Chuck Wepner doc

I saw it. Pretty good. Chuck is a good guy,glad he still hits the bag every now and then.

 

In rocky3 rocky asks to fight clubber and his manager (micky) wont take it.
Cus D'Mato and floyd circa 1962?

Rocky gets KO'd by a bigger scarier brawler (Liston or foreman take your pick)

The rematch with clubber with out a doubt could not have hapened had stalone not seen Frazier change his style to take on foreman in the rematch. Frazier a 100% swarmer his whole life came out and danced. Frazier lost the fight but he danced.

stalone must have liked the idea of a swarmer doing this - only winning. the rocky character- a swarmer, dancing in order to win. How can it happen without watching Frazier against foreman in the rematch?

the boxer v wrestler angle could not have happened without wepner v andre the giant either.

 

I think you're getting unnecessarily philosophical with the whole without life experiences nothing would exist thing. first of all I disagree and secondly it's a blanket statement. the simple fact is, the rocky franchise took entirely too much from wepner without compensating him, and that's why when it came time to pay the piper, stallone did the smart thing and settled out of court. regarding the publicity/personality rights, that's when you're required by law to compensate someone for using their uncanny likeness. sly settled out of court because his legal team probably knew it would be bad to fight it having made hundreds of millions off of the rocky franchise. there's really no argument here I dont think.

 

still sounds far-fetched. wepner was stopped by both foreman and liston. sly could've just made them brutal losses ala rocky vs. clubber to make it more appealing for the big screen. this can go on, and on, and on. if you stick to the facts, one thing's clear though, there would be no rocky without wepner.

 

I disagree, I don't even think it's a fact.

Right Stallone made hundreds of millions so it would be a difficult fight. Has almost less to do with the merit of the case then it does about the success of the franchise... almost my point exactly. Guy at the end had it right. Chuk is lucky Sly made Rocky. He would be even less known then he already is. No, actually Chuck is lucky Stallone cited that fight as a source of inspiration. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a story or case here. But since Sly connected the dots for some it makes the connection more evident seeming or compelling for some people. Apollo Creed probably has more likeness with Ali than Rocky does with Wepner.

 

it would be a difficult fight because sly made hundreds of millions without compensating the guy who inspired the franchise and got it rolling. also, he didnt cite that fight as a source of inspiration. he cited that fight AS the inspiration. since sly connected the dots it makes the connection more evident seeming or compelling? nope, it just exposes sly as a man who up until recently, was unwilling to pay the guy who inspired the rocky franchise. apollo creed most certainly has more likeness with ali than rocky does with wepner, but the reason that's the case is because ali has a more vibrant, obvious personality. any brash, fast talking, charismatic heavyweight champion during or post the ali era is at least somewhat like ali. add to it the fact that he danced like ali, and it's obvious who's who. either way, the documentary isn't called the real appollo creed.

 

Some straw man stuff. I guess Paulie was copy of Wepner's brother, and Adrian was a replica of his wife.

Right, had Sly not said anything you would be hear talking about how Wepner is the real Rocky. Get out of town. Sly almost literally steals a speech from Cus D'Mato in Rocky V and nobody notices that. When he says the Wepner fight was an inspiration and takes fragmented elements of his life and imports them on the character Rocky he's stealing Wepner's likeness and personality. Get real. Randy "The Ram" has likeness to about 1000 common wrestlers. The idea Sly got loan sharking and wrestling from Wepner is completely unknown. Like someone else said, the story is similar to Frankie DePaula. Some have said Sly stole from Frazier because he punched meat and ran up the Philly steps first. atsch How would Sly know this, it's not like he interviewed Frazier about these details and then wrote the script. It's all absurd. It's common boxing folklore stuff (The character Rocky).

The story in and of it self is completely different than Wepner's. This is obvious to anyone with a brain. Inspiration isn't a valid source of license to sue for. What do you think the percentage of movies that say "Inspired by a true story" are in comparison to actually have been. Pretty slim pickings. Wepner should be glad Sly wrote such a great film & series. Otherwise he'd just be known as the guy that stepped on Ali's shoe. Now he's the "Real Rocky."

 

straw man stuff? okay, you most be talking about your own argument. the story in and of itself is completely different than wepner's? okay, that's why sylvester stallone admits in an interview that the ali-wepner fight was the inspiration for rocky 1, correct? that's why there are dozens of uncanny similarities between the rocky storyline and wepner's life and career, huh? that's why sly settled out of court rather than fight wepner's case, yeah? because it makes sense to fight a case rooted in clear facts that prove you're the offending party, no? the story in and of itself is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than wepner's. this is obvious to anyone without a brain, or someone arguing just for the sake of argument.

 

you said without rocky, wepner would be known as the guy who stepped on ali's shoe. quite the contrary, without wepner, sylvester stallone wouldn't be known at all.

 

without drawing from lots of boxing folklore sylvester stallone would not be known.

 

Thank you. And without Edison, Einstein wouldn't have been progressing science by working on his theory of relativity.

And without Muhammad Ali _INSERT BOXER_

 

Sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You haven't disputed anything I've said, you're just ranting.

 

because nothing you've said is worth disputing to be totally honest. you were the one who said I could be right in a sense. I never said you could be right, because fundamentally I think you're totally wrong

 

Alright then, sounds like you're arguing with yourself then.