Bruno v Wlad K

[Ambling Alp II]

They did have much, had even less power. Yes they all treated us to some great pillow fights.
Bruno had enough boxing ability to outbox McCall and give Lennox Lewis (whom I would argue has slightly better than those legends) a lot of trouble for several rounds before his chin let him down. More importantly, he was aggressive and was a hard puncher.

[DrDuke]

They did have much, had even less power. Yes they all treated us to some great pillow fights.
Bruno had enough boxing ability to outbox McCall and give Lennox Lewis (whom I would argue has slightly better than those legends) a lot of trouble for several rounds before his chin let him down. More importantly, he was aggressive and was a hard puncher.

When there's a talk about Vitali, you go like "His best performance was the Lewis' loss! He got stopped by Lewis! Period!". When it's about Bruno, for you it's important, that Bruno had that effort, while you don't give a sh!t about him being KOed.

[Onetimeonly]

They did have much, had even less power. Yes they all treated us to some great pillow fights.
Bruno had enough boxing ability to outbox McCall and give Lennox Lewis (whom I would argue has slightly better than those legends) a lot of trouble for several rounds before his chin let him down. More importantly, he was aggressive and was a hard puncher.

When there's a talk about Vitali, you go like "His best performance was the Lewis' loss! He got stopped by Lewis! Period!". When it's about Bruno, for you it's important, that Bruno had that effort, while you don't give a sh!t about him being KOed.

Nobody pretends like Bruno won.

[DrDuke]

They did have much, had even less power. Yes they all treated us to some great pillow fights.
Bruno had enough boxing ability to outbox McCall and give Lennox Lewis (whom I would argue has slightly better than those legends) a lot of trouble for several rounds before his chin let him down. More importantly, he was aggressive and was a hard puncher.

When there's a talk about Vitali, you go like "His best performance was the Lewis' loss! He got stopped by Lewis! Period!". When it's about Bruno, for you it's important, that Bruno had that effort, while you don't give a sh!t about him being KOed.

Nobody pretends like Bruno won.

And I didn't tell, that somebody was pretending, as if he had done it.

[Fray Bentos]

Bruno would stand a good chance against an earlier version of Wlad if he went out to bomb him out like he did against Gerrie Coetzee or like he tried to do with Tyson.

The clutch and grab version of Wlad? No, he would run out of steam in a boring fight and get stopped on his feet in around 8-10 rounds. Those two pudenda were all arms and reach - they were very very hard to beat and Bruno had a good 6-8 rounds of stamina before he came crashing down.

What I would have loved to have seen is a prime David Tua vs Wlad and his fornicating brother.

[Onetimeonly]

When there's a talk about Vitali, you go like "His best performance was the Lewis' loss! He got stopped by Lewis! Period!". When it's about Bruno, for you it's important, that Bruno had that effort, while you don't give a sh!t about him being KOed.

Nobody pretends like Bruno won.

And I didn't tell, that somebody was pretending, as if he had done it.

It's why it was a poor analogy.

[DrDuke]

Nobody pretends like Bruno won.

And I didn't tell, that somebody was pretending, as if he had done it.

It's why it was a poor analogy.

It seems, that you don't get the analogy. The point of it was the fact, that Alpy respects a solid, but failed effort of his guy and he uses it as an argument for his guy being good, while he doesn't respect a solid, but failed effort of not his guy and he never uses it in a positive context.

[oogiebe]

And I didn't tell, that somebody was pretending, as if he had done it.

It's why it was a poor analogy.

It seems, that you don't get the analogy. The point of it was the fact, that Alpy respects a solid, but failed effort of his guy and he uses it as an argument for his guy being good, while he doesn't respect a solid, but failed effort of not his guy and he never uses it in a positive context.

Wha'?

[DrDuke]

It's why it was a poor analogy.

It seems, that you don't get the analogy. The point of it was the fact, that Alpy respects a solid, but failed effort of his guy and he uses it as an argument for his guy being good, while he doesn't respect a solid, but failed effort of not his guy and he never uses it in a positive context.

Wha'?

What's so surprising? Have you ever seen Alp talking about Klitschko's effort vs Lewis in a positive context? Like he has just done with Bruno here. Honestly, I haven't. Am I missing something?

[oogiebe]

It seems, that you don't get the analogy. The point of it was the fact, that Alpy respects a solid, but failed effort of his guy and he uses it as an argument for his guy being good, while he doesn't respect a solid, but failed effort of not his guy and he never uses it in a positive context.

Wha'?

What's so surprising? Have you ever seen Alp talking about Klitschko's effort vs Lewis in a positive context? Like he has just done with Bruno here. Honestly, I haven't. Am I missing something?

No surprise, just a bit garbled mate.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was taking things out of context.
Some people say V. Klitschko is a great fighter. They often point to the Lewis fight as some sort of proof. I have maintained that a great fighter should have done a lot better.

I never said Bruno was a great fighter. If I was comparing Bruno to say Joe Louis, I would not use the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that he was better than Joe Louis. Why? Because I think Joe Louis would have done a lot better than Bruno did. If I was comparing Bruno to a stiff like say Joe Hipp, then I would bring up the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that Bruno was better than Hipp.

I don't think the inferior guys you were mentioning would have done as well against Lennox Lewis.

You also have to take into consideration that Lewis was not the same fighter that he had once been when he fought Klitschko. He was certainly a better when he fought Bruno than when he fought Klitschko. Anyone who has seen both of these fights should know that.

And of course you left out the points I made about Bruno's fights with McCall and Witherspoon.

[Onetimeonly]

And I didn't tell, that somebody was pretending, as if he had done it.

It's why it was a poor analogy.

It seems, that you don't get the analogy. The point of it was the fact, that Alpy respects a solid, but failed effort of his guy and he uses it as an argument for his guy being good, while he doesn't respect a solid, but failed effort of not his guy and he never uses it in a positive context.

He's never said vitali didn't give a good effort, he rightfully says vitali never beat anyone of note.

[DrDuke]

He was taking things out of context.
Some people say V. Klitschko is a great fighter. They often point to the Lewis fight as some sort of proof. I have maintained that a great fighter should have done a lot better.

I never said Bruno was a great fighter. If I was comparing Bruno to say Joe Louis, I would not use the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that he was better than Joe Louis. Why? Because I think Joe Louis would have done a lot better than Bruno did. If I was comparing Bruno to a stiff like say Joe Hipp, then I would bring up the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that Bruno was better than Hipp.

I don't think the inferior guys you were mentioning would have done as well against Lennox Lewis.

You also have to take into consideration that Lewis was not the same fighter that he had once been when he fought Klitschko. He was certainly a better when he fought Bruno than when he fought Klitschko. Anyone who has seen both of these fights should know that.

And of course you left out the points I made about Bruno's fights with McCall and Witherspoon.

And what's about those points? Bruno was also stopped by Witherspoon. He wasn't destroying Witherspoon or something like that before being stopped. A quite similar situation to the Lewis bout and a little bit less similar situation to the Bonecrusher bout, here Bruno had been more dominant and closer to victory. And I already pointed out, that having McCall as a biggest win wasn't something special. McCall was a tough mediocre boxer with a great chin. He scored some big upsets, but he has been considered a journeyman prior to upsetting Damiani and he has never demonstrated something special skill-wise.

[Flump]

The likes of Povetkin, Haye and Pulev would deal with Bruno. There is simply a noticeable gap in class with them and him. It either wouldn't be any surprise, if the likes of Chagaev and Ibragimov would handle Bruno.

Povetkin I could see, maybe Haye if he keeps switched on. Pulev??! Do me a favour, Bruno would demolish him, there's certainly a gap in class there as you say and it doesn't favour Pulev.

Chagaev had some skill but Bruno would overpower him. Ibragimov?

As for Wlad, if Bruno doesn't get him early then I'd favour Wlad in about 8 or 9.

[DrDuke]

The likes of Povetkin, Haye and Pulev would deal with Bruno. There is simply a noticeable gap in class with them and him. It either wouldn't be any surprise, if the likes of Chagaev and Ibragimov would handle Bruno.

Povetkin I could see, maybe Haye if he keeps switched on. Pulev??! Do me a favour, Bruno would demolish him, there's certainly a gap in class there as you say and it doesn't favour Pulev.

Chagaev had some skill but Bruno would overpower him. Ibragimov?

As for Wlad, if Bruno doesn't get him early then I'd favour Wlad in about 8 or 9.

How Bruno had much more class than Pulev? Pulev's jab is better, Pulev is more polished as a boxer. Bruno's tools against Pulev would be in overpowering him, mauling him with dirty fighting. The same against Chagaev and Ibragimov, yes.

[Flump]

The likes of Povetkin, Haye and Pulev would deal with Bruno. There is simply a noticeable gap in class with them and him. It either wouldn't be any surprise, if the likes of Chagaev and Ibragimov would handle Bruno.

Povetkin I could see, maybe Haye if he keeps switched on. Pulev??! Do me a favour, Bruno would demolish him, there's certainly a gap in class there as you say and it doesn't favour Pulev.

Chagaev had some skill but Bruno would overpower him. Ibragimov?

As for Wlad, if Bruno doesn't get him early then I'd favour Wlad in about 8 or 9.

How Bruno had much more class than Pulev? Pulev's jab is better, Pulev is more polished as a boxer. Bruno's tools against Pulev would be in overpowering him, mauling him with dirty fighting. The same against Chagaev and Ibragimov, yes.

By having seen them both fight Dr. Pulev is actually slower and more upright than Bruno, his jab isn't better, and certainly isn't harder. He doesn't punch hard enough to worry Bruno, and his chin isn't solid enough to take Bruno's power.

Klitchsko aside he has never fought anyone as good as Bruno, and his limitations were rather exposed there as they would be again here, and as we'll see soon, by Joshua in a mismatch.

[DrDuke]

Povetkin I could see, maybe Haye if he keeps switched on. Pulev??! Do me a favour, Bruno would demolish him, there's certainly a gap in class there as you say and it doesn't favour Pulev.

Chagaev had some skill but Bruno would overpower him. Ibragimov?

As for Wlad, if Bruno doesn't get him early then I'd favour Wlad in about 8 or 9.

How Bruno had much more class than Pulev? Pulev's jab is better, Pulev is more polished as a boxer. Bruno's tools against Pulev would be in overpowering him, mauling him with dirty fighting. The same against Chagaev and Ibragimov, yes.

By having seen them both fight Dr. Pulev is actually slower and more upright than Bruno, his jab isn't better, and certainly isn't harder. He doesn't punch hard enough to worry Bruno, and his chin isn't solid enough to take Bruno's power.

Klitchsko aside he has never fought anyone as good as Bruno, and his limitations were rather exposed there as they would be again here, and as we'll see soon, by Joshua in a mismatch.

Pulev's power in his jab and overall, of course, is inferior in comparison to Bruno's one, but Pulev uses his jab better. Pulev handily outboxed Chisora, this had definitely been a good matchup aside Klitschko. And, of course, Pulev won't have much success against Joshua, but nothing to expose there, as it's already clear, that Joshua is a much better boxer than Pulev. And much better than Bruno as well, so Pulev's loss to Joshua wouldn't be an argument for Pulev being worse than some lesser level competitors.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was taking things out of context.
Some people say V. Klitschko is a great fighter. They often point to the Lewis fight as some sort of proof. I have maintained that a great fighter should have done a lot better.

I never said Bruno was a great fighter. If I was comparing Bruno to say Joe Louis, I would not use the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that he was better than Joe Louis. Why? Because I think Joe Louis would have done a lot better than Bruno did. If I was comparing Bruno to a stiff like say Joe Hipp, then I would bring up the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that Bruno was better than Hipp.

I don't think the inferior guys you were mentioning would have done as well against Lennox Lewis.

You also have to take into consideration that Lewis was not the same fighter that he had once been when he fought Klitschko. He was certainly a better when he fought Bruno than when he fought Klitschko. Anyone who has seen both of these fights should know that.

And of course you left out the points I made about Bruno's fights with McCall and Witherspoon.

And what's about those points? Bruno was also stopped by Witherspoon. He wasn't destroying Witherspoon or something like that before being stopped. A quite similar situation to the Lewis bout and a little bit less similar situation to the Bonecrusher bout, here Bruno had been more dominant and closer to victory. And I already pointed out, that having McCall as a biggest win wasn't something special. McCall was a tough mediocre boxer with a great chin. He scored some big upsets, but he has been considered a journeyman prior to upsetting Damiani and he has never demonstrated something special skill-wise.

He was very competitive with Witherspoon. He was competitive for Lewis for a while. He beat McCall. All of these would have mopped the floor with gladiators that you keep bringing up.

[DrDuke]

He was taking things out of context.
Some people say V. Klitschko is a great fighter. They often point to the Lewis fight as some sort of proof. I have maintained that a great fighter should have done a lot better.

I never said Bruno was a great fighter. If I was comparing Bruno to say Joe Louis, I would not use the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that he was better than Joe Louis. Why? Because I think Joe Louis would have done a lot better than Bruno did. If I was comparing Bruno to a stiff like say Joe Hipp, then I would bring up the Lewis fight as some sort of evidence that Bruno was better than Hipp.

I don't think the inferior guys you were mentioning would have done as well against Lennox Lewis.

You also have to take into consideration that Lewis was not the same fighter that he had once been when he fought Klitschko. He was certainly a better when he fought Bruno than when he fought Klitschko. Anyone who has seen both of these fights should know that.

And of course you left out the points I made about Bruno's fights with McCall and Witherspoon.

And what's about those points? Bruno was also stopped by Witherspoon. He wasn't destroying Witherspoon or something like that before being stopped. A quite similar situation to the Lewis bout and a little bit less similar situation to the Bonecrusher bout, here Bruno had been more dominant and closer to victory. And I already pointed out, that having McCall as a biggest win wasn't something special. McCall was a tough mediocre boxer with a great chin. He scored some big upsets, but he has been considered a journeyman prior to upsetting Damiani and he has never demonstrated something special skill-wise.

He was very competitive with Witherspoon. He was competitive for Lewis for a while. He beat McCall. All of these would have mopped the floor with gladiators that you keep bringing up.

Lewis obviously would do it. Witherspoon against Povetkin and Haye would be a tougher call. And McCall sucked in comparison to them.

[Ambling Alp II]

McCall sucked in comparison to Povetkin and Haye? Wow. I mean wow. How far is this going to go?

Beating Dokes, no big deal. Beating Joe Hipp is.
Getting humiliating by Michael Benntt doesn't count if you are partying too much.
Lewis really won 21 of 24 rounds against Holyfield.
Mayweather deserved the decision against in the first fight against Castillo.

Wonder what's next.

[DrDuke]

McCall sucked in comparison to Povetkin and Haye? Wow. I mean wow. How far is this going to go?

Beating Dokes, no big deal. Beating Joe Hipp is.
Getting humiliating by Michael Benntt doesn't count if you are partying too much.
Lewis really won 21 of 24 rounds against Holyfield.
Mayweather deserved the decision against in the first fight against Castillo.

Wonder what's next.

Absolutely wrong interpretation of the most stuff and you trademark wowing instead of argumenting. If there's nothing to say, then it's better to say exactly nothing, cause there's no real points in your pretentious smart a$$ nonsense, bruh.

If you don't see, that Povetkin and Haye are much more skilled and polished boxers than McCall, or that Holyfield did almost nothing in Lewis bouts, you probably better watch basketball or golf.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just going by what you have said in previous posts.
As for Povetkin and Haye; two legeds who contributed so much to a great era of heavyweight boxing.

[DrDuke]

Just going by what you have said in previous posts.
As for Povetkin and Haye; two legeds who contributed so much to a great era of heavyweight boxing.

If you think, that you were going exactly by my previous posts, then you're delusional, because many of those conclusions looked like inaccurate and misinterpreting excerpts of a context, or you've just done it deliberately.

And it's possible to doubt in Haye because of his short career, but to say, that Povetkin didn't contribute a lot or didn't beat anybody of note, is even more delusional.

[Ambling Alp II]

You posted this stuff, not me.

Did you have Lewis winning 21 of 24 rounds against Holyfield?
Didn't you have Mayweather winning the first fight against Marquez?
Isn't that your pretty much what you said about Morrison losing to Michael Bentt?
Have you not been giving a lot of credit to Morrison for beating Joe Hipp and trying to devalue Ruddock's win over Dokes?

Has someone hacked into you account?

[DrDuke]

Did you have Lewis winning 21 of 24 rounds against Holyfield?

Yes, I did. The first fight was a shotout worthy, in the second one Holyfield managed to take few rounds. But I'm not gonna discuss it again with a wacko, who scored the second fight for Holyfield, cause those will be exercises in futility. That nonesense was in the same class with your ravings about Sweet Pea Williams.

Didn't you have Mayweather winning the first fight against Marquez?

No, I didn't, while Mayweather's fight against Marquez can't be the first or the second, or even the third, cause he fought Marquez only once.

Isn't that your pretty much what you said about Morrison losing to Michael Bentt?

My point there was that you should judge prime vs prime matchups logically when fighters are in prime. If you don't get it, it's just another your problem.

Have you not been giving a lot of credit to Morrison for beating Joe Hipp and trying to devalue Ruddock's win over Dokes?

Lol, I haven't even mentioned Hipp's name in this thread. Oh my, either you a wacko or a lair.

Has someone hacked into you account?

No, bruh. On the basis of what we've just seen, you are better to worry more about yourself than about my account.