Early 1940's, Frank might get a title shot, but loses to younger Louis by stoppage. Late 40's, he would have a better chance, but probably still loses to older Joe. If he ever boxes Ezzard Charles, Frank likely loses to him also, by late stoppage or on points. The 15 rounds distance wouldn't help the Bruno we know either. Frank was a good fighter, but had his limitations. He'd beat a lot or most of the other contenders but the likes of title holders such as Louis and Charles around that time were better boxers and fighters overall.
If Bruno was around in the 1940s he probably would have got no bigger than 220lb and would have fared about as well as somebody like Charley Rezlaf or Pat Comeskey. No better.
I don't consider this era to have top level big men, maybe the Baer brothers. Maybe one of them would beat him. The only others who has a shot I think is Walcott and maybe Elmer Ray but I haven't seen Ray box so can't comment. But Bruno definitely has the power to KO Walcott. Bivins is too small
I can see him smacking Buddy out. Max, having a good chin and a fair kick, could have Bruno in big trouble mid fight imo.
No I don’t think Frank would get a shot because there were a lot more very good fighters around to fight and only one real champion. As it was, Frank fought the real champion of his own era (Tyson) and lost anyway. He didn’t really deserve that shot either because he only beat Joe Bugner to get it. Beating the equivalent of an old Joe Bugner in the 1940s would not get a shot at the real champion in the 1940s. Consider too that Lewis, Witherspoon and McCall were not real champions at that time anyway. Frank steering his way through live fighters like Godoy, Buddy Baer, Lou Nova, Savold, Oma, Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, hatchet man Shepherd, Jimmy Bivins, Ezzard Charles, Walcott, Joe Baxi, Turkey Thompson and Joey Maxim is going to be tougher than bullying retreads like quick Tillis and Jose Ribalta when Frank couldn’t even get past Bonecrusher Smith. The contenders then were much more advanced. More competitive. Seasoned. Guys who always, ALWAYS turned up to win. I’m a big fan of Frank Bruno, but he was always matched to win. He was always enhanced by the reluctance a lot of his opponents showed which left him unprepared for serious resistance. He had talent, could always press the best fighters pretty close but he always capitulated when matched evenly. Even beating McCall was a skin of his teeth kind of thing. And McCall was in reality only ever the third of fourth best heavyweight in the world at that time. That was Bruno’s level when he achieved that as well. Fourth best guy. A forth best guy in one era isn’t dominating in another decade.
I agree with most of that tbh, I did say he'd have to be fighting more regular and couldn't pick and choose. And only one man at the top of course. But I do think he has a good chance of beating a good few around at the time. But whenever he could fight as long as he did? Not sure about that.
For me I'd take Lennox, Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson, Douglas, Rudduck, Morrison, McCall, Witherspoon, Old Holmes, Old Foreman over that group, yep. Bruno also had the hardest assignment for his title fights Tyson x2 and Lennox.
The best guys of one decade are always a match for the best guys of another decade. But Frank was not one of the best guys of his decade. He just wasn’t. You can match Lennox with Ali. You can match Frazier with Holyfield though.