BoxRec

Bruno beat mccall in London...and immediately got ko'd to a diminshed Tyson in a fight he'd clearly lost before he entered the ring.

Haye beat the biggest hw champion of all time who'd only lost once before...in Germany...he then defended against Ruiz, his mandatory, and knocked him out....had a money maker against Fraudley...then lost to the most dominant heavyweight of modern times

so i ask you?

who was the better HW champ?

Bruno.

Do you think Haye would trouble a Tim Witherspoon? Lennox? Bruno had late issue with stamina and froze when hit too hard.

He is still a beter HEAVYWEIGHT than HAYE. Mccall is still a tougher fight thn Valuev.

Bruno lost to HOF fighters in Tyson and Lennox and he competed well against Lennox. Haye can never say the same.

Hayes the better boxer. Bruno is the better HW as of now.

I do expect Haye to come back and maybe prove alot wrong. At this point he has nothing to lose and a fighter like David Haye could be very dangerous under the current circumstances. It remains to be seen is this will be the case, but I am certainly not writing him off as many other are.

I wasn't happy with his commitment in the fight, but I think he can take alot of positives. I'd love to see Freddie Roach come on board with the nutritionist Pac uses to build that stamina up. A fitter more relentless Haye could have done better in a fight which was lost from the 4th onwards. Seriously if Haye had been able to keep up what he did in the 3rd through the middle rounds Wlad could have been in bother. Instead, Haye seemed exhausted, easing off for 5 rounds or so. Wlads pressure had taken its toll by then and the confidence of both fighters had flipped entirely.

Bruno,fought better opponents and did very well against witherspoon and lewis who were both big punching true heavyweights,also frank wasn't full of crap and never made excuses for losing

bigjack wrote: also frank wasn't full of crap and never made excuses for losing

Toetally in agreement.

bigjack wrote:Bruno,fought better opponents and did very well against witherspoon and lewis who were both big punching true heavyweights,also frank wasn't full of crap and never made excuses for losing

that about sums it up for me.

NOT better HW - better HW CHAMPION.

bruno had a better resume at HW...but haye has 3 winning hw title fights....and 1 loss....whereas frank has 4 losses and a single victory.

making, in my book, haye by far the better CHAMPION.

THE MESSIAH wrote:Bruno.

Do you think Haye would trouble a Tim Witherspoon? Lennox? Bruno had late issue with stamina and froze when hit too hard.

He is still a beter HEAVYWEIGHT than HAYE. Mccall is still a tougher fight thn Valuev.

Bruno lost to HOF fighters in Tyson and Lennox and he competed well against Lennox. Haye can never say the same.

Froze when hit too hard ? Go on youtube and watch Tyson VS Bruno 1

Bruno got nail many times and come back.

He's been the toughest customer Tyson fought at his prime before Buster Douglas lost.

Here is the link of part 1, great fight to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rMhdYlxx1k

I dont think Haye would have stand more than 1 minutes in front of Tyson in the late 80's.

JJ Nobody wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:Bruno.

Do you think Haye would trouble a Tim Witherspoon? Lennox? Bruno had late issue with stamina and froze when hit too hard.

He is still a beter HEAVYWEIGHT than HAYE. Mccall is still a tougher fight thn Valuev.

Bruno lost to HOF fighters in Tyson and Lennox and he competed well against Lennox. Haye can never say the same.

Froze when hit too hard ? Go on youtube and watch Tyson VS Bruno 1

Bruno got nail many times and come back.

He's been the toughest customer Tyson fought at his prime before Buster Douglas lost.

Here is the link of part 1, great fight to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rMhdYlxx1k

I dont think Haye would have stand more than 1 minutes in front of Tyson in the late 80's.

i don't necessarily disagree....but the question is who was the better champion!! not the better fighter....

Bruno would of done exactly the same job on Ruiz and Harrison as Haye did.

JJ Nobody wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:Bruno.

Do you think Haye would trouble a Tim Witherspoon? Lennox? Bruno had late issue with stamina and froze when hit too hard.

He is still a beter HEAVYWEIGHT than HAYE. Mccall is still a tougher fight thn Valuev.

Bruno lost to HOF fighters in Tyson and Lennox and he competed well against Lennox. Haye can never say the same.

Froze when hit too hard ? Go on youtube and watch Tyson VS Bruno 1

Bruno got nail many times and come back.

He's been the toughest customer Tyson fought at his prime before Buster Douglas lost.

Here is the link of part 1, great fight to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rMhdYlxx1k

I dont think Haye would have stand more than 1 minutes in front of Tyson in the late 80's.

I mean literally frozen to the spot. watch Lennox ko, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher.

When hit very hard he lost the ability to defend himslef, he would rather not go down, he just stood there waiting for the next punch.

It's hard to say.

Haye made more defences yes, but Bruno faced a tougher challenge in Tyson, no matter how diminished he was.

apophenic wrote:NOT better HW - better HW CHAMPION.

bruno had a better resume at HW...but haye has 3 winning hw title fights....and 1 loss....whereas frank has 4 losses and a single victory.

making, in my book, haye by far the better CHAMPION.

i dont think either WERE hw champs

... Bruno was respected INTERNATIONALLY...Haye isn't...

I think Bruno connected better with the British public and everyone loved Frank. I cant every remember Bruno saying he was going to cut his opponents head off! I think if you give all and either stay quiet or do as you say you are going to do (head cutting off not included) the public love you.

Here is a list from the top of my head of fighters I remember that the great British public loved.

Frank Bruno
Nigel Benn
Tony Sibson
Hero Graham

Those above fighters gave all in the game and I guess were respected for that.

Easily the great British public can easily 'hate' fighters and here is a list of those I think where not liked, and this was for a variety of reasons.

Chris Eubank

Naseem Hamed

Cant really think of any more. I'm sure most can agree we all wanted Eubank and Hamed to get beat, this was proberly because they were not loveable characters or did not connext with the public.

We have had some good sportsmen in a wide variety in sports. and we all love and hate a variety of them. I proberly think we just love to hate the show offs.


The big difference with Bruno and Haye was public connection.

Tough one...you could argue either way. Bruno beat a solid pro to win the title yet surrendered it in a bit of a limp fashion against a Mike Tyson who, although still a force, wasn't the fighter he was when they fought for the first time.

Haye beat a very limited giant to win his title, made a couple of defences against moderate to poor opposition and then lost it in a lopsided decision putting in a very questionable performance. Had he not trash talked before the fight and then come up with the toe excuse afterwards, I'm sure he wouldn't have been criticised as much as he is now and therefore would have probably got more public support.

Big Frank was always up against it as he knew he'd have to face Tyson in his first defence and clearly didn't back himself to win. Had he got a match with WBA champ Bruce Seldon instead, we could be talking about Frank as a unified HW champ.

In answer to the original question...I'd say that Haye was probably the better champ simply because he looked and sounded the real deal and was fancied when coming up against Klitschko. Most of us feared for Frank when he faced Tyson again and didn't give him a hope in hell of winning.

Come on this is a silly question that belongs on the Current scene.
Haye was awful this weekend, but to ask if Bruno was better than him?
I grew up watching Bruno and he was very one dimensional, right place, right time too become world champion, Haye boxes - Bruno was good in panto - and a nice guy. I honestly think Gary Mason was better than Bruno, although they were pretty similar.

yid14 wrote:Come on this is a silly question that belongs on the Current scene.
Haye was awful this weekend, but to ask if Bruno was better than him?
I grew up watching Bruno and he was very one dimensional, right place, right time too become world champion, Haye boxes - Bruno was good in panto - and a nice guy. I honestly think Gary Mason was better than Bruno, although they were pretty similar.

i think your being a bit over critical of bruno, he wasnt the most fluid fighter but he had a ramrod jab that gave a lot of fighters problems, bruno`s jab was dominating the fight with lennox and lewis looked in all sorts of trouble until he caught bruno with a wild shot when he was backed into the corner by bruno.
bruno wouldnt have backed off from wlad all night ducking and weaving and throwing about 3 punches a round, bruno would have faced him head on.

headhunter wrote:

yid14 wrote:Come on this is a silly question that belongs on the Current scene.
Haye was awful this weekend, but to ask if Bruno was better than him?
I grew up watching Bruno and he was very one dimensional, right place, right time too become world champion, Haye boxes - Bruno was good in panto - and a nice guy. I honestly think Gary Mason was better than Bruno, although they were pretty similar.

i think your being a bit over critical of bruno, he wasnt the most fluid fighter but he had a ramrod jab that gave a lot of fighters problems, bruno`s jab was dominating the fight with lennox and lewis looked in all sorts of trouble until he caught bruno with a wild shot when he was backed into the corner by bruno.
bruno wouldnt have backed off from wlad all night ducking and weaving and throwing about 3 punches a round, bruno would have faced him head on.

Mate we must have been watching a different Bruno. He had a predictable and lethargic jab, for someone who looked so fit he was lazy and got got tired within 4-5 rounds. The heavyweight seen is bad now, but he really would have struggled with all these eastern europeans sticking that hard jab in his face. He would never be world champion now.

Clearly Bruno. Can you imagine Haye lasting 7 rounds with 1993 Lennox, or 5 rounds with a 1989 Tyson?

Bruno has 40 victories at HW, Haye has 5.

Some of you guys on here are deluded , Bruno fought such beasts as chuck gardener and John immen ha ha he was terrible just a big strong body builder With a decent right hand and jab, bar McCall he lost to every decent boxer he fought , hell Joe bugner was 60 when they boxed, haye would of kayoed Bruno in about 7-8
Haye is by far a better fighter and champion just cos ge lost a points to klitschko so what? Klit kod most of his recent opponents including chageav, get a grip guys ffs

Which of Haye's fights at HW leads you to believe he'd beat Bruno?

Karl Jade wrote:Clearly Bruno. Can you imagine Haye lasting 7 rounds with 1993 Lennox, or 5 rounds with a 1989 Tyson?

.

yes i can, Haye could have ran all night!
Haye is a great defensive fighter.

And he would have done better than Brunu did in the 2nd Tyson fight.

bruno is better than haye.

haye hasnt fought a credible heavyweight,not even valuev could be classed a credible heavyweight,if bruno would of fought any of hayes heavyweight fights bruno would of done a better job on all of them and with wlad bruno would of got involved more and stood his ground. if bruno was around today he would win a version of the world title and be able to defend it numerous times.

Bruno was a seasoned heavy who went in against the best at the time they were the best as well. One of the only guys to have Tyson and Lewis in trouble, just a shame he couldn't maintain that all the fight and take the bigger punches. To me he proved more than Haye has as a heavy so gets my vote.