Bruno, easily. Frank is often pilloried for of poor showings versus Tyson, particularly the second showing, but he suffered as much from the impression he made with an England which was emerging from the "Plucky Loser" philosophy of the 80s and into the Naz/Sky philosophy of the early and mid 90s which wanted winners and lots of them. In Bruno's defence, not many British heavyweight champions could have done a whole lot better than Frank did versus Tyson- the possible exception being Lennox Lewis/Joe Bugner and it is debatable how well even a prime but green Lewis would have done with a rampant Tyson. Bugner might have done a bit better considering his own resume but probably not much better. Haye, Mason, Cooper, John L Gardiner, all of those chumps would have got blasted out or cut, or dropped often enough to warrant an intervention. Frank Bruno did beat McCall, and the version he beat, I can't see Haye doing it. His 11 rounds vs Witherspoon and 7 or so with Lewis ranks as good as any body of work that Haye has managed thus far- at least until he fights { as if} and beats {:laugh11:} a Klitschko. Bruno's thing, apart from the Tyson fights, was that his muscled physique lacked stamina, but thats ok cos Haye doesn't have any either. It seems unlikely to me that Haye can just potshot here and there and hope Bruno falls apart or gets tired. Bruno, also, has the height and reach advantages here. Brunos physique is probably enough to scare the shit out of Haye. What's Haye got? Some right hand pop and a bit of handspeed? Not enough to beat Bruno.
