Folley, and it is extremely doubtful whether he could, but London was past his best when they fought too, to be fair. London has a win over Rademacher, who I think beat Chuvalo around the same time. London's best career win is probably Joe Erskine, who Chuvalo did lose on DQ to too. That's his best win, I would say. Erskine was an excellent boxer. London also beat Pastrano, another quality boxer. But I'm not sure why ,"guys George Chuvalo couldn't beat" is relevant according to choklab, since I don't think many people rate Chuvalo much higher than London anyway.
Yes he beat Rademacher and Erskine.Pastrano was well ahead against London when a butt opened his eye and the fight was stopped. Prime for prime, if London fought Chuvalo ,how many would pick London to win?
I don't know. It might be a good fight. But not an important one. Both were fringe contenders really.
No I referring more to Pete Radmacher and Joe Erskine. But Zora is another reasonable scalp on the resume people wouldn’t necessarily furnish upon Brian’s ledger without scrutiny.