Born in 1939 in New Jersey, Chuck Wepner went on to boxing in the military, and in 1964 turned pro. Chuck was reported to have been the inspiration to Sylvester Stallone's Rocky series, and later sewed the actor for failing to give credit to him. He was well known on the east coast and boxed regularly on a local circuit. Throughout his career Chuck compiled a record of 35-14-2-17, and had both wins and losses to good fighters. He was beaten by such men as George Foreman, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston, Joe Bugner and Scott Frank. He had wins over former champion Earnie Terrell and Randy Neuman along with a few other low profile fighters who were decent. Wepner certainly was no top notch contender but he made it into the heavyweight picture of one of the most competitive periods in the sport. I have no doubt that a fighter of his description likely would have been a higher rated contender in either the 30's or 40', and would have given guys like Carnera, Braddock, Baer, Sharkey and Schmeling real hell. Thanks for Reading, Magoo..
I've heard this his win over Ernie Terrel was a very bad verdict and Neuman is hardly anything special, other than that he is a top referee today. In other words, Wepner's resume is ****. He pretty much lost to anyone worth anything and to some mediocrities; a true journeyman. If he wasn't given the opportunity of a life-time by Ali, he wouldn't be more known than a Bert Cooper will be in 30 years, and at least he gave Holyfield a hard time whereas Wepner hardly troubled an ancient Liston, a green Foreman or a past it Ali.
I saw many of Wepners fights, he was a nice guy and was tough but had almost zero talent,was slow and he could not break an egg, Wepner/Randy Neuman were the most boring of fights and I felt sorry for Chuck because he always looked older than he was, he had heart, but cut always, Carnera, Braddock, Baer, Sharkey and Schmeling would all beat him pretty badly, Schmeling and Baer may have hurt him real bad....so much for the 70's there were good fighters but they had there pluses and minuses like any other era, I lived it and I have to tell you a lot of fighters of today and fighters of past era's would have walked through most of them except a few
No he would have been just as bad. The diference is that he would not have got a title shot in most eras.
I doubt it. The 1930's were so starved of talent that its not unreasonable to think that a fighter of Journeyman status such as Wepner might have gotten a shot and even capitalized on it. Between 1971 and 1976, Wepner won 13 out of 15 fights, losing only to Randy Neuman who he later beat twice, and Muhammad ali who he took 15 rounds. Among the fighters on his winning streak, was former champ Terell. Wepner was also the New Jersey state champ for a while, and retired with an overall record of 35-14-2-17. fighters with worse credentials were given title shots during the 30's and 40's. In fact, Joe Louis gave title shots to men who were as bad or worse than Wepner was. Christ James Braddock prectically came back from the grave to make a run for the title. Had he failed against Baer, he would have likely been thought no more of than Wepner. I have always felt that I guy who ranked #12-15 during the early to mid 70's was as good or better than a fighter who was ranked 5-7 during the 30's and 40's.
Joe Frazier was tailor made for Wepner's rabbit punch, and that's why Smoke ducked him, choosing instead to defend his title against bums like Ali and Foreman. Andre the Giant was so scared of Chuck that he insisted Wepner pull his punches and throw their match on the Ali/Inoki undercard. Chuck nearly drowned Liston in his blood, after Braverman bladed Wepner in his corner between rounds. (Braverman, the Panama Lewis of his day, was always plotting with Ground Chuck to use his own blood to blind his opponents.) Sonny was so afraid of facing Wepner in a rematch that he chose to commit suicide rather than have to face Chuck again.
