Were people angry when Ali gave Chuck Wepner a shot at the HW title?

Some criticism of the opponent selection and nobody thought Wep had any chance to win. But boxing is a funny sport---some guys get minimal criticism and Ali was one of them.

And just how in the world is Ali supposed to turn down a big payday for that kind of opponent? All he had to do was a 2 week training perios and he wins the fight.

And Braverman would put Chuck in with anyone for a dollar.

 

Only rabid Fury fans claim it was Usyk's fault. For all neutrals it was a blatant duck from Fury's side.

He demanded 70-30 despite Usyk having three of the four main titles. When Usyk unexpectedly agreed, Fury wanted to change the rematch clause that he himself had insisted on earlier.

By that point it was clear that Fury had expected Usyk to refuse the 70-30 and was looking for other ways out when his bluff was called. So Usyk basically told him to sodd off.

So that's pretty much the difference. Ali just came off winning the undisputed title when signing with Wepner, after consistently facing top contenders before that, while Fury is coming off ducking a fight for undisputed and has fought only 1 top fighter since 2015.

 

Fury demanded 70-30.because he thought Usyk would never accept it. When Usyk called his bluff and accepted, Fury instead wanted to remove a rematch clause he himself had insisted to have in the contract. At that point it was clear he didn't want the fight so Usyk said **** it.

 

You can't compare the two. Ali fought everybody so if he wanted to have a novelty exhibition here and there it's ok. Fury is choosing to fight an MMA guy instead of undisputed fight with Usyk.

 

I guess boxing people would say Wepner paid his dues for the shot, I'm Borderlined, Terrell Boxed Chuck's ears off for 12 rounds and was robbed, ALI-Wepner It was a double heder Norton-Quarry, And I always heard that was a much better fight although it went 5 . One would only have to watch the tape to see Wepner never decked Ali legit.

 

Yes the Internet at the time was awash with a fair share of criticism, on Twitter in particular and with a number of regular boxing channels on YouTube making vids questioning the credibility of Chuck as a title challenger. Boxing fans too had their fair share of heated debates on the matchup on boxing forums like on the General forum at boxingforum24. All this happened in 1975 ……. in a parallel universe.

In our 1975 reality however, with no social media around and no access to boxers and fan daily interaction, it’s hard to imagine the fan and sports media reaction to Ali defending against Wepner being as intense and concentrated as it is today with the Fury v Ngannou bout. In 1975, though the heavyweight title was still regarded as been the biggest prize in sport. being able to give and read opinions on it was probably limited to the sports back pages in newspapers and the weekly/monthly sports programmes on national tv. There were plenty of boxing magazines around but the news and fight reports in them were normally a few months behind when they went on sale.

 

You're damn right,Bokaj! I became quite a fan of Fury's after the Wilder fights but he's now annoying me with his procrastinating. And yes Ali,like all champions who consistently fight the best,was entitled to a softee every now and then. Plus we got Rocky Balboa out of it!!

 

Some people in the media were suggesting that Muhammad Ali was slipping by accepting such a challenge from The Bayonne Bleeder, Chuck Wepner, remember it was March 1975, Ali had not fought The Thrilla In Manila yet, that would happen on Sept 30 1975, the Wepner bout would happen on March 24 1975. Many considered Wepner a soft touch in need of a big purse. Wepner sure shocked me by going into the 15 th round and decking Ali in round 9. But Wepner gave a good account of himself, he even inspired the movie franchise of Rocky for actor Sylvester Stallone. And now some modern or near modern fighter will enter the conversation because we might forget about them. Ha Ha Ha.

 

The irony of boxing.

We all understand the concept and “perhaps” deserved nature of a “soft defence”

But then, while Champs and/or their fans try to defend such “soft” matches, they will also attempt to argue why certain other fighters (of far better quality) didn’t deserve their tilt at the title - as if to say the better quality fighters, as opposed to the obvious “fodder”, had to have a 100% iron clad argument for a shot or NO dice.

Is that “soft”’ defence concept an unjustified misnomer - especially when it can be seen as being acutely inequitable when more deserving fighters are clearly available but never entertained?

So called “soft”’defences arguably don’t wash. On the same page, so called “Tune Ups” should be left in the gym - not elevated with the HW Title at stake - some so called Tune Ups ultimately amount to glorified sparring anyway.

True, some assumed “gimme” fights have resulted in upsets - but still, that wouldn’t sit well with the far more deserving guys denied a shot for years.

Guys too good for a “softie” but always some argument against them for an actual title shot.

To further my point, let me introduce you to the ridiculously preclusive, and, at the same time, ridiculously “inclusive” reign of one Floyd Patterson…….