Who would have won between George Foreman or Frank bruno during the 90`s?

I don't think on this board anyone overrates Bruno, we know his drawbacks and limitations.

 

Smith didn't "destroy" Bruno. He was getting thoroughly outboxed prior to stopping him in the tenth and final round.

 

Bruno look fairly well destroyed in the 10th.

 

Destroyed to me isn't when you've won the vast majority of the previous rounds and are almost home.

Destroyed is Hearns - Cuevas/Duran, Liston - Patterson, Tyson - most etc. Even a beatdown like Duran - Moore i'd take as destroyed. Not the likes of Tate - Weaver, Smith - Bruno et al. Otherwise a guy could win every round conclusively while knocking a guy down 4 or 5 times then get ko'd in the last 20 seconds and be labeled "destroyed". That ain't destroyed for mine.

 

Yeah, everyone can choose there own definition of what "destroyed" is, but I can't get the image out of my head, the image of Bruno being pummelled brutally against the ropes and smashed to the canvas for the ten count by Smith.
That was very very brutal, and "destruction" seems apt enough - and I really wouldn't fancy Bruno's chances against Smith in a rematch either.

 

Right. Bruno beat Williams differently. Far better than Morrison did. Have you watched either fight lately?

 

prime bruno would stop 47 year old foreman, give the man a chance.

 

Dude, Williams kicked Morrison's ass before getting caught with a left hook. Bruno was getting the better of Williams in their bout and then stopped Williams. You confuse me a lot, Mark. You're a very strange individual.

 

If it goes to the judges cards, the business of boxing would make sure Foreman advances to his next big fight even if most felt he lost. So Foreman.

 

They were both somewhat unimpressive. Bruno had it in the bag but was too fragile.