BoxRec

I'm going with Bugner. I also think there were eras where he could have been champion. He could certainly beat John Ruiz or Ingo!

Geez, this fight would have sucked.

dempseyfire wrote:Geez, this fight would have sucked.

But who would win?

And do you agree there were hw champs Bugner could beat like Ingo and John Ruiz?

Jimmy Young's prime was all too short. What other man can you name who beat Norton and Foreman and should have gotten the decision over Ali? Sure, his style wasnt crowd pleasing, sure he lacked power, but he got the work done. Bugner on the other hand, had a more crowd pleasing style and enjoyed longer longetivity in the ring. He was good enough to last scheduled durations with Ali twice, Cooper, and many other notable HW's.

However, in a H2H match up, prime for prime, best for best, I nominate Young to win a long, dull, boring, yet wide, decision over Bugner.

HomicideHenry wrote:Jimmy Young's prime was all too short. What other man can you name who beat Norton and Foreman and should have gotten the decision over Ali? Sure, his style wasnt crowd pleasing, sure he lacked power, but he got the work done. Bugner on the other hand, had a more crowd pleasing style and enjoyed longer longetivity in the ring. He was good enough to last scheduled durations with Ali twice, Cooper, and many other notable HW's.

However, in a H2H match up, prime for prime, best for best, I nominate Young to win a long, dull, boring, yet wide, decision over Bugner.

As do I. Young was a cut above Bugner.

Two cutesy fighters. I'm sticking with the big and strong one.

mercman wrote:I theory Bugner would win. Young lacks the power to intimidate or hurt him, Bugner can hold his own with regard to skill, and he has all the physical advantages. In reality, it depends what mood Bugner is in: if he has the attitude he showed against Marvis Frazier he gets outpointed; if he has the attitude he showed against Joe Frazier he should win.

Against Frazier he had no choice, he was forced to fight. Whenever he had a choice he usually didn't do much. Young by boring ud is my pick.

mercman wrote:I theory Bugner would win. Young lacks the power to intimidate or hurt him, Bugner can hold his own with regard to skill, and he has all the physical advantages. In reality, it depends what mood Bugner is in: if he has the attitude he showed against Marvis Frazier he gets outpointed; if he has the attitude he showed against Joe Frazier he should win.

Yes, Bugner could well have beaten Ruiz and lots of others that held the title. However, once again, it depends on which version turns up. When he fancied it, Bugner could be a real handful.

Young lacked the power to hurt anybody, but still was able to beat the much stronger and bigger Foreman and Lyle.

I like Young on points here.

And I think putting Johansson in the same grouping as Ruiz is a real disservice to Ingo. Yes of course Bugner would have beaten Ruiz.

I like Young easy. Failure to score knockouts does not always mean a lack of power. Young once commented that nobody who ever actually fought him said he couldn't hit. He wasn't a huge puncher, obviously, but he wasn't a feather-fist either.

Young was a defensive fighter who could both box long range and counter effectively moving side to side. And he hit hard enough to make even guys like Norton and Foreman think twice about just plowing in. Thing was, he never went after people -- the point of ringing somebody's bell, to Young, was to back him off so Young could continue the boxing lesson. He rarely exposed himself by going for the KO.

I think Jimmy Young was a heckuva fighter who is under-rated nowadays.

mercman wrote:

Against Frazier he had no choice, he was forced to fight. Whenever he had a choice he usually didn't do much. Young by boring ud is my pick

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by this. There were plenty of other options available. Yes, OK, Joe Frazier came at Bugner but, rather than meeting Frazier head-on, Bugner could have capitulated, or quit on his stool or gone into an ultra-defensive shell. Rather than this, at various points in the fight, Bugner was the aggressor and took it to Frazier.

Ultra-defensive shell didn't work against Frazier. You are right about quitting, he could have quit but Bugner was no quitter. Only one option left, fight.

dempseyfire wrote:Yes of course Bugner would have beaten Ruiz.

Not necessarily. He lost to plodding Tangstad, a poor mans Ruiz (if that's even possible). He also lost to Bodell and Ruiz would have beaten Bodell to a pulp. Bugner was the most frustrating kind of fighter, a man who could but often wouldn't.

Yes, I'd probably favor Ruiz over Bodell, but come on 'beat him to a pulp' . . .I can't recall Ruiz beating anyone to a pulp. This is the man who is the master of the split decision win by getting his opponent's out of synce and then slightly outworking them. Of course on Joe's worst night he could probably lose such a stinker to Ruiz ,but both on their best night Bugner would turn Ruiz's face into mush with his jab.

mercman wrote:

Not necessarily. He lost to plodding Tangstad, a poor mans Ruiz (if that's even possible). He also lost to Bodell and Ruiz would have beaten Bodell to a pulp. Bugner was the most frustrating kind of fighter, a man who could but often wouldn't.

I'm not normally prone to those 'oh, he was robbed' kind of stories but Bugner getting outpointed by Tangstand was a terrible decision. I remember watching it at the time and it really was a 'home town' decision for Tangstad. Bugner quit boxing straight after the fight as he was so disgusted at the decision. Mind you, Bugner didn't need much of an excuse to quit boxing. This was one of many retirements and he re-emerged a few years later - this time as Aussie Joe.

I wouldn't say terrible but Bugner probably deserved the decision. Not exactly an A-level performance from Bugner in any event and a good example of how he often underachieved and fought down to the level of his competition.

I will say a draw.

Why is Bugner getting disrespected in this thread?

He fought thirty nine more or less competitive rounds with two consensus top ten heavyweights.

I would say he is poorly rated by most because he is
non Yank, and was inconsistent like a lot of non champions,
he had so much talent and potential, and though he went
a long way. I suppose alot in the UK never really liked him.

I personally think he is a better fighter than Young. I just
think that young frustrates him and both guys fight a less
than stellar bout.

Robinson wrote:I would say he is poorly rated by most because he is
non Yank, and was inconsistent like a lot of non champions,
he had so much talent and potential, and though he went
a long way. I suppose alot in the UK never really liked him.

I personally think he is a better fighter than Young. I just
think that young frustrates him and both guys fight a less
than stellar bout.

IMO, its not because Bugner is from the UK (Hungarian born, if I remember right, though he became champ of the Commonwealth, and in later years became known as 'Aussie Joe'), but because he gets so little air time on television, and usually when he does its always in losing efforts to Ali or Frazier.

I think, also, there's still some hostility towards Bugner for beating Henry Cooper. The two men held a grudge against Bugner for decades, wasnt until few years ago did they finally burried the hatchet. He won a controversial close decision over Cooper, and the public disliked him for it.

He was a more complete fighter than Young, yes, but as I said, Young is greatly under-rated because his prime was so short, and for his crowd pleasing style. Its funny, in the years to come I imagine our generation will recall Hasim Rahman, Oleg Maskaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Shannon Briggs, Samuel Peter, more kindly than we will John Ruiz and Chris Byrd, because Byrd and Ruiz were bores in the ring.

I just think a man who beat Norton and Foreman and should have beaten Ali, beats a guy who went the distance with Frazier and Ali. It would be competitive, and go the distance, but I think Young wins it. H2H, prime for prime, he's got the record to prove he could edge Bugner.

HomicideHenry wrote: IMO, its not because Bugner is from the UK (Hungarian born, if I remember right, though he became champ of the Commonwealth, and in later years became known as 'Aussie Joe'), but because he gets so little air time on television, and usually when he does its always in losing efforts to Ali or Frazier.

I think it is mostly because he was boring to watch. It looked like he was bored in there and his heart was not in it. Even when he won he often did just enough, stuff like that will put people off. The strange thing is that even if it looked like he had no love for boxing he kept coming back and fought till he was almost 50. Winning the Australian hw title at 48 years of age is actually pretty damn impressive.

HomicideHenry wrote: I think, also, there's still some hostility towards Bugner for beating Henry Cooper. The two men held a grudge against Bugner for decades, wasnt until few years ago did they finally burried the hatchet. He won a controversial close decision over Cooper, and the public disliked him for it.

Bugner caught some flack at the time but he kept feeding the flame for 20 years to come. He can partially blame himself for whatever public hostility that preserved, he never let people forget with his persistent whining. Funny thing to me is that the win was not controversial at all, it was a close fight that could have gone either way.

HomicideHenry wrote: He was a more complete fighter than Young, yes, but as I said, Young is greatly under-rated because his prime was so short, and for his crowd pleasing style. Its funny, in the years to come I imagine our generation will recall Hasim Rahman, Oleg Maskaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Shannon Briggs, Samuel Peter, more kindly than we will John Ruiz and Chris Byrd, because Byrd and Ruiz were bores in the ring.

I imagine the opposite will happen, especially with Ruiz. Ruiz is painful to watch but he is an honest pro and he got the results. The record books don't come with style marks in them.

HomicideHenry wrote: I just think a man who beat Norton and Foreman and should have beaten Ali, beats a guy who went the distance with Frazier and Ali. It would be competitive, and go the distance, but I think Young wins it. H2H, prime for prime, he's got the record to prove he could edge Bugner.

I Agree.

Young didn't get the decision versus Norton.

My bad. Young lost a SD to Norton by scores of 143-147, 144-142, 143-147. I always thought it was one of those that coulda went either way. Anyways, Young also beat Ron Lyle. Imagine that, robbed by Ali, beating Foreman, beating Lyle, and losing a close decision to Norton all in the 1976-1977 time frame. Amazing stuff. Anyways, I still think Young edges Bugner.