Dillian Whyte v Frank Bruno

I know I wouldn't wanna trust my life to either of these guys having a great performance. Not exactly consistent fighters who never blew a fight they had won.

 

Why? Are they suicidal depressives?

 

"too thug"

 

Make no mistake about it, Bruno really wasn't very good at all.
But he's a clear level above Whyte.

Whyte was lucky to get past an uninspiring Parker, despite having the protection of the referee and judges.
Whyte was sparked in 7 rounds against AJ, and sparked in 5 by a decrepit Povetkin.

Whyte did beat Chisora, who is "Jesse Ferguson level" gatekeeper type.
Whyte's entire reputation is resting on some very very shaky foundations.
I'm not sure why people are blind to it.
The heavyweight division must be in a worst state than I had realised.

 

Frank is just better than Whyte - the only worry for Bruno is he gets caught by that left.

But i'd take Frank to jab Dillian to death and stop him in 7/8

 

Bruno would crap his pants

 

Frank beats Whyte. Frank faced & beat better fighters. Bruno by KO in 6.

 

Bruno by brutal early ko !! A similar fight to Harding v Mason in 89 . World class against British level. .Bruno had sparing partners higher level than Whyte.

 

I'd go for WhYte by KO win. Just a much more complete boxer overall than Bruno.

 

Bruno by KO.

 

Rubbish

 

Whyte has a good jab (Brunos was better), but Whyte could mix it up more, went to body much more effectively, better ring Iq (despite being reckless and sloppy at times) and has a much better left hook. Bruno was more predictable, Whyte can box on back foot when needed (which Bruno couldnt at all). Granted Bruno had a better defence.

 

Fighters, plural?

Who?

 

Whyte's chin might let him down but I see him outworking Bruno and maybe getting a late stoppage.

 

Bruno by knockout in 5.