Seamus wrote:No excuses for the Sanders loss, but the Puritty fight was just a poor fight plan. Sure it looks bad, but all Wlad needed to do was back off, box and take a wide decision. The Brewster loss is incomprehensible. Wlad beat him pillar to post, and then out of the blue he's suddenly breathing like an old man who tried to run up a long flight of stairs.
I failto see how it's incomprehensible. He threw a crapload of hard punches the first 4 rounds (many more than he does now) . . Brewster was still standing, Wlad mentally became discouraged, which increases your fatigue in boxing.
wouter wrote:For some reason I've come to the conclusion that if there were no Ali, Frazier and Foreman around in Bugner's day, he'd be Vitali Klitschko and if Ali, Foreman and Frazier were around today that Klitschko would be Bugner. In a fight between the two I'd take Bugner by a comfortable decision. What do you think?
Bugner was a gun shy fighter. While Bugner took a good punch, and was fairly skilled, Vitlai Klitschko would easily out box, out punch, and intimidate bashful Bugner.
Seamus wrote:No excuses for the Sanders loss, but the Puritty fight was just a poor fight plan. Sure it looks bad, but all Wlad needed to do was back off, box and take a wide decision. The Brewster loss is incomprehensible. Wlad beat him pillar to post, and then out of the blue he's suddenly breathing like an old man who tried to run up a long flight of stairs.
Excuses can be made for just about any loss, but the fact remains that Wlad lost to a club fighter; a guy not even as good as Tangstad. Brewster might has been better than Tangstad, but it would have been an interesting fight.
Dempsey lost to Meehan and was KO'd by way past it Flynn, while Liston lost to LHW Marshall. Of course Bugner lost some fights he shouldn't have. So do many other very good and even great fighters. Of course I still think he would have to lost to Vitali, but hhaehre's comment just didn't make any sense.
There is some evidence that Dempsey went into the tank against Flynn. Bob Solderman wrote a well-researched article (IBRO) on the early Dempsey that presents some compelling circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion it was a tank job. Does anyone honestly believe Fat Willie Meehan could have defeated Dempsey in anything over 4 rounds?
raylawpc wrote:There is some evidence that Dempsey went into the tank against Flynn. Bob Solderman wrote a well-researched article (IBRO) on the early Dempsey that presents some compelling circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion it was a tank job. Does anyone honestly believe Fat Willie Meehan could have defeated Dempsey in anything over 4 rounds?
Of course not. I was merely pointing out how silly it is to look at what are sometimes isoltaed losses and then try to make excuses for them. Originally I was trying to counter the point that another poster made that champions don't lose to ordinary fighters, which is a rather indefensible statement.
The Great John L wrote:
Excuses can be made for just about any loss, but the fact remains that Wlad lost to a club fighter; a guy not even as good as Tangstad. Brewster might has been better than Tangstad, but it would have been an interesting fight.
Dempsey lost to Meehan and was KO'd by way past it Flynn, while Liston lost to LHW Marshall. Of course Bugner lost some fights he shouldn't have. So do many other very good and even great fighters. Of course I still think he would have to lost to Vitali, but hhaehre's comment just didn't make any sense.
But Dempsey and Liston both won the title did they not ? Bugner never did and he also underachieved in many fights, even a good number of those he won. I give credit to fighter who actually perform not those who could have if only..
I have no time for the Kirk Johnsons and the Joe Bugners of this world, if they could have they should have. I would pick Ruiz over Bugner any day.
raylawpc wrote:There is some evidence that Dempsey went into the tank against Flynn. Bob Solderman wrote a well-researched article (IBRO) on the early Dempsey that presents some compelling circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion it was a tank job. Does anyone honestly believe Fat Willie Meehan could have defeated Dempsey in anything over 4 rounds?
Of course not. I was merely pointing out how silly it is to look at what are sometimes isoltaed losses and then try to make excuses for them. Originally I was trying to counter the point that another poster made that champions don't lose to ordinary fighters, which is a rather indefensible statement.
The Great John L wrote:
Excuses can be made for just about any loss, but the fact remains that Wlad lost to a club fighter; a guy not even as good as Tangstad. Brewster might has been better than Tangstad, but it would have been an interesting fight.
Dempsey lost to Meehan and was KO'd by way past it Flynn, while Liston lost to LHW Marshall. Of course Bugner lost some fights he shouldn't have. So do many other very good and even great fighters. Of course I still think he would have to lost to Vitali, but hhaehre's comment just didn't make any sense.
But Dempsey and Liston both won the title did they not ? Bugner never did and he also underachieved in many fights, even a good number of those he won. I give credit to fighter who actually perform not those who could have if only..
I have no time for the Kirk Johnsons and the Joe Bugners of this world, if they could have they should have. I would pick Ruiz over Bugner any day.
I rarely compare fighters of different eras, but I will say that I believe Joe Bugner would be world heavyweight champion were he fighting in his prime today. In his prime years, Bugner lost only to champions Ali and Frazier, and dropped a split decision to Ron Lyle.
Surely not. I know you have said you dislike Bugner because he was an underachiever but I think Bugner was better than Ruiz in virtually every department - bigger, faster, more skill, probably hit harder and certainly faced better opposition.
Just to put my view of Bugner into perspective, I don't dislike Bugner. The mans career stands on it's own and it was very good. I did however find him very frustrating to watch for the most part and I don't think he should be judged on what he could have been but rather on what he actually was.
Bugner on paper was of course better than Ruiz but that does not necessarily mean he would have beaten him. Bugner struggled against another southpaw in Bodell and I can easily see Bugner dropping a decision against an awkward southpaw like Ruiz. As for facing better opposition than Ruiz, true but did he beat better opposition ?
Going back to the original post, I don't see Bugner as the Vitali of the 70's at all, more like the Larry Donald of the 70's
Bugner was a gun shy fighter. While Bugner took a good punch, and was fairly skilled, Vitlai Klitschko would easily out box, out punch, and intimidate bashful Bugner.
Bugner would be lucky to win 3 rounds.
If by gun shy you mean that Bugner was relucatant to really let his punches go, in the main, I would agree with you. It may have had something to do with the fact that one of Bugner's opponents died after one of his early fights or that boxing was not really Bugner's first choice of sport. It was merely the one sport where, at the time, he could earn a living. On the few occasions when Bugner did choose to really go for it he showed he could fight and punch. Check out his explosive stoppage of Dino Dennis on youtube.
Where I disagree with you is that Vitali would outbox Bugner. I think Bugner was a more skilled fighter than Vitali. Bugner had fast hands, a smart jab, good mobility, a strong defense and decent ring-craft. Vitali's power would probably keep Bugner in his shell but I don't think he would out box him.
I think Vitlai would out box Bugner if he wanted too. Vitlai is not only 6'7' 1/2" tall with the longest arms ever measured by HBO at 29.5" from first to arm pit, he is also a very active fighter in terms of throwing punches, and has top reflexes for defense and counters.
This is why no man has won more than a consensus two rounds vs Vitlai in all of his pro boxing matches.
hhaehre wrote:Bugner on paper was of course better than Ruiz but that does not necessarily mean he would have beaten him. Bugner struggled against another southpaw in Bodell and I can easily see Bugner dropping a decision against an awkward southpaw like Ruiz.
It's interesting how a guy like Bugner who never liked boxing and rarely, if ever, gave his all in a fight is talked about over and over and over and over again in here.
Yet a real fighter like Kevin Finnegan who actually gave his all in some real wars with the very best barely gets a mention. Even though he croaked last week, the thread regarding it has just a handful of contributions.
I suspect when Bugner passes on (and may it be many years in the future), the outpouring of love, grief and what-if scenarios in here, will surpass the legendary West Coast Boxing thread for number of posts.
hhaehre wrote:Bugner on paper was of course better than Ruiz but that does not necessarily mean he would have beaten him. Bugner struggled against another southpaw in Bodell and I can easily see Bugner dropping a decision against an awkward southpaw like Ruiz.
pound per pound wrote:Vitlai is not only 6'7' 1/2" tall with the longest arms ever measured by HBO at 29.5" from first to arm pit, he is also a very active fighter in terms of throwing punches, and has top reflexes for defense and counters.
This is why no man has won more than a consensus two rounds vs Vitlai in all of his pro boxing matches.
Maybe it's more to do with Vitali's level of opposition...?
Thanks for the explanation.
