Marciano v.s. Bruno ?

Actually, both times Tyson fought Bruno he had plenty of success throwing one punch at a time, nevermind the 3, 4, 6-punch combinations. Bruno was hanging on for dear life and hyperventiliating after taking one or two glancing shots. Tyson wasn't sharp in either of those fights.

The only comparison being made with Tyson is that Marciano was similarly aggressive and he came in low and overcame reach advantages. And he hit with bad intention. You can go on all you like about the differences in style, but it's not really relevant against a man of Bruno's somewhat low-caliber.
You talk about Marciano being "predictable" - yeah, as if Frank Bruno is going to be able to figure out and dominate a fighter that several far better boxers than him found impossibly awkward and deceptively clever when they got in the ring with him.

On the contrary, there's nothing on your side of the argument to evoke desperation.
You've only offered up that "Bruno was bigger than any ranked fighter Marciano beat" .... that's your only argument, and it's weak. By the same reasoning, Muhammad Ali cannot handle Valuev !

When you look at the actual proven abilities of the two fighters, and look beyond mere physical dimension, their track records at the top, their abilities to cope with and adapt to styles, their ability to come back from hard punches, and, above all, those other intangible mental qualities, the psyche of the fighters ...... it should be obvious that Bruno's out of his depth against Marciano.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think a robotic programmed anxious deliberate boxer like Frank Bruno, who crumbled and panicked his way out of far more big fights than he managed to win, would beat a hard-punching natural fighting animal with pathological self-belief such as was Rocky Marciano.

 

Bruno wasn't any sort of "new breed". He was a good strong boy who made the best of himself as a boxer, but never had the natural instinct for fighting to be a real champion. He was incredibly well-managed and carefully matched, and because of his loyal fan base and status as a national treasure he secured many title shots that weren't afforded others of his ability, and he did himself proud by at least trying his hardest in most of his losing efforts.

To suggest that Bruno holds some sort of stylistic advantage against Marciano is simply bizarre. Against good opponents, Bruno did his best work when the opponent was somewhat lacklustre and in cruise-mode at a distance (eg. Witherspoon, Lewis, Smith, McCall - 3/4 of whom turned things around and beat him up), and when he was pressured by a guy who crowded him (eg.Tyson) all he could really do was hold. And he wasn't even much good at holding !
When any of those guys turned on the pressure, Bruno looked all at sea. Even McCall (who is just a glorified sparring partner at top level, a very unskilled boxer) had Bruno holding on for dear life in the 12th round.

I cannot believe how overrated Frank Bruno has become. I always felt he was somewhat unfairly criticized and underated in the 1980s and 90s, but now this is just silly (but very amusing) having him beat Rocky Marciano. :rofl

 

"""

 

Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon hardly needed an extra dimension to beat Bruno, it only took them a good old hail mary overhand right to get Bruno out of there.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tgv5rzKMn4[/ame]

 

That's right.
I'll give a fair bit of credit to Bruno for his performance against Witherspoon though, he took quite a few hefty shots in that fight before succumbing quite suddenly in the 11th. The main weakness Bruno showed in that fight was his absolute inability to adjust and come with a plan B, after going in front in the first 5 or 6 rounds. He tooks his licks though, for a while anyway.
Truth is, Witherspoon hadn't even bothered training for the fight though. Marciano's another matter entirely.

Another hail mary right hand that Bruno was very lucky to be saved from came against Jumbo Cummings.

At 8:14

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp1odQQ6N7E&feature=related[/ame]

That was definitely a case of being saved by the bell, if I ever saw one. I give Bruno credit again for coming back and winning the fight BUT he was not in there with a good fighter. Cummings, for all his muscle, wasn't even known as a puncher. I've seen Cummings' fight with a decrepit Joe Frazier and he never shook Frazier up anything like that, despite landing a large volume of blows.
Bruno improved a bit after this, but only by a degree. He never quite got past that tendency to either fall to pieces when hit and pressured, or lose momentum and run himself into exhaustion with the intense mental effort required to box under that pressure. This is the truth about Bruno.

 

Well said. Where and why this Bruno love comes from is incredible.

The best thing about Bruno was that the guy always had a loyal following & they backed their opinions up with money and it made for nice odds.

The guy is/was made to order for a Mike Tyson and I don't think beats him if he fights him 15x. The best he could do is knock him down or hurt him but the guy is not going to be the guy with his arm raised up at the end of the night. Actually it's interesting a Bruno/Hide fight never happened and it would've sold out since Herbie was the king of trash talking.

 

Who's your pick ?

 

Again, two giant fighters who beat him. Not applicable to the argument.

 

It is playing out in a predictable fashion. Those who actually saw Bruno and Marciano fight are picking Marciano...those who didn't see him live but have taken a lot of time to study him are picking Marciano...those who saw only Bruno are picking Bruno...those caught up in the size thing are picking Bruno. I'm a big guy, myself, but, I don't weigh the size factor all that heavily when it comes to heavyweight boxing. I agree with Jack Dempsey: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

 

Come on now.

Bruno wasn't even all that good.

The bottom line is that he generaly failed at the elite level.

He should not befavoured over any all time great and to be honest I would have a hard time making him favourite over any lineal champion.

 

According to some of the arguments used in this thread, 550 pound Samuel (The Australian Fat Man) Panetu must be the greatest heavyweight boxer who ever lived.

 

Lets come at this from another angle.

Would Frank Bruno have beaten Nino Valdez in all probability?

 

Be serious.

As janitor says, Bruno wasn't even all that good.

Bruno's win column is almost totally filled with diabolical third-raters and has-beens. He had a ridiculously orchestrated career that would make Al Weill's matchmaking look reckless. He was slow, robotic, predictable and lacking world-class mental strength. He's not in Marciano's class, and he's not too tall to keep that chin out of reach, nevermind his ribs. He folded under pressure or failed to adapt his strategy.

Tim Witherspoon turned up like a fat slob, he didn't even train, and he still knocked Frank out. And that was probably one of Bruno's top 3 or 4 performances. Bruno didn't really cut it at the elite level. They gave him 4 shots at versions the title (most of them undeserved) over a 9 year period for him to fulfill the hopes of our country, and only then against the incredibly mediocre Oliver McCall.