Matt Skelton v Dillian Whyte

Yes Bugner was fat and 37 years old but he was on a decent run of wins really.

Whyte beat guys who were as old or older, or coming off losses and gets held up as if he was fighting killers.

 

It is almost like pretending Whyte has faced a murderer"s row.
For a full "five years". It is completely false but people seem to genuinely believe.

Hence why I talk about "believing the hype".

 

I don't take it any more seriously than I did then.
Actually though, Bugner was rated in "The Ring magazine's" top 15 or top 20 in 1986, when the ratings were compliled by polling boxing people from around the world .... so, for what it is worth, somebody then must have been taking it at least semi-seriously at the time. If poll-compiled ratings signify anything, they signify what people think of a fighter at the time.

No one took Bugner seriously as a threat to the top fighters or champions. But he was mixing with the same 'gatekeepers' the younger contenders were mixing with, and he beat 3 decent 'gatekeepers' on the trot.
They were credible opponents.

James Tillis in 1986 actually had about the same "status" in the division as what Chisora has been at for the Whyte fights.
Bugner outpoints him on his first fight back after a 2 1/2 year hiatus. It is to be regarded as meaningless though, right?
Well, okay, I am fine with that, but let's have some consistency.

I agree that Bugner was nothing special, and I agree that Bruno's record is a joke.

What people are failing to see though, is that boxing hype in this era has gotten out of hand.
Ordinary heavyweight fights in the 1980s were considered ordinary, old washed-up fighters were considered old and washed-up .... people viewed things with a critical honest eye back then ... people were more inclined to see things as they are. The boxing press was more critical and a bit less inclined to cheer-lead for promoters.

.... but nowadays in the "pay per view"-saturated over-hyped era, people are easily swayed into believing things are higher quality than they are.

 

Your position IS extreme.

"That version of Bugner is not bringing enough of a challenge to realistically consider him a favorite over anyone Whyte has fought, during the past five years."

You are saying a 1987 Bugner can not realistically be considered a favourite over:

Dereck Chisora 2016
Malcolm Tann 2017
Robert Helenius 2017
Lucas Browne 2018
Joseph Parker 2018
Dereck Chisora 2018
Oscar Rivas 2019
Mariusz Wach 2019
Alexander Povetkin 2020
Alexander Povetkin 2020

I am saying some of those guys probably wouldn't even beat the declining (though still under-30 year old) versions of Tillis, Bey or Page in '86-'87 ..... all of whom were still considered decent "gatekeepers".

I think yours is an extreme position.

 

I'm "inventing a narrative" in an effort to try to understand why good intelligent posters such as yourself would say everyone Dillian Whyte has faced in the last 5 years would be favoured to beat Bugner of 1987.

I'm perhaps being too generous, and in fact you really believe even a 40 year old Mariusz Wach, 36 year old Lucas Browne, etc. would beat the Bugner who beat Tillis, Bey and Page ..... instead of simply being slightly duped by the hyperbole surrounding Whyte of late.

Dillian Whyte's pay-per-view main event fights would mostly have been about 3rd or 4th billing down on a routine Don King heavyweight card, at best, quality-wise, in the 1980s. And people complained in those days about all the mediocre heavyweights!
That's how far things have changed.

 

Parker failed to impress, and it could have gone either way, but Ruiz Jr. is good, and went on to beat AJ. So that is a good result.

But let's be honest about Parker.
His 3 fights before Whyte at least, he didn't look much good, even against someone like Cojanu. Losing to AJ by clear decision was perhaps his best showing!
Since the Whyte fight, he has not looked good at all either. He struggled to put away a 39-year-old Alex leapai. He struggled with Junior Fa, Fa arguably won 5 of 12 rounda against him, a 37-year-old Chisora was perhaps unlucky to get a decision over him (though I had Parker ahead by 1 point).

I would like Joseph Parker to be better than he is.
But he is what he is.

 

I had Parker winning by 1 point. But others had Chisora by a point. Therefore, an even fight.
Chisora is as ancient as Bugner was.
Parker had trouble with Chisora and with HFury and did not exactly breeze past Junior Fa, so on what evidence is he better than even an "ancient" Bugner?

 

Bugner at 37 would win a decision over 37 year old Chisora more clearly.