Would Bruno Lose To Toney??

Ok, if we’re actually allowed to give Bonecrusher Smith credit for steamrolling Witherspoon, we’re making progress.

Maskaev would definitely be up on the cards against mid 80s Witherspoon. Whether he sees the finish line of gets knocked out late is anyone’s guess.

Ruiz smothered quite a few fighters who were being picked to beat. A fight with mid 80s Witherspoon is a toss up.

 

As I said in other thread I give Bonecrusher credit he went out and did his job and took advantage of lackluster Witherspoon kudos to him.

The only thing I disagreed with you on is that when we were discussing Wilder, I think we should match both fighters at their best. And obviously Witherspoon wasn't mentally or physically at his best vs Bonecrusher.

Again I don't think Witherspoon was at his best vs Bruno either, but as I said Maskaev and Ruiz aren't going to swarm all over Witherspoon. And I don't think Maskaev has the chin to survive vs Witherspoon, and I don't think Ruiz's clinching ugly style would be enough to beat even that version of Witherspoon.

But that's just how I see it.

 

Slightly off topic, but Witherspoon didn't have a prime.

He was green for Holmes. He was slacking but more experienced in the mid 80s. In 95, he was experienced and fighting to the best of his abilities but was pushing 40. The ten defense champion is always the safer bet.

 

He was up and down i agree he never really seemed to have a period of consistent performances which you could call "prime". But i guess his singular performances against the likes of Holmes, Tillis, Mercer, Smith 1, etc. Impressed me more than Wilder based on the skills he shows in those fights.

Maybe i underrate Wilder i've had this discussion before with a few members, but when i see Wilder his skill set just don't impress at all. Although obviously his sniper like right hand from range, especially with his height and reach make him a live threat to alot of Heavyweights past/present.

But i want to see Wilder in there with more elite Heavyweights, if he beats the likes of Hrgovic, Zhang, Ruiz, Joshua, etc. Then i'll start giving him more props in H2H match ups.

 

IMO Bruno would win in a very tough fight (especially since nobody knocked out Toney). In a difficult chess game, Bruno would win by a very close decision, SD, or even a draw (where Bruno was robbed).

 

Thstop! Thstop you thilly thavage!!

 

And all you big Bruno fans would have loved the guy to the same degree if he was from Paducah, Kentucky or Sheboygan, Wisconsin......right? Would have followed his career as closely from the outset & been his biggest supporter all along.

 

Here is the problem with what you are saying.

Smith and Witherspoon won one and lost one against each other.

Bruno just lost to both of them.

He literally only beat one live body in his entire career, and that was McCall.

Now you can argue that Smith and Witherspoon were better than some people who beat Rahman, but they are also worse than some people that Rahman beat.

Also they aren't necessarily levels above guys like Ruiz at their worst.

I get it that Rahman could blow hot and cold, but he was ultimately a far more successful fighter than Bruno, and a far better fighter at his best.

Bruno's career has been subject to some rather odd revisionisms since he retired.

While he was active, he was beloved by the British people, but they ultimately knew that he wasn't very good.

Today people are trying to make him into some sort of head to head monster, because he fits their idea of what a dangerous heavyweight looks like, and most of them seem to be from outside the UK.

 

Who's making Bruno a H2H monster ? i don't think being able to beat Maskaev, Ruiz, makes you a H2H monster somehow.

Masakev had a below average chin and was stopped numerous times early by unremarkable fighters, Ruiz was one of the most mediocre belt holders in one of the weakest Heavyweight era's in history. And has no stand out attributes in regards to power or speed, other than his ability to spoil and negate fighters offence with his clinching. I don't think losing to two Middleweights, fills me with much confidence that he could beat a hard punching Bruno who had an above average jab.

 

Coetzee would have beaten Maskaev and Coetzee was Ring-rated, too. Then again, he didn't necessarily need to be rated since even an old Bugner would have beaten Maskaev.

 

You hang too much on what you think would happen, in fights that can never happen.

Do I think that Smith and Witherspoon were better than Ruiz and Maskaev?

Yes I do.

Am I prepared to assume that they would beat them?

Absolutely not.

 

I don't really understand your logic how are we supposed to discuss anything then ? if we can't assume who would beat who ?

Just looking at the film of both fighters and seeing their strengths and weaknesses, you can make an assumption on who looks more impressive and who would be more likely to win.

Masakev has a below average chin and was stopped early numerous times by B and C level fighters, so i would imagine the hard punching Bruno would be favoured in that match up.

Ruiz doesn't really have any stand out attributes speed or power his whole style is to spoil. I think Bruno would be able to control him with the jab keep him respectable with his right hand and win a pretty clear decision.

You yourself think Smith and Witherspoon are better so obviously you favour them in mythical match ups pretty simple.

Bruno outside of being green vs Bonecrusher who is still better than Ruiz, Masakev, in your opinion. Only lost to top tier Heavyweights two of them being ATG's, Ruiz and Masakev are mediocre very beatable Heavyweights who i think Bruno should be favoured against based on attributes of each fighter.

 

Remove the adverbial phrase here and that's the very definition of a fantasy match-up pick.

Then, perhaps you should not participate in fantasy match-up threads.

 

I try to avoid hanging one assumption upon another when predicting fantasy fights.

You not so much it seems.

You are clearly a lot more forgiving than I to fighters who look impressive head to head, who failed back it up in the ring.

Our recent debate about Gerry Cooney also shows this.

 

We don't seem to be narrowing the issues much here.

I'm afraid I must insist that Rahman has a far superior resume to Bruno.

Bruno never lost to anybody on Maskaev's level, because he never fought anybody on Maskaev's level.

He only fought people who were either significantly worse, or significantly better, so hard to draw any firm conclusions there.

The important thing about Bruno is not so much who he last to, as who he didn't beat.

Smith and Witherspoon won one and lost one against each other, but Bruno simply lost to both of them.

The only top fighter of his era that Bruno beat is McCall, and even this win has a small question mark next to it, because it is close to McCall's documented descent into substance abuse.

Still it is a good win, and enough to elevate him above somebody like Cooney, who doesn't have such a win.