BoxRec

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

not on the same night no. I think Ali, Foreman, Holmes (from what I've read) would have done Bruno. Jou Louis sounded more able but weight-wise not sure he was big enough.

you're not sure Joe Louis was big enough to beat a Bruno?

edit. sorry, lenny already said this.

Counter-puncher wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

not on the same night no. I think Ali, Foreman, Holmes (from what I've read) would have done Bruno. Jou Louis sounded more able but weight-wise not sure he was big enough.

you're not sure Joe Louis was big enough to beat a Bruno?

edit. sorry, lenny already said this.

No apology necessary, I think it still needs pointing out by others so NorthEastBoxingFan knows how bad that sentence was

He needs to step up

NEBF being the man who famously said 'I have never seen Boxer X fight, but I'm pretty sure he should be able to take care of boxer y ......' *extreme facepalm*

kingfinn wrote:I saw Bruno on Harry Hills TV burp the other night and was thinking where abouts he would be rated in todays current crop.

I'd personally guess at no. 4 but i wouldnt be suprised if he could beat wlad. Bearing in mind this was a guy that had a prime lewis rocked, got battered by a prime tyson but when you see the fights actually gave a good account of himself before he was stopped (a better account than most), beat oliver mccall, went 11 rounds with a prime witherspoon, and KO'd all but 2 of his 40 victims.

Any thoughts?

beats current crop of British heavyweights without a doubt, and probably europe.

with regards to the current champs. I'd favour Haye and the Klitchko's

but still favour BRUNO over all the other pretenders.......most def!!!!!!!!!!!

I reckon Vander would give Frank a good hiding (now and when B was near his prime)

dukeruffhands wrote:

kingfinn wrote:I saw Bruno on Harry Hills TV burp the other night and was thinking where abouts he would be rated in todays current crop.

I'd personally guess at no. 4 but i wouldnt be suprised if he could beat wlad. Bearing in mind this was a guy that had a prime lewis rocked, got battered by a prime tyson but when you see the fights actually gave a good account of himself before he was stopped (a better account than most), beat oliver mccall, went 11 rounds with a prime witherspoon, and KO'd all but 2 of his 40 victims.

Any thoughts?

beats current crop of British heavyweights without a doubt, and probably europe.

with regards to the current champs. I'd favour Haye and the Klitchko's

but still favour BRUNO over all the other pretenders.......most def!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that the chinny Mo Harris would KO Bruno 10 time out of 10.
Would like to see Frank Bruno V Cris Arreola.
thank god the china fight with Mercer fell through, he would have got 'Tommy Morrison'ed" by Mercer.

In fact how good was Bruno really? I mean could he have even beat the undefeated versions of say David Izon or Hasim Rahman??
I NEVER saw him in with a live dog (except when he lost) let alone fighting a hungry contender.
Is he perhalps the greatest con job in British boxing history?

Is he perhalps the greatest con job in British boxing history?

That would make for an excellent thread Jon; I was going to pinch it but won't.

Do feel free:-)

Think about it, the only time he fought someone who had a chance (Bonecrusher) he got Ko'ed.
I'm a Bruno fan, but Witherspoon was fat when he lost to him, imagine what the witherspoon who fought Holmes would have done to him? or the McCall that fought Lewis OR even the Larry Holmes that fought McCall?
I know he was good at piling up points against fighters but ultimately he didnt win at the end.
I mean look, Bowe was fat when Holy beat him, (thats what your supposed to do with unmotivated fighters) and I just dont see Bruno duking it out with a hungry fast puncher.
How would frank have done if he was brough up in america?

Perhalps the best guided HW fighter ever?

Counter-puncher wrote:NEBF being the man who famously said 'I have never seen Boxer X fight, but I'm pretty sure he should be able to take care of boxer y ......' *extreme facepalm*

what's wrong with that?......I said I felt Bethuel Ushona would beat Denton Vassell because....(As Ricky Hatton helpfully pointed out to you afterwards "this guy holds a win over Ali Nuumbembe and that man knew how to fight").

So there you go, laugh at Hatton too. I actually missed the first 6 rounds but I gather Ushona was landing frequently and finding glaring holes in Vassell's defences with ease.......What I did not know was that Ushona couldn't crack an egg and (in complete contrast to Ali Nuumbembe) he didn't look fit enough to sustain a good workrate for 10, let alone 12 rounds.

Fighter X Figher Y ??? it was only 6 days ago mate not 6 months ago

Counter-puncher wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

not on the same night no. I think Ali, Foreman, Holmes (from what I've read) would have done Bruno. Jou Louis sounded more able but weight-wise not sure he was big enough.

you're not sure Joe Louis was big enough to beat a Bruno?

edit. sorry, lenny already said this.

I imagine Joe Louis or "the Brown Bomber" ( I'm not totally ignorant mate ) was of a generation of smaller heavyweights to today (also Bruno's time). I said I thought Louis was the more able man, but without knowing what he used to tip the scales at I'm not in a position to say he'd beat Bruno easily.......for instance 14.5 stone of Louis against 17.5 stone of Bruno I'd say it wouldn't be as one sided as you make out.........I've seen the Louis Schmelling documentary but aside from that I don't know a lot about him. We are talking about a career which played out maybe 40 or 50 years before I was born

couldn't leave out a certain someone

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

not on the same night no. I think Ali, Foreman, Holmes (from what I've read) would have done Bruno. Jou Louis sounded more able but weight-wise not sure he was big enough.

you're not sure Joe Louis was big enough to beat a Bruno?

edit. sorry, lenny already said this.

I imagine Joe Louis or "the Brown Bomber" ( I'm not totally ignorant mate ) was of a generation of smaller heavyweights to today (also Bruno's time). I said I thought Louis was the more able man, but without knowing what he used to tip the scales at I'm not in a position to say he'd beat Bruno easily.......for instance 14.5 stone of Louis against 17.5 stone of Bruno I'd say it wouldn't be as one sided as you make out.........I've seen the Louis Schmelling documentary but aside from that I don't know a lot about him. We are talking about a career which played out maybe 40 or 50 years before I was born

At his best Bruno was 16 stone and sometimes less. Remember Bruno and Haye and most of todays heavys are into weights. If Joe Louis was you would figure he would be a stone heavier so about 215. David Haye frame wise is no bigger than Joe Luis and he may actually be a bit smaller.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:couldn't leave out a certain someone

Do you mean me? If you've not seen Joe Louis fight, then don't bring him up.

Max Baer would have destroyed Frank Bruno, to even mention Bruno and Louis is a mythical battle shows your ignorance. Now watch your step and back off

"I've never seen Joe Louis box but I'm pretty sure Frank Bruno would have beaten him."

Jesus wept.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:NEBF being the man who famously said 'I have never seen Boxer X fight, but I'm pretty sure he should be able to take care of boxer y ......' *extreme facepalm*

what's wrong with that?......I said I felt Bethuel Ushona would beat Denton Vassell because....(As Ricky Hatton helpfully pointed out to you afterwards "this guy holds a win over Ali Nuumbembe and that man knew how to fight").

So there you go, laugh at Hatton too. I actually missed the first 6 rounds but I gather Ushona was landing frequently and finding glaring holes in Vassell's defences with ease.......What I did not know was that Ushona couldn't crack an egg and (in complete contrast to Ali Nuumbembe) he didn't look fit enough to sustain a good workrate for 10, let alone 12 rounds.

Fighter X Figher Y ??? it was only 6 days ago mate not 6 months ago

it was about 6 months ago actually NEBF, different fight to the one you're talking about above

simon fox wrote:Is he perhalps the greatest con job in British boxing history?

That would make for an excellent thread Jon; I was going to pinch it but won't.

what con job? A man who shared a ring with tyson twice, gave lewis mk 1 a hard tussle, but admittedly avoided other contenders in the 80's. Sure bruno had it easy in europe but that was because there were no other even half decent hws in europe and hadnt been since bugner in the mid 70s.....bruno never claimed to be the next ali...so where does the con job come in......he beat the best in europe at the time and 4th rate americans to get a title shot.....in it against witherspoon he dhowed he belonged and the same for tyson in 89.......u people forget this is a man who had dangerous eye surgery in the early 80s in south america and was damned blessed he even could have a pro career on that basis....he and his promoters never conned anyone frank was popular based on 2 undisputable facts .....he was a big puncher and he was a nice guy with character

Lenny wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:couldn't leave out a certain someone

Do you mean me? If you've not seen Joe Louis fight, then don't bring him up.

Max Baer would have destroyed Frank Bruno, to even mention Bruno and Louis is a mythical battle shows your ignorance. Now watch your step and back off

lenny

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

not on the same night no. I think Ali, Foreman, Holmes (from what I've read) would have done Bruno. Jou Louis sounded more able but weight-wise not sure he was big enough.

you're not sure Joe Louis was big enough to beat a Bruno?

edit. sorry, lenny already said this.

I imagine Joe Louis or "the Brown Bomber" ( I'm not totally ignorant mate ) was of a generation of smaller heavyweights to today (also Bruno's time). I said I thought Louis was the more able man, but without knowing what he used to tip the scales at I'm not in a position to say he'd beat Bruno easily.......for instance 14.5 stone of Louis against 17.5 stone of Bruno I'd say it wouldn't be as one sided as you make out.........I've seen the Louis Schmelling documentary but aside from that I don't know a lot about him. We are talking about a career which played out maybe 40 or 50 years before I was born

You are correct that Joe Louis was not a big heavyweight by todays' standards. He was very athletic and had terrific power though. He was a true knockout puncher (at the highest level). The modern heavyweights have a fetish for size and mass, (understandable when the opposition weighs 17 stone). Lots of that muscle mass is 'show' muscle; I concede in a clinch or maul the muscle is very useful. Lots of muscle is not good for a real hitter. Joe Louis v Frank Bruno does not bear thinking about.

(I am not a Louis 'nut hugger'; I think there was something dodgy in the 2nd Schmeling bout but he would have wrecked Frank).

Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

simon fox wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

Jon Saxon wrote:

simon fox wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

lmfao....1 round?!?

So because 100m runners are a couple of tenths faster (probably peds and faster tracks) a great champion loses to one with the same pro fights as he had title defenses in a round in a skills based sport. I really hope that was a late April fools.

Noone is ever able to name these improved training techniques either. Boxing training is the same today as its always been.

Jon Saxon wrote:

simon fox wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

I simply have to disagree Jon; evolution does not occur over a 100 year span but over many thousands of generations.

Louis' knockouts are simply breathtaking; he does not 'overpower' a man through physical size and strength; he destroys them through sheer precision hitting.

Nonito Donaire is a fantastic and exciting fighter; with evolution do you think he hits harder than Olivares or Zarate?