He was in the Ring's top 10 fiver years straight (1958-1962), three of them inside the top 5. Perhaps he was slipping a bit when he met Ali, but calling him "journeyman" seems harsch. Ali fell straight backwards from a blow to the body. Whether Wepener stepped on his foot or not, it was due to him being out of balance, not hurt. And anyway, what does these knockdowns prove? Thing is, neither of these man landed much on Ali, and whether they respected his power or not beforehand, they should have done so after. All of them took a hiding afterwards - Wepner was KO'd for the first (and only?) time in his career. Louis was knocked down quite a few times, was that due to lack of respect for his power? The lesser opposition rarely troubled Ali. He hardly got any McCall, Rahman or Douglas kind of losses. If you claimed that the KD:s by Banks and Cooper was due to him being vulnerable to the left hook, I would agree. But saying that he was regularely tagged by journeyman and using these examples... No, it doesn't fly. I'm not sure either Moore, Liston, Patterson and Terrell nor Quarry, Ellis, Mac Foster, Buster Mathis, Bugner etc. would agree that Ali was easy to land on because his punching power didn't discourage them. Neither would journeymen like London, Miteff, Lewis, Blin, Lubber, Coopman etc. etc. But would Ali have taken even fewer punches if he had devastating punching power as well? Absolutely.
You're examples would have been analagous to what I said if you misunderstood it and I didn't explain it to you. It baffles me that you remained in that state after I took pains to explain it. I simply don't get why you'd ask me what I meant and then dismiss the answer and continue on your faulty interpretation of what it meant.
I was just wondering where you were at... Fair enough. Ali was helpless against Wepner's precise but brutal body punches, and Norton could never, ever touch the dancing master that was Muhammed Ali in 1976. I can live with that... :!: