British heavyweight tournament

Didn't address the Akinwande point, I always felt someone who could punch down the pipe was a problem for Henry. Lewis was on his way to getting him, though Bruno would have been frustrated if he hadn't at least battered him a bit in the first three or four rounds.

 

They are Heavyweights. Throughout boxing history, the Heavies have always sucked, even during rose tinted 'golden eras' like the 70s and the 90s. But they are biggest fighters, so they always have and always will get more than their fair share of the spotlight.

Look at Bruno, a man who has a 3-4 record against then top 10 rated Heavies (Coetzee KO1, Witherspoon LTKO11, Tyson LTKO5, LTKO3, Coetzer TKO8, Lewis LTKO7 and McCall W12). Yet fighters like Watt, Hope, McKenzie, McAuley and Andries had winning records against their top 10 opposition; in or around the Bruno era, yet get a fraction of the credit The Bomber did and indeed still does.

 

but three of those losses are to Lewis and Tyson. admittedly, only one of those losses is probably a peak versiuon (Tyson 1, despite the Given and crash problems at the time), but those are special names.
mcAuley was fcuking ace. People also forget the Ragamuffin man these days. Honeyghan, for me, was the most important British fighters iof the past 30 years.

That tw*t fury's talking vacuous sh*t on C5. He hasn't mentioned some fairytale god so far. what a miracle... ho ho.

 

Leaving that aside though, Bruno is easily a better fighter than Haye.

That much ought to be obvious.

 

No. Haye was seriously quality. that win against Mormeck is very, very underrated. Valuev fight might have been boring, but it was skilled. and the Ruiz victory... well, Tua aside, no-one else came close to that - even allowing for Ruiz's age. He screwed up by not putting his balls on the line against Wlad, where he clearly had a great chance. Didn't mean he wasn't a little bit bloody good before that.

 

Biggs lost to both Tyson and Lewis; yet rightly does not get much credit for the defeats, despite having them 'special names' on his record...

 

true. but the first two of those fights were decent performances. And I never questioned Biggs, who, I'd argue, gets more respect from fans than Bruno. bruno did well at a time when we had no-one and was consistently a top fighter.

Like I said, honeyghan was more important because he was our only true champion for years and inspired our next generation of fighters. Bruno was very, very good though.

 

McGuigan was a true champ, with Featherweight lineage that came with the win over Pedroza; a win that was massive at the time.

Honeyghan's win over Curry was amazing, maybe it was so off the page, that you could not quite believe it and although Raggamuffin Man had a great first year as a champ, he never quite got over the shocker of the first Vaca fight.

But Honeyghan was something different in the sport in this Country, and I can see where you are going with the inspiration for the next era. I think Naseem and Eubank certainly used part of Honeyghan's persona, maybe even Benn.

And as I stated the likes of Andries, McAuley, McKenzie, Graham et al were putting in winning world class performances in the Bruno era that the big man could not compete with in a purely boxing sense.

 

McGuigan lasted a fight. Honeyghan was our only true champ until Naz. and he destroyed Vaca in the second fight.

Our only true champs for 30 years have been honeyghan, naz, lewis, calzaghe, hatton, and.... people won't like this.... haye.

 

It depends on the definition of 'true', as mentioned McGuigan had lineage, which would seem to be why Hatton is on the list, in that he was one of many alphabet champions in his division, but he won his IBF version of the title, over the perceived best fighter and linear champion.

 

Bruno any time he likes

 

:happy In the ring and bum **** him after.

 

This content is protected

:happy


Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:hat

 

This content is protected

 

:deal