Could Bruce Woodcock have been World Heavyweight Champion???
Why, Why not!
Would this have made him Britains greatest ever Heavyweight, is he not anyway or dam close? ( era, competition level and all of that).
Thoughts...
Bruce Woodcock, World Champion(?)
-
kevin
- Heavyweight
Views and comments on this post would be appreciated
http://www.britishboxing.net/news.php?s ... rom=&ucat=&
Kevin
http://www.britishboxing.net/news.php?s ... rom=&ucat=&
Kevin
POSSIBLY, but to say he would have been Britains greatest ever heavyweight is somewhat far fetched, Jim sorry mate but if you are seriously comparing Bruces achievements to the first man to unify the titles in years i.e. Lewis, thats just plain bias towards the old days.
there are good fighters around these days you know, I read a post of your calling Bernard hopkins a fake. Which again is ludicrous, just cos he hasnt weight hopped and pandered to other promters wishes does not make him a fraud. Bloke is a top five middle of all time in my book and top ten in most people's.
Lets put it this way if he is, I wish we had more "frauds" coming from britain my friend.
there are good fighters around these days you know, I read a post of your calling Bernard hopkins a fake. Which again is ludicrous, just cos he hasnt weight hopped and pandered to other promters wishes does not make him a fraud. Bloke is a top five middle of all time in my book and top ten in most people's.
Lets put it this way if he is, I wish we had more "frauds" coming from britain my friend.
I am somewhat bias to the old days simply because it was the SINGLE GREATEST PERIOD in Boxing History... this is not my own set of facts this IS THE FACTS.
This topic is about Woodcock, but I will comment on Hopkins a moment.
First and foremost I did say that he IS A GOOD FIGHTER, but NOT A GREAT... because Hopkins is a natural L-heavy and if he was any Champion he would take his 6'1" "frame" and natural weight into that division and prove his worth. (this is a fair and factual assesment)
Yes there are GREAT fighters in every era, but the 30's and 40's was the best, to be among the TOP then REALLY MEANT something!!!
Last but not least a fighters achievements in many cases are second to the FACTS, (some fighters get there chance others DON"T)
So Proper analysis' MUST gather the facts, look at fighters STATS, ranking/rating, competition, length of time at the top, did they get a shot or not, did they deserve one and so on... So what about Bruce Woodcock???
This topic is about Woodcock, but I will comment on Hopkins a moment.
First and foremost I did say that he IS A GOOD FIGHTER, but NOT A GREAT... because Hopkins is a natural L-heavy and if he was any Champion he would take his 6'1" "frame" and natural weight into that division and prove his worth. (this is a fair and factual assesment)
Yes there are GREAT fighters in every era, but the 30's and 40's was the best, to be among the TOP then REALLY MEANT something!!!
Last but not least a fighters achievements in many cases are second to the FACTS, (some fighters get there chance others DON"T)
So Proper analysis' MUST gather the facts, look at fighters STATS, ranking/rating, competition, length of time at the top, did they get a shot or not, did they deserve one and so on... So what about Bruce Woodcock???
Could Woodcock have become world champion? - NO.
Why not? - Because he would have had to beat Joe Louis to achieve this.
Woodcock lost to Tami Mauriello in what i assume was an eliminator for Louis's title.
How can you compare Woodcocks achievements to - Henry Cooper?.
Look at thier opponents.
WOODCOCK- Jack London Tami Mauriello Freddie Mills Gus Lesnevich Lee Oma Lee Savold.
COOPER - Joe Bygraves Joe Erskine Brian London Ingemar Johansson Zora Folley Brian London Muhammad Ali Floyd Patterson Jack Bodell Billy Walker Karl Mildenberger Jose Manuel Urtain Joe Bugner
Leaving the opponents aside, and compare achievments. Cooper won the Londale belt outright and got to challenge for the world title against Ali.
Woodcock the best British Heavyweight?, No Way. I like the 30s and 40s era too, but be realistic.
Woodcock dosnt compare to Cooper, and dosnt compare to Bruno, Bugner, Lewis, or even Hide. I would put Woodcock above the likes of Mason, Currie, Meade etc but on a par with someone like John J Gardner
Why not? - Because he would have had to beat Joe Louis to achieve this.
Woodcock lost to Tami Mauriello in what i assume was an eliminator for Louis's title.
How can you compare Woodcocks achievements to - Henry Cooper?.
Look at thier opponents.
WOODCOCK- Jack London Tami Mauriello Freddie Mills Gus Lesnevich Lee Oma Lee Savold.
COOPER - Joe Bygraves Joe Erskine Brian London Ingemar Johansson Zora Folley Brian London Muhammad Ali Floyd Patterson Jack Bodell Billy Walker Karl Mildenberger Jose Manuel Urtain Joe Bugner
Leaving the opponents aside, and compare achievments. Cooper won the Londale belt outright and got to challenge for the world title against Ali.
Woodcock the best British Heavyweight?, No Way. I like the 30s and 40s era too, but be realistic.
Woodcock dosnt compare to Cooper, and dosnt compare to Bruno, Bugner, Lewis, or even Hide. I would put Woodcock above the likes of Mason, Currie, Meade etc but on a par with someone like John J Gardner
Cooper fought some good fighters alright and Ali's era is generally regarded as the Greatest "heavyweight" era and Cooper was coming to a close at the begining of this era.
But as for the rest of the names you mention with a few exceptions Woodcock's competion was far superior and Bruce made it to No.3 ranked Worlds heavyweight and he wasn't even "fully" ripe for Championship fights yet!
This is also a KNOWN and ACCEPTED FACT, they "rushed" Woodcock and waisted him. Bruno, Bugner, Lewis and Hide COME ON... Verdict Woodcock.
Lewis era is generally perceived as one of the POOREST in Heavyweight history!!!
So looking at the FACTS and Not necessarily acheivements WHERE does Bruce Woodcock stand in British All-Time placement???
But as for the rest of the names you mention with a few exceptions Woodcock's competion was far superior and Bruce made it to No.3 ranked Worlds heavyweight and he wasn't even "fully" ripe for Championship fights yet!
This is also a KNOWN and ACCEPTED FACT, they "rushed" Woodcock and waisted him. Bruno, Bugner, Lewis and Hide COME ON... Verdict Woodcock.
Lewis era is generally perceived as one of the POOREST in Heavyweight history!!!
So looking at the FACTS and Not necessarily acheivements WHERE does Bruce Woodcock stand in British All-Time placement???
sure Jim hopkins is a light heavy (bloke walks around 2 pounds over fighting weight and often comes in under the middleweight limit) has stayed there all his career and he is a light heavy 
, and Bruce woodcock is better than Lennox Lewis.
Sure, laughable, sorry plain laughable.
I know back in the day they didnt used to boil down to weight, but theese days they do, get over it, i D
Just cos a fighter doesnt come from your favourite era doesnt make them bad mate. As for Lewis fighting in the worst era, seem to remember everyone saying the same about larry holmes and look at the esteem he is held in now.
Modern doesnt equal bad anymore than old = good.
Fighters should be judged on their merit and woodcock wouldnt have gone 3 with Lewis, so to compare the two is blatently daft.
, and Bruce woodcock is better than Lennox Lewis. Sure, laughable, sorry plain laughable.
I know back in the day they didnt used to boil down to weight, but theese days they do, get over it, i D
Just cos a fighter doesnt come from your favourite era doesnt make them bad mate. As for Lewis fighting in the worst era, seem to remember everyone saying the same about larry holmes and look at the esteem he is held in now.
Modern doesnt equal bad anymore than old = good.
Fighters should be judged on their merit and woodcock wouldnt have gone 3 with Lewis, so to compare the two is blatently daft.
Depends on which Lewis and which Louis turned up. And Silkov I have read your posts on Lennox in past thread where you embarrassed yourself, so I wouldnt expect you to give him an ounce of credit for anything.
All this is hypothetical bollox anyway, if you look at form a sheer achievement perspective, then Lennox pisses all over the competition as Britains outstanding heavyweight, FACT, in terms of unifying, defending and who he has fought, yeah yeah here we go Evander was so shot blah blah Ive heard it dismissed it and moved on....he can only beat who was in front of him and he did that alright.
sorry guys, but you honestly think Tommy Farr giving away the reach height and weight advantages, let alone power would have stretched a modern day great? No and if you do well you're living in a walter mittee world!
I dont buy all this "the past is better just cos it is" speculative crap.
Yeah it was different, but what we have today is what we have, so stop bleating on about it and appreciate the modern greats for what they are, cos in 50 years time they will be the guys everyone is looking at all dewy eyed saying if they were around today.......
To doubt hopkins or Lewis as all time greats is in my opinion biased beyond belief. but that is your right and opinion. Im all for fighting the old guys corner but not to the detriment of modern day fighters who should gain the same kudos for their achievements if they have (18 title defences in Hopkins case / Unifying the titles, beating every man he ever faced (ok 2 in rematches) in Lewis's case, is being belittled by people who need to change their rose tinted specs for some more clear and balanced ones.
Are they greats, fuckin A they are. In ten years time they will be remembered more so as such.
All this is hypothetical bollox anyway, if you look at form a sheer achievement perspective, then Lennox pisses all over the competition as Britains outstanding heavyweight, FACT, in terms of unifying, defending and who he has fought, yeah yeah here we go Evander was so shot blah blah Ive heard it dismissed it and moved on....he can only beat who was in front of him and he did that alright.
sorry guys, but you honestly think Tommy Farr giving away the reach height and weight advantages, let alone power would have stretched a modern day great? No and if you do well you're living in a walter mittee world!
I dont buy all this "the past is better just cos it is" speculative crap.
Yeah it was different, but what we have today is what we have, so stop bleating on about it and appreciate the modern greats for what they are, cos in 50 years time they will be the guys everyone is looking at all dewy eyed saying if they were around today.......
To doubt hopkins or Lewis as all time greats is in my opinion biased beyond belief. but that is your right and opinion. Im all for fighting the old guys corner but not to the detriment of modern day fighters who should gain the same kudos for their achievements if they have (18 title defences in Hopkins case / Unifying the titles, beating every man he ever faced (ok 2 in rematches) in Lewis's case, is being belittled by people who need to change their rose tinted specs for some more clear and balanced ones.
Are they greats, fuckin A they are. In ten years time they will be remembered more so as such.
-
kevin
- Heavyweight
Good points Kevin and your probably right, but Cooper had enough of that 'old' fighting mentality and style, he was tough, game and courages, if he got close enough he might have done the damage...
But yeah, I wasn't thinking of 'cuts' with a constant jab and occassional good right Lewis would pile up the points and probably cut him, but I wouldn't rule Henry out!
He was certainly more courages than Lewis!
But yeah, I wasn't thinking of 'cuts' with a constant jab and occassional good right Lewis would pile up the points and probably cut him, but I wouldn't rule Henry out!
He was certainly more courages than Lewis!
..woodcock actually fought for the heavyweight championship of the world...at least as recognized bt the british boxing board of control (so alphabet titles aren't unique to this era after all)..it's a complex story that i don't have the energy to go into here.....but...in brief:
when joe louis retired and ezzard charles beat walcott for the vacant title, the new york boxing commission didn't recognize it as a title fight and nat fleishcher...who wielded a lot of power then..said there could be no world champion without the reigning british and european champion..who at the time was woodcock..being allowed to engage in an elimination tournament. (his record book still shows charles aas nba champion only. lee savold, an antique who manged to beat somebody went to england and fought woodcock and lost on a foul. he hit woodcock somewhere lower than the earlobes, which was enough to get woodcock the win. in their rematch..which is the "world title " fight i'm referring to savold beat woodcock in 4rounds..eye cuts, as i recall. the rest gets all mixed up with charles beating louis and gaining full recognition....etc..etc..etc.
how good was woodcock? he had a string of wins in europe and against fleischer's advice came to the states and took on tami mauriello....for whom he was not ready. however, the reports i've read having him boxing beautifully and punching solidly and being well ahead until the hard punching tami uncorked a beaut on woodcock's chin and that was the extent of woodcock's american career. however, he was most pleased by the praise he got from the american press and said they wrote about him as if he was the winner. (in the long run he was..it was mauriello who got the shot at louis) the consensus....woodcock was a good boxer in the classic standup chin.tucked behind the left shoulder style with a good punch, but not rugged enough to beat the top heavyweights.
i agree.. a match between him and tommy farr would have been a good one between to fighters of some ability. how they'd fair against more contemporary british heavyweights..i have no idea, though i think farr would do better than woodcock .
when joe louis retired and ezzard charles beat walcott for the vacant title, the new york boxing commission didn't recognize it as a title fight and nat fleishcher...who wielded a lot of power then..said there could be no world champion without the reigning british and european champion..who at the time was woodcock..being allowed to engage in an elimination tournament. (his record book still shows charles aas nba champion only. lee savold, an antique who manged to beat somebody went to england and fought woodcock and lost on a foul. he hit woodcock somewhere lower than the earlobes, which was enough to get woodcock the win. in their rematch..which is the "world title " fight i'm referring to savold beat woodcock in 4rounds..eye cuts, as i recall. the rest gets all mixed up with charles beating louis and gaining full recognition....etc..etc..etc.
how good was woodcock? he had a string of wins in europe and against fleischer's advice came to the states and took on tami mauriello....for whom he was not ready. however, the reports i've read having him boxing beautifully and punching solidly and being well ahead until the hard punching tami uncorked a beaut on woodcock's chin and that was the extent of woodcock's american career. however, he was most pleased by the praise he got from the american press and said they wrote about him as if he was the winner. (in the long run he was..it was mauriello who got the shot at louis) the consensus....woodcock was a good boxer in the classic standup chin.tucked behind the left shoulder style with a good punch, but not rugged enough to beat the top heavyweights.
i agree.. a match between him and tommy farr would have been a good one between to fighters of some ability. how they'd fair against more contemporary british heavyweights..i have no idea, though i think farr would do better than woodcock .
