The funny thing about the Wepner fight is the commentator kept referring to him as a "kid". It makes sense when you have a young looking guy like Oscar or Sugar Ray. It made no sense with Chuck. If he was white he looked like he could be Ali's dad.
Lordy, I respect the hell out of Ernie, I do I really do he was a pro and a contender but seriously he just wasn’t that good compared to his historical peers.
On the original question, I don't think so. Terrell looked his normal self for the first ten rounds against Spencer. He was penalized two points for low blows in the 10th. He then didn't do anything the last two rounds. Did he run out of gas? Was he discouraged because of the lost points? My take is Terrell was never all that good. His two impressive wins were over Williams and Folley in 1963, when he was thinner and to my eye quicker. Into 1965 he defeated Bob Foster and several second tier guys. The Foster win is tough to evaluate. Foster was great at light-heavy, but never did anything much at heavyweight. Terrell's fight with Euro trial horse Gerhard Zech is on you tube. Terrell looks mediocre, barely avoiding a KO loss in the 6th. Terrell became "'champion" in 1965 by outpointing Machen, who was coming off a decisive loss to Patterson. He then defended against Chuvalo, whose last major bout was a loss to Patterson, and Jones, whose last major fight had been a KO loss to Chuvalo. After the debacle against Ali, Terrell lost back to back to Spencer and Ramos, both of whom did nothing much but lose the rest of their careers. I think many badly overrate Terrell. I don't see him as ever being more than a fairly good contender.
I don't know why but the Wepner fight was a fun fight to watch in a way the filler fights against a Rudi Lubbers, a Jurgen Blinn, or a Buster Mathis weren't.
Maybe "he almost lost" was too strong language. But Wepner knocked down Ali and had the fight close fairly deep into the fight. If we're out calling Ali v Mildenberger close I think thats fair. People for some reason don't want to give Wepner credit for anything.
I give Chuck credit for being a tough and likeable guy who helped Ali put on a good show. Close to me implies the outcome was in doubt. By that measure Mildenberger and Wepner weren’t close.
At a moment in time the outcome was in doubt. If it had went to the scorecards and for the final few rounds it wasn't. Theres also grading on a curve here. In the 1970s a fighter gets a lot less credit for doing what Wepner did but in the 60s(Wepners actual generation) and compared to the subject of this thread(Ernie Terrell) Wepner had the best performance against Ali.
If Terrell did as good as Wepner in 1967 against Ali would this not have really helped Terrells legacy?
Through 8 rounds … the freak knockdown happened in the ninth … Tony Perez the referee is the only one who had the Wepner fight close at 5-3. Jackie Keough had it 6-2 Ali and Sam Taorima had it 7-1. After the ninth round which Wepner of course won, although Taorima called it a 10-9 round instead of 10-8, Ali got serious and tossed a shutout and was up 10-4, 11-3 and 12-2 on the cards before getting the knockout. The scoring in Terrell was 13-1-1, 13-2 and 12-2-1. I don’t see how Wepner other than stepping on Ali’s foot in the ninth and getting the freak knockdown really bettered Terrell. And both fights were routs.