Chuck Wepner

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mr. magoo, Nov 7, 2007.



  1. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
     
  2. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
     
  3. Duodenum

    Duodenum Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,604
    251
    Apr 18, 2007
    Damn straight! And it's not lost on any of us that Ali went to the jungle to regain the title! (Hah! You all wanted to say it, but
    This content is protected
     
  4. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
    In your honest opinion Deen, when looking at Wepner's resume, does it really look all that bad? I mean he had far more wins than losses, he defeated several guys who's records and credentials weren't that bad, he held at least 1 or 2 small regional belts, and fought hard in losing efforts to some good fighters. I mean the guy wasn't great, but he certainly wasn't a tomato can in my opinion. I also don't think that its beyond the realm of remote possibility that in a weaker era, he might have slipped up just another notch.
     
  5. Luigi1985

    Luigi1985 Cane Corso Full Member

    4,632
    29
    Feb 23, 2006

    Of course he wasn´t bad, otherwise he wouldn´t managed to beat good fighters like Neuman, Terrell, etc., but he wasn´t that special that we can say something like "Well, if he wouldn´t have fought in the best HW-era ever, he would have be able to be a champion or so", because his style was also pretty easy to beat, he wasn´t a dangerous puncher with an iron chin (bad and dangerous combination) for example, where we could say he could beat some former champs from other eras with mediocre chins, get what I mean?
     
  6. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
    Why don't you show me a direct quote anywhere in this thread where I claimed that he would have been a champion in any other era?

    I said nothing of a sort. I simply stated that if he had breached the top 10 in the 70's, and was even a contender for a brief period, that its not unreasonable to think that he would have been rated a bit higher in a weaker era, which the 30's most certainly were. I also claimed that he would have given Bradock, Baer and Schmeling a hard time, but later confessed that I was exagerating to make a point.
     
  7. Luigi1985

    Luigi1985 Cane Corso Full Member

    4,632
    29
    Feb 23, 2006

    Mr magoo, false alarm. I´m sorry if you misunderstood me ( I´m not the best writer here it seems to be :D ), I just meant that what I wrote in general, I know that you didn´t write that, believe me, I just write something in a thread when I know what the thread creator asked for...:thumbsup


    I agree with you what you said about Wepner, of course fighters like Braddock or Carnera wouldn´t murder him or so, but I also don´t think he would beat them! I hope you understand now what I mean/ meant! :yep
     
  8. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
    All good :good
     
  9. Luigi1985

    Luigi1985 Cane Corso Full Member

    4,632
    29
    Feb 23, 2006

    Good. :party
     
  10. dmt

    dmt Hardest hitting hw ever Full Member

    6,418
    7,022
    Jul 2, 2006
    he may well have gotten title shots in earlier era's but never would have won the title. Hell Jess Willard,who some say was a poor fighter, was better then this guy. I admire his heart and guts though
     
  11. Luigi1985

    Luigi1985 Cane Corso Full Member

    4,632
    29
    Feb 23, 2006

    But to be honest, I expected from you something like "False, Luigi, you´re definitely the best writer here on ESB"... :bart
     
  12. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
    Agreed, but it also should be noted that no one here is claiming that he would have been a world champion in another era.
     
  13. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    48,185
    18,521
    Jan 3, 2007
    Not a chance. I have no problem admitting that I'm not the best writer here either. Its not a contest. ;)
     
  14. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,406
    249
    Oct 4, 2005
    My apologies, i think i misunderstood you. I thought you asked me to provide mediocre fighters from the 30's who would've done better in the 70's.

    I don't deny that some of the better fighters of the 30's have lost to mediocre fighters. That is why i said "i don't discount the possiblity that Wepner gets a lucky win and breaches the top10 briefly". You could say that given the fact that many boxers from the 30's couldn't train as much as they should, gives Wepner a better chance. I read that before the Ali fight he didn't train that much either. However, it's not like he was THAT much better against Ali.

    All i'm saying is that given Wepner's record, i don't find it very likely that he beats a contender, but i'm not saying it's impossible.


    I'm not repeating what Janitor said, i've read about this myself more than once and have heard it confirmed by just about anyone talking about this bout.

    And given Wepner, the big underdog, beating a top contender being a great dramatic story, i find it hard that everyone would score against him. Usually, when a "lesser" fighter puts up a lot more resistance than he is expected to, his succes is exxagarated. I.e. there are many people claiming Jones beat Ali and Mercer beat Lewis while they didn't.
    But even from his position, Wepner didn't make that scenario. So i don't doubt the reads on this verdict that i've seen many times.
     
  15. Luigi1985

    Luigi1985 Cane Corso Full Member

    4,632
    29
    Feb 23, 2006
    :lol:


    :good