Frank Bruno v James Smith

jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45238
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

loaded_gloves wrote:I'm pretty sure he was 9 rds up. He was very frustrated with his boring, safety first performance, following instructions, and elected for the last rd to try bang Smith out - alas it turned out Smith had an iron chin and anyone going right at him played right into his hands.

I think Spinks and Tubbs knew way, way too much for Bruno personally, although he'd have probably gone the distance with them. Thomas let's not forget did what Larry Holmes could not and made easy work of Tim Witherspoon. He also had an iron chin - Coetzee, Spoon, Weaver, no one could make a dent in it in his day.

Still, a very good fighter, nuclear power in his fists, lacked self-belief, was poorly managed development-wise by his team, but ultimately came out on top and has plenty of very good wins - especially Oliver McCall.

Comparisons with David Price are fanciful. Price was KOd by a cuffing shot by a Jose Ribalta-type. Impossible to see him surviving much past a round versus McCall, Bonecrusher, Coetzee, Spoon, Tyson, Lewis etc etc.

Bruno's problem was that he fought so tight too, i think it contributed to him using up his stamina, and when hurt, he had no survival instincts, the arms would drop and he would just take shot after shot after shot until usually (in fact i think it may have been every time he was stopped) the referee intervened and wrapped his arms around big frank to save him.
banjo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 26473
Joined: 20 Nov 2007, 03:17

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by banjo »

That punch that rocked Tyson always makes me chuckle, Frank looked as shocked as everyone else was.
banjo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 26473
Joined: 20 Nov 2007, 03:17

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by banjo »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
loaded_gloves wrote:I'm pretty sure he was 9 rds up. He was very frustrated with his boring, safety first performance, following instructions, and elected for the last rd to try bang Smith out - alas it turned out Smith had an iron chin and anyone going right at him played right into his hands.

I think Spinks and Tubbs knew way, way too much for Bruno personally, although he'd have probably gone the distance with them. Thomas let's not forget did what Larry Holmes could not and made easy work of Tim Witherspoon. He also had an iron chin - Coetzee, Spoon, Weaver, no one could make a dent in it in his day.

Still, a very good fighter, nuclear power in his fists, lacked self-belief, was poorly managed development-wise by his team, but ultimately came out on top and has plenty of very good wins - especially Oliver McCall.

Comparisons with David Price are fanciful. Price was KOd by a cuffing shot by a Jose Ribalta-type. Impossible to see him surviving much past a round versus McCall, Bonecrusher, Coetzee, Spoon, Tyson, Lewis etc etc.

Bruno's problem was that he fought so tight too, i think it contributed to him using up his stamina, and when hurt, he had no survival instincts, the arms would drop and he would just take shot after shot after shot until usually (in fact i think it may have been every time he was stopped) the referee intervened and wrapped his arms around big frank to save him.
Wasn't the Smith fight the only time he got counted out?
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

I know this is going to sound stupid, but I don't think he was a natural heavyweight. He was
only 16 stone with all that muscle mass looking like a Mr Universe.

When he retired from boxing, he said he got himself down to under 14 stone.
macaca
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1296
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 07:49

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by macaca »

Fat Git wrote:I know this is going to sound stupid, but I don't think he was a natural heavyweight. He was
only 16 stone with all that muscle mass looking like a Mr Universe.

When he retired from boxing, he said he got himself down to under 14 stone.
You could open up a great new thread here Fat Git, what would Franks career have been like if he had stuck to CW, who was around at the time, did the lure of the HW division then quite rightly steal the limelight and purse monies, what if?
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

macaca wrote:
Fat Git wrote:I know this is going to sound stupid, but I don't think he was a natural heavyweight. He was
only 16 stone with all that muscle mass looking like a Mr Universe.

When he retired from boxing, he said he got himself down to under 14 stone.
You could open up a great new thread here Fat Git, what would Franks career have been like if he had stuck to CW, who was around at the time, did the lure of the HW division then quite rightly steal the limelight and purse monies, what if?
He was carrying too much muscle mass and that slowed him down and tired him out for the later rounds - it would be like a Mo Farah having a muscular body like Usain Bolt, there are heavies who are natural heavies but big Frank was never a natural heavy, if he had been with his muscle mass - he would have weighed in at 20 stone and not under 16 for most of his career.

And at crusierweight - he would have been a beast. He would have knocked the shite out of
DeLeon, Qawi, Duran, Wamba etc.
macaca
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1296
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 07:49

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by macaca »

Fat Git wrote:
macaca wrote:
Fat Git wrote:I know this is going to sound stupid, but I don't think he was a natural heavyweight. He was
only 16 stone with all that muscle mass looking like a Mr Universe.

When he retired from boxing, he said he got himself down to under 14 stone.
You could open up a great new thread here Fat Git, what would Franks career have been like if he had stuck to CW, who was around at the time, did the lure of the HW division then quite rightly steal the limelight and purse monies, what if?
He was carrying too much muscle mass and that slowed him down and tired him out for the later rounds - it would be like a Mo Farah having a muscular body like Usain Bolt, there are heavies who are natural heavies but big Frank was never a natural heavy, if he had been with his muscle mass - he would have weighed in at 20 stone and not under 16 for most of his career.

And at crusierweight - he would have been a beast. He would have knocked the shite out of
DeLeon, Qawi, Duran, Wamba etc.
Was this muscle mass a sort of handicap or was he training incorrectly or both or what? Pardon my ignorance.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

macaca wrote:
Fat Git wrote:
macaca wrote:I know this is going to sound stupid, but I don't think he was a natural heavyweight. He was
only 16 stone with all that muscle mass looking like a Mr Universe.

When he retired from boxing, he said he got himself down to under 14 stone.

You could open up a great new thread here Fat Git, what would Franks career have been like if he had stuck to CW, who was around at the time, did the lure of the HW division then quite rightly steal the limelight and purse monies, what if?
He was carrying too much muscle mass and that slowed him down and tired him out for the later rounds - it would be like a Mo Farah having a muscular body like Usain Bolt, there are heavies who are natural heavies but big Frank was never a natural heavy, if he had been with his muscle mass - he would have weighed in at 20 stone and not under 16 for most of his career.

And at crusierweight - he would have been a beast. He would have knocked the shite out of
DeLeon, Qawi, Duran, Wamba etc.
Was this muscle mass a sort of handicap or was he training incorrectly or both or what? Pardon my ignorance.
I think he was into bodybuilding before he took up boxing and it went from there and he maintained it. Even as an 18 year amateur he was heavily muscled and there were no real attempt to restructure his physique to go 10-12 rounds at a fast pace. He had the fitness of course but carrying all that bulk would tire him out somewhat however good his fitness was.
loaded_gloves
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1907
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 12:18

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by loaded_gloves »

'Bruno was a cruiserweight', probably one of the single most idiotic remarks ever made on Boxrec.

Some men are just naturally defined and muscled and Bruno was certainly one of them. He was powerfully built even as a mere amateur. Ever seen Holyfield as a 14 year old boy? He was exactly the same. Seriously defined, muscular physiques. Tyson ditto.

Bruno couldn't have boiled down below 190 anymore than Nikolay Valuev could have.

As for Bruno going down to 14 stone in retirement - yes, when he was a coke addict.
ILikeBeer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 10947
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 07:23

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by ILikeBeer »

loaded_gloves wrote:'Bruno was a cruiserweight', probably one of the single most idiotic remarks ever made on Boxrec.

Some men are just naturally defined and muscled and Bruno was certainly one of them. He was powerfully built even as a mere amateur. Ever seen Holyfield as a 14 year old boy? He was exactly the same. Seriously defined, muscular physiques. Tyson ditto.

Bruno couldn't have boiled down below 190 anymore than Nikolay Valuev could have.

As for Bruno going down to 14 stone in retirement - yes, when he was a coke addict.
:lol: :lol:

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I like your idea that Bruno couldn't be considered a natural cruiserweight and you then compare his physique to Evander Holyfield, a former Cruiserweight champion.
polecateddy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by polecateddy »

He probably didn't even train with weights until he turned pro. He was just big and lean.
SamWise72
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1346
Joined: 02 Jul 2011, 16:41

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by SamWise72 »

A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23186
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by mickey1975 »

I think he could have boiled himself down to today's cruiserweight limit.
SamWise72
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1346
Joined: 02 Jul 2011, 16:41

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by SamWise72 »

The limit was still 190 in Bruno's heyday, wasn't it?
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

loaded_gloves wrote:'Bruno was a cruiserweight', probably one of the single most idiotic remarks ever made on Boxrec.

Some men are just naturally defined and muscled and Bruno was certainly one of them. He was powerfully built even as a mere amateur. Ever seen Holyfield as a 14 year old boy? He was exactly the same. Seriously defined, muscular physiques. Tyson ditto.

Bruno couldn't have boiled down below 190 anymore than Nikolay Valuev could have.

As for Bruno going down to 14 stone in retirement - yes, when he was a coke addict.
He had a bodybuilders physique and weighed under 16 stone for the majority of his career.

The reason he had stamina issues was because of the extra, unnecessary weight he was carrying.

If he had took up boxing before bodybuilding, he probably wouldn't have been a heavyweight. Sorry you can't get your head past your narrow mindset - sucks to be you eh? :doh:
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

SamWise72 wrote:A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
If you see Johnny Nelson in the flesh - he is a huge unit with big hands.

Cruiserweights such as Nelson, Glenn McCrory, David Haye when he was one - they are big
guys, 6ft 3ins and with a determined bodybuilding regime - would have fought as heavyweights.
polecateddy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by polecateddy »

Fat Git wrote:
SamWise72 wrote:A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
If you see Johnny Nelson in the flesh - he is a huge unit with big hands.

Cruiserweights such as Nelson, Glenn McCrory, David Haye when he was one - they are big
guys, 6ft 3ins and with a determined bodybuilding regime - would have fought as heavyweights.
Yeah, all the above did fight as heavyweights! Lol Each was in the ballpark of 15 stone. Haye in particular - who does A LOT of bodybuilding training - I think chooses to limit himself to 15 and a half stone, as I think he is aware that for him he needs the speed and mobility to beat the big men. Bruno simply put is naturally significantly bigger than Nelson, Haye and McCrory. His default weight without going crazy on the weights and protein is a solid 16 stone, with a lower body fat than the lot of them, (although Nelson is pretty lean too.)
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

polecateddy wrote:
Fat Git wrote:
SamWise72 wrote:A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
If you see Johnny Nelson in the flesh - he is a huge unit with big hands.

Cruiserweights such as Nelson, Glenn McCrory, David Haye when he was one - they are big
guys, 6ft 3ins and with a determined bodybuilding regime - would have fought as heavyweights.
Yeah, all the above did fight as heavyweights! Lol Each was in the ballpark of 15 stone. Haye in particular - who does A LOT of bodybuilding training - I think chooses to limit himself to 15 and a half stone, as I think he is aware that for him he needs the speed and mobility to beat the big men. Bruno simply put is naturally significantly bigger than Nelson, Haye and McCrory. His default weight without going crazy on the weights and protein is a solid 16 stone, with a lower body fat than the lot of them, (although Nelson is pretty lean too.)
Read his authbiography about how he got into boxing. I know everything about this particular mans career.

He was into bodybuilding well before he took up boxing.

He would spend hours in the gym developing his physique as a teenager in reform school - his words.

If he had took up boxing before bodybuildng and tailored his physique around the rigours of the ring - could have have made cruiserweight? He may or he may have not but it is a question worth asking and debating.

Have you ever wondered why the fittest man in the canning town gym (Charlie Magri's words) had stamina issues? Could it have been down to uneccessary muscle mass on his body that requires a lot of oxygen?

A man with a boudybuilders physique and still weighed under 16 stone? A natural heavyweight - oh please! :wave:

And the 'he was a coke addict' for the sole reason for Bruno getting down to under 14 stone post retirement - like there are no fat cocaine addicts. :doh:
polecateddy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by polecateddy »

Yeah, all the above did fight as heavyweights! Lol Each was in the ballpark of 15 stone. Haye in particular - who does A LOT of bodybuilding training - I think chooses to limit himself to 15 and a half stone, as I think he is aware that for him he needs the speed and mobility to beat the big men. Bruno simply put is naturally significantly bigger than Nelson, Haye and McCrory. His default weight without going crazy on the weights and protein is a solid 16 stone, with a lower body fat than the lot of them, (although Nelson is pretty lean too.)[/quote]

Read his authbiography about how he got into boxing. I know everything about this particular mans career.

He was into bodybuilding well before he took up boxing.

He would spend hours in the gym developing his physique as a teenager in reform school - his words.

If he had took up boxing before bodybuildng and tailored his physique around the rigours of the ring - could have have made cruiserweight? He may or he may have not but it is a question worth asking and debating.

Have you ever wondered why the fittest man in the canning town gym (Charlie Magri's words) had stamina issues? Could it have been down to uneccessary muscle mass on his body that requires a lot of oxygen?

A man with a boudybuilders physique and still weighed under 16 stone? A natural heavyweight - oh please! :wave:

And the 'he was a coke addict' for the sole reason for Bruno getting down to under 14 stone post retirement - like there are no fat cocaine addicts. :doh:[/quote]

I stand corrected. I would add that I think the post Tyson 1, Bruno probably went a little too far in muscle mass. He went up a good stone of solid muscle to 17 and a half-ish. With that as well as some stamina, I think his handspeed suffered. He did well against McCall, but pretty much ran out of gas after 6 against Lewis. And that handspeed+nerves cost him dearly against Tyson in their second fight.
loaded_gloves
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1907
Joined: 09 Mar 2011, 12:18

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by loaded_gloves »

ILikeBeer wrote: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I like your idea that Bruno couldn't be considered a natural cruiserweight and you then compare his physique to Evander Holyfield, a former Cruiserweight champion.
So what?

Marvin Hagler had a naturally muscled body, like Holyfield, like Bruno.

My point is some of these guys are just born with these abnormal brutish bodies.
danconnollyeire
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 3576
Joined: 24 May 2012, 10:31

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by danconnollyeire »

polecateddy wrote:
Fat Git wrote:
SamWise72 wrote:A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
If you see Johnny Nelson in the flesh - he is a huge unit with big hands.

Cruiserweights such as Nelson, Glenn McCrory, David Haye when he was one - they are big
guys, 6ft 3ins and with a determined bodybuilding regime - would have fought as heavyweights.
Yeah, all the above did fight as heavyweights! Lol Each was in the ballpark of 15 stone. Haye in particular - who does A LOT of bodybuilding training - I think chooses to limit himself to 15 and a half stone, as I think he is aware that for him he needs the speed and mobility to beat the big men. Bruno simply put is naturally significantly bigger than Nelson, Haye and McCrory. His default weight without going crazy on the weights and protein is a solid 16 stone, with a lower body fat than the lot of them, (although Nelson is pretty lean too.)
Haye does a lot of compound strength training (I've seen this in person). He doesn't do any sole bodybuilding exercise (bodybuilding exercises consist of 8-12 reps in general to develop muscle mass). Haye is naturally 215ish lbs, and esp with Klit, even cuts slightly. If he bodybuilt, he'd weigh 225 for his fights. If you research Bruno's training, he actually bodybuilt (as did Holyfield).

And just to discredit any strength training adding weight, here's an expert:

http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/st ... ining.html
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

danconnollyeire wrote:
polecateddy wrote:
Fat Git wrote:A friend of mine, a decently big bloke himself at 6' or so, has a photo of him and Bruno holding their fists together. Bruno's has an extra knuckle and a half extended past where my mate's fist ends. Bruno is definitely a naturally big lad.
If you see Johnny Nelson in the flesh - he is a huge unit with big hands.

Cruiserweights such as Nelson, Glenn McCrory, David Haye when he was one - they are big
guys, 6ft 3ins and with a determined bodybuilding regime - would have fought as heavyweights.

Yeah, all the above did fight as heavyweights! Lol Each was in the ballpark of 15 stone. Haye in particular - who does A LOT of bodybuilding training - I think chooses to limit himself to 15 and a half stone, as I think he is aware that for him he needs the speed and mobility to beat the big men. Bruno simply put is naturally significantly bigger than Nelson, Haye and McCrory. His default weight without going crazy on the weights and protein is a solid 16 stone, with a lower body fat than the lot of them, (although Nelson is pretty lean too.)
Haye does a lot of compound strength training (I've seen this in person). He doesn't do any sole bodybuilding exercise (bodybuilding exercises consist of 8-12 reps in general to develop muscle mass). Haye is naturally 215ish lbs, and esp with Klit, even cuts slightly. If he bodybuilt, he'd weigh 225 for his fights. If you research Bruno's training, he actually bodybuilt (as did Holyfield).

And just to discredit any strength training adding weight, here's an expert:

http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/st ... ining.html
Yes, there is strength training and there is bodybuilding where a person adds heavier muscle mass with a determined eating and training regime.

Sure, if you are not eating enough protein - you can strength train and not particularly add impressive amounts of muscle/weight.
Last edited by el_grande_mauro_mina on 19 Jun 2013, 06:33, edited 1 time in total.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

loaded_gloves wrote:
ILikeBeer wrote: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I like your idea that Bruno couldn't be considered a natural cruiserweight and you then compare his physique to Evander Holyfield, a former Cruiserweight champion.
So what?

Marvin Hagler had a naturally muscled body, like Holyfield, like Bruno.

My point is some of these guys are just born with these abnormal brutish bodies.
:roll:

Has this what your argument has boiled down to?

You are mistaking muscle mass for definition.

Bruno - his words - trained to add muscle mass as a teenager before he took up boxing seriously - he wasn't born looking like Charles Atlas.

Marvin Hagler is not an abnormally brutish guy size wise. But his definition made him look 'big' on the TV. You meet him in real life and he is of very normal size.

Would he had still been a heavyweight if he had concentrated on his boxing training and left the
weights alone? Maybe, maybe not but it is worth debating though as the evidence isn't that clear cut on either side.
danconnollyeire
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 3576
Joined: 24 May 2012, 10:31

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by danconnollyeire »

Fat Git wrote:
loaded_gloves wrote:
ILikeBeer wrote: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I like your idea that Bruno couldn't be considered a natural cruiserweight and you then compare his physique to Evander Holyfield, a former Cruiserweight champion.
So what?

Marvin Hagler had a naturally muscled body, like Holyfield, like Bruno.

My point is some of these guys are just born with these abnormal brutish bodies.
:roll:

Has this what your argument has boiled down to?

You are mistaking muscle mass for definition.

Bruno - his words - trained to add muscle mass as a teenager before he took up boxing seriously - he wasn't born looking like Charles Atlas.

Marvin Hagler is not an abnormally brutish guy size wise. But his definition made him look 'big' on the TV. You meet him in real life and he is of very normal size.

Would he had still been a heavyweight if he had concentrated on his boxing training and left the
weights alone? Maybe, maybe not but it is worth debating though as the evidence isn't that clear cut on either side.
This
danconnollyeire
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 3576
Joined: 24 May 2012, 10:31

Re: Frank Bruno v James Smith

Post by danconnollyeire »

Put it this way... what Haye does strength wise is similar to olympic weightlifters... they lift incredible weights but don't put on a pound... they make weight like boxers do. What Bruno did was more like Arnie than an olympic weightlifter
Post Reply