Two part question: Who do you favor in a peak-version h2h match-up between the Bone Crusher and the Boxing Banker... and, who do you rate higher overall at HW?
I reprint my answer from the other thread: I like Smith a lot. Big, powerful, great chin in his prime. First college graduate to win a piece of the title. But a late starter to boxing who had very little skill, and was hardly what one might call a "warrior." He beat terrible Tim, one of my 80's favs, but in an earlier fight, Witherspoon outboxed him with ease. Fact is, Witherspoon felt he was being ripped off by Don King and did not train, was strung out on drugs and underestimating Bonecrusher because of how easy he had it earlier, and just got caught. Could Brock have beat him? I would pick Smith. But they not that divergent in talent. Smith was bigger, more powerful, better chin, and for whatever reason had a much better high end win, so you can say he had the better intangibles. Brock was much better schooled without being a standout in anything.
Brock has it if it goes to the cards. If there's a KO, rest assured the Bonecrusher is the one doing the knocking out. The thing with this fight is that Brock simply isn't mobile. He's going to be fighting in the danger zone, and I don't see him surviving. Smith by KO. Bonecrusher has to be ranked higher at HW. I liked Brock but he honestly doesn't have any real good wins.
These results are absolutely shocking. James Smith loses 8 out of 10 to Calvin Brock - most times by no closer a margin than 117-111, and nobody's going to convince me otherwise. Brock gets severely underrated. Being stopped in seven rounds via accumulation by Klitschko does not mean he had poor punch resistance. Losing a fairly close decision to Chambers does not mean he wasn't a very fundamentally skilled boxer. The only reason I would entertain Bonecrusher rating ahead of him in a historical sense is the technicality of Smith securing a world title during his eighteen years in the ring - something Brock was unable to do during his six year campaign. And I like Bonecrusher. Whether or not someone happens to hold a world title can belie the whole truth, however. The circumstances of Smith's best win (over Witherspoon) make it not that much better a win than Brock's over Timur Ibragimov. Smith is a fluke champ. Brock is someone who would have benefited greatly from the absence of Wladimir Klitschko in the division, and would likely have been a beltholder without this obstruction. Yes, Smith has a better resume (although not by as much as you'd first think if you scratch beneath the surface). Beating Brock is far more of an accomplishment than beating Smith, however. That can not be debated.
The Battle of North Carolina! I really like Smith as a person but he certainly lacked skill and could underperform. Brock is more well rounded and as pointed out above was only clipped by Wlad, which is no great shame. He was a very solid and consistent performer. I would say Brock wins 8 out of 10 times.
Brock had only 33 fights without big things.He proved nothing. James Smith had 62 fights he was world champion. I can't respect a nobody like Brock.His record incredible unimpressive. Brock best wins was Timur Ibragimov.Brock was unathletic **** fighter. Just an idiota can say Smith hasn't skill.Just saying. At least Smith had some remarkable wins(Bruno,Witherspoon,Ferguson,Weaver).
Brock's career was cut short by a severe eye injury. If you are going to count all those 62 fights you must include that 17 of them were losses. He certainly has a better winning resume than Brock but he also showed up and lost to some non-etities Marvis Frazier? Adilson Rodrigues? Levi Billups? He was hit or miss and not very skilled at all.
