Sorry, but that's just hogwash. Beautiful words or not, Wepner was a journeyman and not more. 12 2 minute rounds? Give me a break.
Chuck Wepner is roughly comparable to the likes of Cliff Couser, not contenders. Being capable of receiving uncountable numbers of blows without crumbling is not qualification for contender status. Would Wepner have beaten Ross Puritty for example? or maybe Lance Whittaker or perhaps Brian Nielsen? Nah, I doubt it and as such, placing him in another era to suggest anything different is misleading. Wepner could have lost to loads of guys who were never titlist from a host of eras.
He was a journeyman for the bulk of his career, but for a brief period between 1971 and 1976, he actually had some good moments.
Wait a couple of months. I'll post something sharply critical of Wepner:stir, and when CP spots my pseudonym as that of the poster who typed it, an attack on my critique of Chuck will be guaranteed.:**** (CP hates to agree with me about ANYTHING.)
Chris is a good poster, but I often find that his criticisms of certain fighters from various periods are harsh and often over simplified. In other words, the numbers on boxrec tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Get my drift?