Shannon Briggs vs Frank Bruno

[James9753]

Who wins in their respective primes? How and why?

[DrDuke]

Bruno. He simply was a more advanced boxer, than Briggs. A confident UD.

[nobleart1978]

What years would you class as their prime ?

I liked Bruno from 1982 - 1989. When he came back after the first Tyson fight he was too muscle bound for me.

A pre 1989 Bruno could stop Briggs. Especially if it was at Wembley or Albert Hall. Bruno had a great jab and an heavy right hand.

[keithmoonhangover]

Bruno by mid round stoppage. No way in the world does Briggs win this.

[banjo]

I don't see this as that clear cut, Briggs could certainly give a whack and take a whack. Bruno could be boxing somebody's head off until they landed on him then he'd be clinging on for dear life.

[Bodyshot3]

I'd go for Bruno but the fight is not without problems for him and Frank would need to be patient and smart.

Bruno's jab was a sickener when he used it properly and probably stops Briggs from stepping in at will and when he does Frank was more than strong enough to tie Shannon up.

Actually felt the later Bruno was always the better model........thudding jab, better at smothering guys when they stepped in and he paced himself far more smartly. And he retained the threat of a crunching overhand shot.

[Datsue]

RE: Their primes, Briggs was obviously a better athlete when he was younger & wasn't chock-full of gear, 'roided up shot Briggs was slow as molasses but knew a few tricks.

I'd bet on aged roided-up Briggs to beat the younger version, for instance.

But both of them get battered by big Frank. The young Briggs might have a chance at landing something fight-ending before he ran out of gas & got walloped but he always had shite for stamina & when young didn't have a plan once he got tired (even if the old one's only plan was "lean on your opponent for the next eight rounds & hope you get lucky with a bomb", it was still a plan).