I've viewed some old footage of Earnie Terell on youtube and even saw a few of his fights in their entirety on ESPN classic, and frankly I think that he was a rather unimpressive fighter to watch. Against Muhammad Ali, he looked like a statue at times, with little or no movement from top or bottom. He also seemed to lack in power. I know that he was a decent fighter who managed to pick up some good wins and even won a vacant world championship, but I found his fights painfully boring to sit through.
I remember watching a few of his fights back in the 60's. At 6'-6" he towered above what would be called "small" heavyweights today. He had little power and was one of the early students of the John Ruiz School of grab & hold. Yep, he was boring.
Taylor is a joke, as was Terrell. Terrell recieved about as many gift decisions on top of it. The only difference is that Terrell was also KOed multiple times, which is coming up for Taylor if he stays in the game with his vile presence.
Which gift decisions did Terrell receive? I am not aware of any, but Terell was a victim of bad judging once. Somehow Wepner got the ref's decision in his fight with Terell. It is said that Wepner maybe won 2-3 rounds at best. Terell was a bit of a safety first type of operator. He used his height, reach, and jab to beat some decent / smaller opposition in Chavalo, Machen, Folley, and Foster. Terrell wasn't fast or strong. He was a spolier type that could clinch like an octopus if he wanted to and pile up points on the outside. It seems like Terell's height, range, and solid set of skills were too much for most skilled 190-210 pound fighters to over come.
Terrell was an okay fighter, but he was definately not what I would call talented, and nor was he fun to watch. He had the luxery of being a very tall fighter during a time when most men weren't, and he emerged in a rather dormant period in the sport. He also lost fights or looked unimpressive against boxers whom a lot of decent fighters would have ordinarily destroyed. Terell had some decent wins, but none that were great, and if in his prime during the 70's, Terell's career would have been even less of a footnote than it already was.
Terrell was tkod by huge punching Cleveland Williams and by Jeff Merrit,when he was washed up,that isnt multiple times.
Terrell was a boring safety first fighter who relied on his good jab and clinching,he took a good shot ,was only stopper twice ,and had wins over many rated men despite what other posters have said about his height advantage [6 6],he didnt use it ,Terrell didnt "fight tall",he fought leaning forward ,behind a high guard,people look at his height and make assumptions ,they should study his fights,boxers who fight tall ,for example Lennox Lewis,obviously use their height to their advantage,Terrell did not.
In contrast to Calzaghe, who fought in his 21 title defenses perhaps 2 good fighters, the "joke" Taylor fought within 2 years fighters like Hopkins, Spinks, Ouma, Winky Wright and now he will fight the unbeaten Pavlik. For me, it seems to be that you´re the joke...
Terrell was nothing special, he only managed to win some big fights because of his enormous size (of his time).
I didn't really think people respected the win over Ouma. I though Amsterdam was going over the top, needlessly critising him with an entire thread. It turns out I was wrong.
Luigi Terrell was tall at 6 6 but he didnt have enormous size evn for the time,when he fought Ali he was only 1/4 pound the heavier man at 212 3/4 he was rather slender actually.
Terrell was a solid honest fighter. who showed a lot of heart in the Ali fight. With a bit more power he could of been a lot more dangerous, and then would of perhaps won the WBA Heavyweight tournament in 67 IMO.
