Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2007, 04:06 PM   #16
Luigi1985
Cane Corso
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad Spencer
Why wasn't my question answered? Why does Chuck Wepner deserve a discussion here? The guy was a ****ing bum. No power, no boxing skills, clumsy, just a human punching bag.

Because he fought in the Ali-era, simply because of that. He fought there so he was automatically better than most of the fighters in other eras...
Luigi1985 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-07-2007, 05:08 PM   #17
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 75
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luigi1985
Because he fought in the Ali-era, simply because of that. He fought there so he was automatically better than most of the fighters in other eras...
He was character, something that has been lacking in boxing in general since the mid 90s.

Sure it is cliche, but I do not see Lil Floyd inspiring the biggest boxing film franchise going.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 05:20 PM   #18
Luigi1985
Cane Corso
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
He was character, something that has been lacking in boxing in general since the mid 90s.

Sure it is cliche, but I do not see Lil Floyd inspiring the biggest boxing film franchise going.

Of course he was a character, and I like him because he had heart and was sympathic, but mr magoo criticized the Louis-era indirectly with his "Wepner fought in the best era and he would give fighters like Carnera, Braddock or Baer close fights",-things, which isnīt true IMO... Wepner would never win a title, whether in which era he would be...
Luigi1985 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 05:22 PM   #19
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,632
vCash: 238
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
My point is that he was the worst of a tremendous era. In another era he might have been better.
If what you say is true, then that means that he lost to all good fighters because those good fighters would've been more than good fighters (great fighters?) in other eras.


Were guys like Jose "King" Roman, Jerry Tomasetti, Joe Bugner, Jerry Judge, Randy Neumann and Duane Bobick fighters who were good and would've been great in other eras?

I don't believe they are and frankly i'm suprised that you do (as witnessed by your statement).

The 70's had a lot of great fighters, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, but the below that, the contenders were no more special than contenders from any other era. The only difference is that everyone knows them and has seen them because they are on Ali's resume.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 05:23 PM   #20
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 75
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luigi1985
Wepner would never win a title...
Not true, few could bleed like the Bayonne Bleeder, he deserved that title.

I know what you mean though mate
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 05:25 PM   #21
Luigi1985
Cane Corso
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
Not true, few could bleed like the Bayonne Bleeder, he deserved that title.

I know what you mean though mate

Luigi1985 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 05:38 PM   #22
joe33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Why knock chuck,its got to be better then yet another tyson or ali thread(and i love them guys,but you know what i mean),it makes a change,all i know about the man,was his knock down of ali(stood on his foot,yes or no?),and that sly stallone was there and got his rocky story from the fight.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 07:33 PM   #23
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,564
vCash: 75
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe33
Why knock chuck,its got to be better then yet another tyson or ali thread(and i love them guys,but you know what i mean),it makes a change,all i know about the man,was his knock down of ali(stood on his foot,yes or no?),and that sly stallone was there and got his rocky story from the fight.
An of course from there, did Sly live up to his ego/name and shag Pryor's (Aaron's) misses in 82/83?.... Allegedly
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 07:44 PM   #24
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
If what you say is true, then that means that he lost to all good fighters because those good fighters would've been more than good fighters (great fighters?) in other eras.


Were guys like Jose "King" Roman, Jerry Tomasetti, Joe Bugner, Jerry Judge, Randy Neumann and Duane Bobick fighters who were good and would've been great in other eras?

I don't believe they are and frankly i'm suprised that you do (as witnessed by your statement).

The 70's had a lot of great fighters, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, but the below that, the contenders were no more special than contenders from any other era. The only difference is that everyone knows them and has seen them because they are on Ali's resume.

Ali fought Liston,Foreman,Frazier and some solid guys like Quarry,Bonavena,Lyle,Ellis and less so Bugner,Foster,Shavers and he also fought a lot of nobodys and never heard ofs and never would be knowns Blin,Dunn,Evangelista,etc. BY the way I really dont know if ANY of the 70's fighters would be DOMINANT champs today, even Ali
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 05:34 AM   #25
The Kurgan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 576
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
Sure it is cliche, but I do not see Lil Floyd inspiring the biggest boxing film franchise going.
Wasn't "Chariots of Fire" based on PBF's boxing career?
The Kurgan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 05:35 AM   #26
The Kurgan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 576
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
An of course from there, did Sly live up to his ego/name and shag Pryor's (Aaron's) misses in 82/83?.... Allegedly
Well, he did star in a porn-flick as "The Italian Stallion" back in the 1970s.
The Kurgan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 08:17 AM   #27
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 12,559
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
Were guys like Jose "King" Roman, Jerry Tomasetti, Joe Bugner, Jerry Judge, Randy Neumann and Duane Bobick fighters who were good and would've been great in other eras?
Good fighters? Yes. Great fighters? No, and if you're going to pad your argument by doing boxrec comparisons then why don't you do the same for some of the top fighters who fought during the 30's? I could list a number of boxers during the 30's with clubfighter like statistics who either beat or lost to men like Braddock, Baer or Carnera. It works both ways. I don't think Wepner would have been spectacular during the 30's and in fact I purposfully made this thread a bit on the obsurd side to make a point. Janitor seems to believe that any man who fought pre 1950 would have been a champion or top contender during a modern era no matter what their credentials looked like back then.

It is not unreasonable to think that Wepner might have temporarily breached the top ten and possibly gotten a few good wins in the 30's.
Between 1971 and 1976, Wepner had a fairly decent run of winning 13 out of 15 fights, losing only to ALi and Neuman who he later beat twice. He also had a win over terrell. Such winning streaks are often used on this forum to build up fighters of the 30's and 40's regardless of what the credentials of some of these men looked like. Besides, if mob affiliation is what it took to be succesful back then, well I'd say Wepner would have had no problem getting big fights.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 08:24 AM   #28
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20,562
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

[quote=mr. magoo][quote]


Quote:
Good fighters? Yes. Great fighters? No,
I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that they would have been anything other than third raters actualy.

Quote:
but its not unreasonable to think that he might have breached the top ten and possibly gotten a few good wins.
In the annual rankings it is verry unlikley that he would have breached the top 10. You had to be part of the food chain for a while in order to progress to world level in that era and the weaker fighters were quickly weeded out. I have already shown you the type of fighters Baer had to fight to make any headway in the top 10.

Say what you want about that era but it was a jungle out there on the way up.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 08:51 AM   #29
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,632
vCash: 238
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
Good fighters? Yes. Great fighters? No, and if you're going to pad your argument by doing boxrec comparisons then why don't you do the same for some of the top fighters who fought during the 30's?
Why should i? I'm not claiming that journeymen from the 30's would be contenders in the 70's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Magoo
Janitor seems to believe that any man who fought pre 1950 would have been a champion or top contender during a modern era no matter what their credentials looked like back then.
I don't think he's claimed that, but i could be wrong. At any rate, this discussion is about whether or not Wepner would be a contender in the 30's, which i doubt.



And how often does it need to be repeated that the Terrel fight was a robbery by all accounts?
Wepners notable wins? Zero, none. He's the ultimate journeyman. I would not completely exclude the possibility of him getting a lucky win and breaching the top10 briefly (anything is possible in boxing), but we're looking at very long odds here. You won't get a ranking in the 30's from a win over Neumann.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 09:03 AM   #30
SteveO
MSW
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 1040
Default Re: Chuck Wepner

Wepner was a tough game fighter and a nice guy from what I hear.

But he was not a good fighter.

I might rank him a step above Scrap Iron Johnson.

But beating Baer and all of them? Doubtful. Maybe Carnera.
SteveO is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013