I think that his technique got worse, not better between his early days and the late 70s. I watch the fight against Banks and see better technique than I do against any number of his bouts after '75. He got lazy in there -fooling around, holding, covering up and resting on the ropes, firing shots with open gloves...
You are a solid poster, no doubt about that. Sometimes we disagree and may throw a few shots now and then but that's okay... it keeps us sharp.
No problem. I could reply to your last message on the matter, but a time comes when the book needs to be closed on our 'friendly' disagreement. I apoligise if I did dismiss your awnser after I asked you what you meant. The problem I had was matching the initial post which I quoted with your later replies that you clarified. They don't tie-in and I stand by that. Thats why I gave examples on it being a different scenario and not the same as you seem to claim.
Year-end rankings don't tell the story. Cooper was rated 1 and 2 throughout much of 1961 with the NBA. He dropped after Folley mashed him.
I know a thing or two about photography, and that photo looks doctored. Wepner's left foot seems to be pasted on midway on his sock, and bent.
I agree, I never suggested Cooper was not rated highly ,especially by other organizations.Number one seems to flatter Cooper,in 1961 he had two fights a fifth round win over Erskine on a retirement [March26], and a two round kayo loss to Folley[Dec 5].The year previously Cooper had two fights ,both wins ,over Roy Harris, pts ten rds, and was Alex Miteff,pts ten rds,solid but hardly earth shattering,perhaps John Ort was moonlighting doing the ratings?
Well you're 100% wrong sorry. I've freeze framed the whole affair and looked at it about 25 times and Wepner was on da foot.
I agree that his technique, together with everything else, took a nose dive after 75. That might be because of early stages of Parkinson's. He was just a different fighter after Manilla. His coordination never looked the same. But I do believe that he made some needed corrections during the early 70's, after FOTC, that he especially became more careful with his guard when in range of the other fighter. He never ate left hooks again like he did in FOTC. In Manilla I think he put on a great perfomance. As for his punching technique: I believe that a true of test of a fighters technique is how it holds up when the fighter is exhausted. Young Foreman, for example, lost all concepts of a proper technique when he got really tired, but look at Ali in Manilla. Even when he's absolutely exhausted towards the end he still puts on really good combinations, shows a fantastic sharpness considering the state he's in. That for me, is an excellent example of how good his punching tecnique really was.
Yes, against Ali he took the 10 count. I was fully aware that he had been stopped numerous timed before, but never KO'd. Ali scored a genuine KO. Wepner didn't beat the count.
Just one on Ali's Parkinsons. I thought he might have been in the early stages of it for the Spinks rematch. I posted a video from youtube a while back from the build-up to the Spinks rematch and he looks dreary eyed while being interviewed.
[yt]9bsoVV0s_mw[/yt] The interview starts at about 1.03 into the video. His speech is slower and watch his eyes closely.
Just watched the fight Perez starts his count gets to about 8 ,then waves the fight off ,with Wepner sprawled in the ropes,so technically it is a tko,don't mean to nitpick.PS the "knockdown" ,is shown from a couple of angles ,Ali is caught legs together,Wepner lands a slapping right to the side ,no steam in the punch at all ,and Ali stumbles over backwards,clearly a bull**** knock down,unfortunately you can't see Chuck's feet.Wepner a few years ago recounted how he met Ali at a get together function ,he thought Ali did not recognize him ,but after awhile Ali came slowly over to him ,stood on his foot and winked.
I just watched it as well. It seems to me that Perez waves it off when Wepner been down 10 seconds. But is labelled a "TKO" in Boxrec, so I guess you're right. Cheers!