How good was Joe Bugner in the 1970s

Let me get this straight... I think at the highest level, Jerry was a more natural puncher and probably the better and more solid performer..

 

In one of Foster's last career fights 20 pounds above his best weight.

Foster wasn't the greatest fighter of the decade but was underrated if you ask me.

He was only stopped once against Quarry, his other five losses all being 10 round and 15 round decisions, including 15 against Ali.

His power is well known, and surprisingly he could box pretty well. He was definitely no one dimensional slugger who tired in a handful of rounds.

 

Notable names he beat - Mac Foster, Jimmy Ellis and Henry Cooper (controversially) in the 1970s. None of whom were still among the most worthy contenders. They were all on the downgrade. Some might say "has-beens" though that's perhaps unfair.

Went the distance in losing fights with Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and Ron Lyle. And Larry Middleton and Jack Bodell.

Beat a sprinkling of others, mostly limited journeymen at best.

Those are the bare facts on paper.

Yeah, he was pretty good. The Frazier fight probably his most glorious moment.

But I dont think any argument that he was "unlucky to be in such a strong era" ring true. Maybe he picks up an alphabet title in more recent times if he gets the right fights. But he'd never beat the Tysons or Holyfields, and he could lose to someone ordinary.

 

Bugner had trouble with guys who were aggressive enough and strong enough to keep the pressure on him. This is because Bugner wasn't much of an infighter, and his chief way of dealing with pressure was to go into a defensive shell until his opponent burned out. For this reason, I would pick a strong, durable, skilled and hard-hitting fighter like Quarry to beat Bugner by decision. I am assuming that we're talking about a prime Quarry here.

Bugner's weaknesses were that he didn't hit especially hard and he had a hard time getting his punches off on the offensive. Some critics felt that Bugner was somewhat musclebound, and that this hindered his offensive skills. Bugner was a weightlifter in his teen years, prior to taking up boxing, so maybe there's some truth to this.

 

It's important to remember that Bugner was a very young and inexperienced fighter when he lost to Bodell and Middleton. Joe only had 16 fights as an amateur, and at 21, he was just a few years into his pro career when he lost those fights.

Also, Bugner's losses after 1975 (including the Lyle fight) occured usually after very lengthy layoffs, so Bugner wasn't at his best.

It is true that Bugner didn't beat any truly serious contenders. The highest ranked guys he beat were Cooper, Ellis and Richard Dunn, each of whom was just barely rated within the worldwide top 10 when Bugner fought them. Cooper and Ellis were old and on their way out of the ratings at that point. Dunn wasn't really a legitimate contender to begin with, and he was ranked only because of a lack of top heavyweights at the time (1976).

 

Going to Denmark and beating Eklund should not be over looked, it was a fair win at the time, but typical of Joe to then blow the Tangsted fight.

Joe also hit a fine run of form with his victories over Tillis, Bey and in particular a still useful Page. Some figured him to beat Bruno as well (I remember Terry Marsh having to dive off a bridge after Bomber Bruno's win).

 

The Ecklund and Tangsted fights took place in 1984, when Bugner was 34 years old and just a shell of his former self. In these fights Bugner is much slower and less energetic than during his prime years. Thus, these fights should be forgotten when we assess Bugner's ability in his prime.

Also, the Tangsted fight was believed to be a robbery by many, if not most, who watched the fight.

 

No, I think they are evidence, indeed I believe the Bugner who beat Page may just of been the best vintage Joe Bugner there was, and was 36/37 by then. I can see that Bugner beating the Joe who fought Shavers or indeed Lyle.

I personally believe Frank Bruno had to put his finest performance in to beat the 37 year old Joe.

 

If...If!!! That was his problem; he never created a stir because he never exploded. Plus, as some other posters have commented, tho he had the good jab, he was somewhat over muscled and wasn't very good at punching in combination. But all this doesn't really matter because he showed time and time again that he didn't have what it takes under that left tit of his and always came up short when given the big opportunities.

What IF my beloved Patterson had brought the same aggressive mind-set in all his fights that he brought into the second Ingo? Or more consistently exploded with his all-time HW lightning combos? He didn't because it wasn't in him to be that way. Had he tho, IMO you're looking at a much higher legacy and career respect not to mention a clear 3-0 run in his Quarry-Quarry-Ellis trifecta, etc...etc...