Ernie Terrel - The fifth best heavyweight of the 60's...

Of course it could. Being humiliated like that, spanked like a boy in front of a world audience... Must be every fighter's nightmare.

The purely physical toll wasn't exactly nil either. The number of punches he took to the head must be in the realm of the number Frazier absorbed in FOTC. That punishment is said to have had a lasting effect on Frazier, so why wouldn't it on Terrell? Then add the mental effect to that and a broken fighter as a result seems very plausible.

 

Yes, but wouldn't his management and trainers see that in the gym, when he was prepping for the WBA Tournament.

I'm sure they could tell if he was 'gun shy' or 'fragile'.
Is it possible that Ernie was a 'tad-bit' over-rated?

 

He was unbeaten for five years, had wins over a host of contenders, gets the spanking of a life time and then loses against every half decent opponent he meets afterwards. You do the match.

 

Bokaj,

Look a little closer at Ernie's fights before Ali.
Those guys were a little faded, and not at their peak fighting time.
Only Chuvalo went on to bigger things, and he had been beaten (9) times.

The original question is if Ernie was the 5th Best Heavyweight of the 60's.
The whole division was a mish-mosh in 1966/1967/1968/1969.

 

And now give me the instances when a fighter's wins are over guys that all are at their undisputable peaks...

These were good wins for a contender to have. No ifs, nu buts. After these he gets the ass spanking of the centrury and then loses to everyone in sight (often by stoppage also). You are really arguing a dead cause here and I think I'll leave you to it from now on.

 

The overall is somewhat deceiving.
In the 1960's, Ernie posted a record of 24-5-0 (10 KO's)
He was only 21 in 1960.
He was only 28 in 1967 (when he retired)

During his 8-year run in the 60's, he was rated in the Top Ten (5) times.
1962, #10
1963, #5
1964, #3
1965, #2 (WBA Champion)
1966, #1 (WBA Champion)

When he retired in 1968, he should have been approaching his peak.
Maybe he just was burnt-out.

He was definitely one of the Top 5 heavyweights from 1963-1966.

 

I believe Chuvalo was robbed against Terrell. I put this fight right up there beside Ali vs Norton III, Lewis vs Holyfield I, and Hearns vs Leonard II among the other robberies. Ernie did enough wrestling and holding and less fighting against George. Why would all the press go to Chuvalo's corner to congratulate him only to hear the joke of the decision minutes later?

 

That one I never heard Round 15.
Was that fight really that close.

Ernie did say in his book that nobody hit harder over the course of fight than Chuvalo. And that he was offered another bout with George in 1971 (when he came back).
But he had no interest in getting his ribs hammered again, especially in Toronto.