Who do you rate more highly: Cooper or Bruno?

Cooper,much more a natural and far better skills.

 

More natural at getting stopped, floored, cut and outpointed. Good skills but that is par for the course with the smaller fighters.

If they fought Bruno would stop him fast , possibly in the first.

 

Different era...'enry cuts up easily and think Big Frank would win...Cooper fought in an era when there were plenty of duffers around.Great sportsman & role model though and nearly put the slammers on Cassius Clays ( Ali) in their 1st none championship meeting.

 

Although Cooper came up short at world level, it was some achivement to be British/ Empire and European champs as long as he was. Those titles were a lot more prestigeous back in Coopers day than they are now.

 

Difficult to tell.

 

Many of the replies seem to be answering the wrong quastion. He didn't ask who would win but who you rate more highly. I rate Cooper more than Bruno because he was massively physically disadvantaged in most of his fights. He had loaded socks at the weigh in vs. Clay and actually only weighed 12st 10 and I just think even the domestic competition and Eurpoean level was a lot better in those days. Frank was a beast but had nothing more than a decent jab aand a clubbing slow right hand. He was also a bit chinny considering his size.

 

Bruno all the way. Even Bert Cooper was better than Henry Cooper.

 

Maybe but it still does not get away from the fact Cooper was the better of the two.

 

Spot on.

 

I rate Bruno higher. Cooper was domestic level only. One lucky punch aside he was a good Brit/Euro/Emp level fighter but was unable to find any consitant form at world class. Bruno was winning Vs Lewis and Witherspoon and also had Tyson in trouble before capitulating plus beat McCall. Big Frank was no world beater but he was a level above Cooper.

 

I think that had more to do with his technique and level of opposition then his lack of pop, longcount.