Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Mar 2006, 17:02

Ok in a bygone thread someone claims that there is actual footage or a picture of Wepner's foot on Ali's foot at the point of knockdown. I have taken this "rumor" on faith for decades.

What are the facts of this matter?

In a recent ESPN discussion on this fight Dundee and Wepner both seem to agree that the knockdown was perhaps not all that exciting but 100% legit. The tapes used during this discussion do not show the feet of the fighters at the point of knockdown.

In fact Wepner likes to use these words. "I'm the only man in history who ever knocked Ali down while he was champion!"

How can he say this? Because you can't count any Cassius Clay knockdowns.....AND Frazier knocked down ALI when he WAS NOT champion. Leaving Wepner as the the only man to accomplish that feat.

but was it legit? Did he or did he not step on Ali's foot?

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 23 Mar 2006, 22:22

Buzz ... I clearly remember watching the fight live on like CBS Sports Spectacular or ABC's Wide World of Sports ... whatever the program was that broadcasted the fight at the time. I remember when our TV Guide used to come each week and I would always look for the televised fights. Often times there would be one of those "closeups" with a couple paragraph write up about the fighters.

Well, yes, I also recall footage (no pun intended) shown between rounds of Wepner's foot on top of Ali's when Wepner threw the right that he got credit for the knockdown with. Not much of a punch when you see it on these old ESPN Classic replays. But "scoreboard" as they say. That's what it was scored, so that's what it was.

Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2006, 00:19

I have always thought that each generation of fighters get better. But I'm not sure right now...seems like a lot of nobodies populatin the woods.

I'd say he'd be a force to be reckoned with.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Mar 2006, 02:13

Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

to tell u the truth kingpawn, chuck wepner may be the worst challenger in the history of the linear heavyweight title. on film, he does nothing right. He has no skill, no power, no technique, no ring smarts, no speed, not that durable, hes very predictable, not strong, no footwork, no defense, plus hes very ugly. the only thing he had was size. The guy was absolutely horrible. Probably the worst fighter I've seen technically. I wouldn't know the difference between Chuck and a guy they just took off the street that never had any training.

CarneraKOsSharkey · Post by **CarneraKOsSharkey** » 24 Mar 2006, 07:07

I remember reading a little while ago, perhaps in the book Facing Ali, that Wepner says every time he has ever seen Ali in person since that fight, Ali comes up to him and steps on his foot before breaking into a big smile.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2006, 08:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

to tell u the truth kingpawn, chuck wepner may be the worst challenger in the history of the linear heavyweight title. on film, he does nothing right. He has no skill, no power, no technique, no ring smarts, no speed, not that durable, hes very predictable, not strong, no footwork, no defense, plus hes very ugly. the only thing he had was size. The guy was absolutely horrible. Probably the worst fighter I've seen technically. I wouldn't know the difference between Chuck and a guy they just took off the street that never had any training.

So Brocky, what your sayin is, he's custom made for a slot in today's top 10 HW's.....right?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 24 Mar 2006, 22:42

Pretty sure there is a photo somewhere of Wepner on Alis foot. Wepner landed the punch to Alis chest. Muhamed wasnt hurt in the least. Counted as a knockdown . Chuck has his claim to fame. Wepner was sloppy and awkward at times, but the brawling non -pretty boy persona along with Paddy Flood and Al Braverman in the corner gave Chuck a certain charisma. But jeez hed start bleeding during the National Anthem.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:52

BoxBuzz wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

to tell u the truth kingpawn, chuck wepner may be the worst challenger in the history of the linear heavyweight title. on film, he does nothing right. He has no skill, no power, no technique, no ring smarts, no speed, not that durable, hes very predictable, not strong, no footwork, no defense, plus hes very ugly. the only thing he had was size. The guy was absolutely horrible. Probably the worst fighter I've seen technically. I wouldn't know the difference between Chuck and a guy they just took off the street that never had any training.

So Brocky, what your sayin is, he's custom made for a slot in today's top 10 HW's.....right?

basically

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Mar 2006, 03:07

I think Wepner was better than Tex Cobb. Both men have one distinct thing in common and that was toughness. Guys nowdays are almost all but afraid to hit one another, and you could probably hit Wepner with a hammer and he'd still be standing.

Mind you Wepner did beat Terrell and was the first man to ever knock down George Foreman, despite given a broken eyes socket for his efforts, and as an amateur he did very well.

Wepner was all but unranked anyways when he fought Ali, and the fact that he stayed almost a full 15 rounds with Ali when he never trained full time for a fight in his life is something to be said.

It was an incredibly sloppy fight, and Wepner more or less, as the movie ROCKY, which was based on this fight, was quoted as saying "blocked the blows with his face".

I think Wepner would have faired better in the bare knuckle era...as they didnt stop fights just because someone was cut bad---they would almost stop a fight when somebody broke a bone or was near death or unconscious.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 25 Mar 2006, 04:35

Knock down Foreman?? When was this?

I've seen the knockdown a few times and it was definelty a legit KD. And yes Clay was not champion yet when Banks and Cooper knocked him down and he was not the champ when Frazier had him down. So Wepner is the only man to knock Ali down while champion.

I agree with the guys who said Wepner was horrible. He was tough and durable and that's pretty much it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 05:07

Mind you Wepner did beat Terrell

it was a horrible decision. total robbery. everyone though terrell won. some reports i have read even had terrell winning 11-12 rounds.

-wepner wasnt even that durable. the only thing u can say chuck wepner had was heart. he was a joke of a fighter, how he ever won fights i will never know.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2006, 07:47

Hey Brock, I never knew the Terrel fight was that controversial, I always thought it was strange that he could get past Ernie. But Ernie turned in another poor performance and was out of the game so I assumed Ernie had just lost his abilities. Never thought it could have been a bad decision. Where can I read about that fight or does anyone have it? any sources?

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 25 Mar 2006, 08:19

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

to tell u the truth kingpawn, chuck wepner may be the worst challenger in the history of the linear heavyweight title. on film, he does nothing right. He has no skill, no power, no technique, no ring smarts, no speed, not that durable, hes very predictable, not strong, no footwork, no defense, plus hes very ugly. the only thing he had was size. The guy was absolutely horrible. Probably the worst fighter I've seen technically. I wouldn't know the difference between Chuck and a guy they just took off the street that never had any training.

Brockton ... Not questioning anything you're saying here, except maybe that Wepner wasn't durable. Durable, to me, means the ability to stand in there and give-and-take, regardless of any lacking anywhere else. Liston just about tore his head off, but didn't knock him out. Wepner was indeed tough. Lot's of heart. Just not a very good fighter ...

But, then, how many of today's HWs are really all that much better? At least Wepner leaves it in the ring. He throws punches and keeps throwing punches. Man, if it's PPV, I don't even bother to watch the HWs nowadays anymore. Would rather not spend my money to watch these guys stand there and pose, or leave the ring 12 rounds later looking almost as clean as when they entered it. Hell, why even bother to get in shape to fight like that.

As ugly as he was to watch, Wepner always came to fight and I'd say that's what actually made him "pretty good", regardless of all that he lacked.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 08:34

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey Brock, I never knew the Terrel fight was that controversial, I always thought it was strange that he could get past Ernie. But Ernie turned in another poor performance and was out of the game so I assumed Ernie had just lost his abilities. Never thought it could have been a bad decision. Where can I read about that fight or does anyone have it? any sources?

boxbuzz,

IT WAS EXTREMELEY CONTROVERSIAL

"wepner was bleeding and barely able to land a punch through much of the fight. Valen, the only official scoring the fight under new jersey rules, gave wepner a 7-5 decision. most newsmen had terrell winning almost every round." - New York Times

George A hammrid terells business manager called it " the most outrageous decision in history of sports."

- one of Terell's cornerman charged Valen with SCISSORS IN HIS HAND when the decision was announced

-Ernie terell called the decision "rotten". terell also said "as long as you have people who are cheap in there moral dignity and code of ethics, you will have something that smells like convention hall here tonight."

the decision was so bad that A.J green the new jersey athletic commioner put the decision under review

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 25 Mar 2006, 08:39

dempseyfire wrote:I've seen the knockdown a few times and it was definelty a legit KD. And yes Clay was not champion yet when Banks and Cooper knocked him down and he was not the champ when Frazier had him down. So Wepner is the only man to knock Ali down while champion.

I agree with the guys who said Wepner was horrible. He was tough and durable and that's pretty much it.

Like I said earlier, scoreboard. It was scored a knockdown, therefore it was a knockdown.

The originally aired TV version of the fight is probably locked away somewhere. Probably some rights someone would have to purchase to show it instead of the ESPN Classic version that's shown about every other week. And, of course, because Ali was down, they made as big a deal out of it in that broadcast. There was a shot shown between rounds of Wepner's foot on top of Ali's. Therefore, as Ali was pulling back, he couldn't move his left foot back to catch himself and fell backwards. Even in the ESPN version, even though you can't see their feet, you can tell Ali goes down because he can't move is left foot back to catch himself.

Kind of like if someone's foot landed on top of yours just as they were giving you a shove and you couldn't move your foot in time to catch your balance. Because, really, even though Wepner landed the punch "just below the heart", as the announcers say, you can see that it's way at the end of its delivery, Wepner is off balance by the time it actually lands, it's more of a swing, anyway, so there's not much leverage in it ...

But you're right. It was knockdown.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:50

wepner could't knock a sick infant off a toilet seat.

yet wepner thinks he knocked down ali

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2006, 12:07

dont' mean to change the subject brock but can you shed some light on Terrels following performance? Was he just so deflated from that robbery? Or was he just out of gas a fighter and it was just time to give it up?

Never followed Terrely closely but I'm surprised I didnt have that Wepner-Terrell info in my head.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 25 Mar 2006, 12:13

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Mind you Wepner did beat Terrell and was the first man to ever knock down George Foreman, despite given a broken eyes socket for his efforts, and as an amateur he did very well.

Are you sure Wepner floored Foreman?

http://cnnsi.dk/features/1998/holyfield ... wepner.jpg

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Mar 2006, 16:46

He knocked Foreman down in the eayly part of the fight, was a quick knock down though, but in the end the fight was stopped cus Foreman all but knocked Wepner's eye out of its socket.

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 21 Sep 2017, 18:26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa_KkVNifTM

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 21 Sep 2017, 19:10

Yep except for a few die hard folks who live in la la land, people know this was bogus......as it shows, he was fallling ahead of the shot.......

case has been closed for some time on this one. But thanks for the clarity Caractacus.

Tony1244 · Post by **Tony1244** » 22 Sep 2017, 08:54

Caractacus wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa_KkVNifTM

Good job Caractacus. The first couple seconds shows the truth. I was agnostic on this before.

It's fun to debate this but not overly significant in the sense that if he wasn't stepping on his foot it's not as though I'd change the all time great list and I don't think anyone else would either.

Tony1244 · Post by **Tony1244** » 22 Sep 2017, 10:21

HomicideHenry wrote:I think Wepner was better than Tex Cobb. Both men have one distinct thing in common and that was toughness. Guys nowdays are almost all but afraid to hit one another, and you could probably hit Wepner with a hammer and he'd still be standing.

Mind you Wepner did beat Terrell and was the first man to ever knock down George Foreman, despite given a broken eyes socket for his efforts, and as an amateur he did very well.

Wepner was all but unranked anyways when he fought Ali, and the fact that he stayed almost a full 15 rounds with Ali when he never trained full time for a fight in his life is something to be said.

It was an incredibly sloppy fight, and Wepner more or less, as the movie ROCKY, which was based on this fight, was quoted as saying "blocked the blows with his face".

I think Wepner would have faired better in the bare knuckle era...as they didnt stop fights just because someone was cut bad---they would almost stop a fight when somebody broke a bone or was near death or unconscious.

Wepner knocked down Foreman? Never heard that before. Have never seen a clip of Foreman-Wepner. I do know GF fight him in his 3rd or 4th pro fight.

I thought Ring Magazine ranked Wepner #8 when he fought Ali.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 22 Sep 2017, 12:22

kingpawn wrote:Buzz ... I clearly remember watching the fight live on like CBS Sports Spectacular or ABC's Wide World of Sports ... whatever the program was that broadcasted the fight at the time. I remember when our TV Guide used to come each week and I would always look for the televised fights. Often times there would be one of those "closeups" with a couple paragraph write up about the fighters.

Well, yes, I also recall footage (no pun intended) shown between rounds of Wepner's foot on top of Ali's when Wepner threw the right that he got credit for the knockdown with. Not much of a punch when you see it on these old ESPN Classic replays. But "scoreboard" as they say. That's what it was scored, so that's what it was.

Here's a thought, though. How do you suppose Wepner would do if you could lift him out of his time and drop him into the present time? Indeed he was as big as these HWs nowadays. And he was tough, if not exactly all that good. What do ya think?

He would never get past the Alexander Dimitrenko's and Alexander Ustinov's of the world... Dimi went 257... Wepner was 119 for Ali, from his own mouth.. He had 6 pounds of clothes on when he weighed in.. Joseph Parker would eat his lunch.. Charles Martin would even give him a going over. Wepner was about as soft as they come with no muscle tone.. Watch his fight with Buster Mathis (he lasted 3 rounds) and get a good idea of his boxing skills. Duane Bobick??? He beat the crap out of Wepner -- and stopped him of course.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 22 Sep 2017, 12:29

HomicideHenry wrote:I think Wepner was better than Tex Cobb

Oh man... Cobb damned near beat Ken Norton and fought a close fight with the rising and undefeated Michael Dokes... Cobb beat the living Hell out of Earnie Shavers after taking his best shots... He was too big, strong, and tough for Shavers... Cobb would beat Wepner into a jelly. You didn't see Wepner-Mathis

Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

Re: Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

Re: Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

Re: Ali Wepner: What are the facts re: the famous Knockdown?

Re:

Re:

Re: