Henry spins a bit of a yarn again

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 03 Nov 2003, 17:12

Henry Cooper recalled knocking down Cassius Clay at Wembley Stadium in June 1963 in yesterday's edition of The Observer.

'I caught Ali with a clean left hook in the fourth round, one of the best I'd ever thrown. As the punch connected, I could see that he was gone. In boxing, the eyes tell you everything and I could see the whites of his. It was a shame that he wasn't in the centre of the ring because as he went down the ropes broke his fall. Then, of course, the bell came to his rescue. It was the first time that anyone had knocked Ali down and I remember thinking how lucky the bell was for him, because when I had people in trouble in those days I always finished them off. But I didn't have chance because his trainer, Angelo Dundee, was a shrewd man and stuck his nails into Ali's glove to rip it and cause a delay.
I remember sitting in my corner wondering what was going on. I hadn't been surprised that he went down. I'd fancied my chances because I suspected that he wouldn't like my style. He was flash, but people forget that he had great heart in the ring.
Ali has since said that I hit him so hard that when he hit the ground his relations could feel it reverberating in Africa, which is a rather nice line, I think.'

Henry tends to get a bit melodramatic when recalling his most famous boxing moment. Sonny Banks was actually the first to floor Clay, in 1962. And Clay's glove was already split (you can see the tear in pictures of Clay getting knocked down), and there was no real delay in the minute's interval as Henry likes to claim. A few seconds at best.
But don't get me wrong. It was a great shot from Cooper, who could fight.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 04 Nov 2003, 07:50

Yeah, it was a great shot from Cooper.

I reckon the hardest Clay/Ali ever took.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 09:27

Watching Cooper fight recently (on a channel five show) and yes he was an excellent fighter. I would have loved to has seen the world title fight that was supposed to happen between Ellis and Cooper. However, the BBBoC wouldn't accept it as a legit title - so Cooper (if he'd won) wouldn't be allowed to defend it in the UK - so he had really no choice but to pull out. Sad isn't it, especially now with all the Mickey Mouse titles available.

Cooper style was very unique, the best left handed fighter of all time - shame about his right. He basically faught like Dean Francis against Barney through choice. It was rather odd.

But nevertheless, a very good fighter in a great era of heavyweight boxing.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 09:44

Cooper does talk himself up, despite being nothing more than a typical english "lovable loser" in my opinion..........

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:02

I think you're being a bit harsh, Loftgroov. Cooper proved himself the best of a solid crop of domestic heavies in the 60's (Richardson, London, Erskine, Bygraves, Bodell, Prescott, Walker etc), and three Lonsdale Belts speak for themselves.
There's no doubt he was the best heavyweight in Europe for years after Ingemar Johannson retired, but he was never good enough to beat the top American heavies. Yes, he outpointed Zora Folley, but the rematch proved who the better man was (Zora bombed him out in two rounds), and Floyd Patterson also proved too sharp for him en route to a fourth round knockout (Patterson's hands were a blur that night). But Henry was the first to admit he didn't like fighting smaller heavies.
As for his tinted view of the Clay fight, Henry, for all his fame outside the ring, is no different to any other fighter in trying to dress up his losses. I was astonished to read in 1983 that the controversial loss to Bugner in 1970 still rankled with him and he had never spoken to referee Harry Gibbs from the moment Gibbs raised Bugner's arm in triumph (the two made up before Harry's death recently).
It proves that Henry was a proud fighter, who gave everything to a sport he loved. And the fact remains, he was one of only three men to floor the great Muhammad Ali.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:08

Agree, Patterson was awesome the night he face he faced Cooper. I recommend Coopers account of that fight in his book 100 greatest fighters.

Not the best book of all time (and a bit old now) but his stories about Patterson and Farr were class.

Bennie (or anyone else) do you think Cooper would have taken Ellis.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:16

stujones wrote:Agree, Patterson was awesome the night he face he faced Cooper. I recommend Coopers account of that fight in his book 100 greatest fighters.

Not the best book of all time (and a bit old now) but his stories about Patterson and Farr were class.

Bennie (or anyone else) do you think Cooper would have taken Ellis.

I think he would have stood a chance. Ellis was a sound boxer of course. If you look at the men he beat to win the title in that eight-man elimination series in 1967: Bonavena, Spencer and Quarry, you would have to say that Ellis would have been favoured against Cooper. But Joe Frazier wiped the floor with him, and Ellis may have peaked in that elimination series. He really struggled to outpoint Patterson in the first defence of his WBA heavyweight title in Sweden, then came the Frazier mauling. I personally feel that Cooper was never good enough to win the world heavyweight title, or a version of it, but he deserved a chance against someone other than Muhammad Ali.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:27

[quote="bennie"]I was astonished to read in 1983 that the controversial loss to Bugner in 1970 still rankled with him and he had never spoken to referee Harry Gibbs from the moment Gibbs raised Bugner's arm in triumph quote]

To be honest, I don't blame Cooper one little bit here - no I am going on what older fight fans have told me (rather than reading for myself). But didn't Gibbs say afterwards that he awarded the fight to Bugner because he was the younger man with the future ahead of him.

Gibbs, generally was a great ref and judge (wasn't his final assigment Benn vs Eubank II - did some other superfights like Leonard vs Duran I, and was the ITV ringside scorer before McGuigan took over).

However, if that reasoning is true then he was bang out of order.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 10:27

I don't mean to sound harsh on Cooper, it's just that with all sports I like British WINNERS (lets face it, we don't have many...)

I dislike all the "Henman types", all the "oh so nearly, but not quite" bunch.

That's why I loved Naz, Lewis, Conteh, Eubank etc. All were winners, and you know they won't spend later life talking about what might have been...

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:05

Loftgroov wrote:I don't mean to sound harsh on Cooper, it's just that with all sports I like British WINNERS (lets face it, we don't have many...)

I dislike all the "Henman types", all the "oh so nearly, but not quite" bunch.

That's why I loved Naz, Lewis, Conteh, Eubank etc. All were winners, and you know they won't spend later life talking about what might have been...

That is harsh though man. I could be a winner if i kept fighting my sister.
You are certainly not alone in your thinking, and that's partly the reason the Alphabet titles have come to the fore IMO.
Eubank is a winner the same way Calzaghe is and Hatton is.
Eubank is a winner but Cooper isn't?
In a world of Alphabet titles and carefully selected opponents only mate.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:13

Oh come on, Eubank was absolute class. He was the best middleweigtin the world in his "pre-Watson" career. completely untoucable, and none of the americans would go near him.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:14

Priff wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:I don't mean to sound harsh on Cooper, it's just that with all sports I like British WINNERS (lets face it, we don't have many...)

I dislike all the "Henman types", all the "oh so nearly, but not quite" bunch.

That's why I loved Naz, Lewis, Conteh, Eubank etc. All were winners, and you know they won't spend later life talking about what might have been...
That is harsh though man. I could be a winner if i kept fighting my sister.
You are certainly not alone in your thinking, and that's partly the reason the Alphabet titles have come to the fore IMO.
Eubank is a winner the same way Calzaghe is and Hatton is.
Eubank is a winner but Cooper isn't?
In a world of Alphabet titles and carefully selected opponents only mate.

Bad example with John Conteh (IMO), one of the biggest cases of 'if only' and 'what might have been's' in British boxing. What might have happened if he hadn't lived the life of luxury.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:22

Yes, but why is it the two most popular boxers in the minds eye of the british public were both "mainly" losers.

Henry Cooper & Frank Bruno.

Yet we have someone as successful and superb as Lennox Lewis, and a large proportion of the public wouldn't even know who he is! Look at the way nearly everyone (bar me) hated Naz. He was arrogant? So damn what? he always won! He was a winner.

The british mentality towards "loving losers, and hating winners" is exactly why this country is in the state it's in!!

(Just had to get that off my chest!) hahaha

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:29

I love Eubank but there's no way he'd have toppled Jones Jr or Toney. The Americans were (and still are) on another level.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:30

It's about genial chapies who lose gracefully, a classy trait.
btw Angelo Dundee tells the ripped glove story a lot himself, which is odd since it's not true (worsening it I mean)

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:34

Fair points, Loftgroov. I think the British public like their sporting heroes to be human and outright winners tend to be almost superhuman, which is why the likes of Naz and Lewis will never be fully embraced here, though they will always be respected.
But Chris Eubank is a classic example of a British sportsman who became popular once he lost a couple and let down his prickly guard.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:42

Loftgroov wrote:Oh come on, Eubank was absolute class. He was the best middleweigtin the world in his "pre-Watson" career. completely untoucable, and none of the americans would go near him.

Eubank is one class act. I love the guy.
However, I think that his chin was maybe his only truely world class attribute though.

with regards to Brits embracing losers and not fully embracing winners...
Steve Redgrave
David Beckham

I think the bottom line is the we British are a fickle bunch.
(We love Audley one year we hate him the next etc)

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 11:51

Priff- fair example with Redgrave, perhaps not so with Beckham.

Beckham has never won anything (internationally), and isn't an individual sportsman. Redgrave isn't either, he was alongside Pinsent, but I know what you mean.

I think Eubank could have taken Toney the distance in his prime. Toney wouldn't have KO'd him, no way. Eubanks chin and ability to ride punches would have taken him through.

I wouldn't even discount a prime Eubank beating Toney.

Anyway........

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:04

Barry McGuigan - sporting hero! Winner.

As Bennie said, people to give more support to people who appear more human. A geniune bloke, a person who (may not be the most gifted) but you can see tries - and succeeds. That's why there alot of Irish fighters who I particularly look up to, they do appear human.

Take us Welsh - I would say most of us embraced Robinson more so Calzaghe. Why was this - I don't think it had anything to do with the fairytale story more the fact that Robinson used to try his damn best (and always visited his "Mam" on Sundays!). He always spoke kindly about his opponents, faught the best that this country offered and always put in a spirited effort.

With Calzaghe alot of people still remember his moans at McGuigan and Watt (when going through his rough patch). Him saying "What have they done to criticise me". Joe's grown up alot since then, but people don't forget.

Now, I'm not saying Calzaghe isn't a nice bloke, but his performance against Starie ruined any possible icon status. This is because lay fans (who don't know his injury problems) believe he didn't try his best and secondly he had that famous moan.

Thats why Redgrave is a national icon. I actually think Redgrave is thought off more highly than Pinsentt because of the way he talks. Pinsent, being more educated, seems less Human than Redgrave. We should embrace both almost equally, but we don't. Even if Pinsent wins six gold medals he'll never be a popular as Redgrave.

Take Williams and Harrison, many lay fans (who only watch the BBC coverage) really want Danny to KO Harrison. Danny is not viewed (by many lay fans who I talk to) as a good loser, cause they believe Danny can win that fight. They want him to win, cause he seems more human - not talking in the 3rd person for a kick off.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:15

Stu - I completely agree with you.

But look at the difference in culture across the Atlantic or in Australia for example.

James Toney - trash talking extrordinaire! ...and they love him!! He puts down his opponents, says hes the best, says he can't be beat...etc etc (just like Naz used to do here) yet he gets respect and adulation.

I remember sitting in pubs watching Naz fight, and my fellow Brits all around me would be rooting for the south american or whomever! They really wanted Naz beat. Why? I simply feel they rate humilty above success. Something I don't. Not in boxing anyway.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:30

Yes Longrooft, but surely theres nothing wrong with want the humilty to be successful. By cheering on the South American, thats what your mates in the pub were wanting.

I'll admit I've cheered for the opponent against Naz, likewise with Audley Harrison, but once he is unsuccesful I don't really continue to have the respect for him like I do when a good bloke is successful (like I do with Barrera).

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:33

Longrooft?

No, as an Englishman, you won't ever seen me cheering on a Mexican when fighting an Englishman. I don't care how "nice" he is.......

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:49

Loftgroov wrote:Stu - I completely agree with you.

But look at the difference in culture across the Atlantic or in Australia for example.

James Toney - trash talking extrordinaire! ...and they love him!! He puts down his opponents, says hes the best, says he can't be beat...etc etc (just like Naz used to do here) yet he gets respect and adulation.

I remember sitting in pubs watching Naz fight, and my fellow Brits all around me would be rooting for the south american or whomever! They really wanted Naz beat. Why? I simply feel they rate humilty above success. Something I don't. Not in boxing anyway.

Yeah but Toney's funny, same thing as with Ali. Naz is just an annoying little twat

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Nov 2003, 12:53

Sorry for the error LOFTGROOV.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 04 Nov 2003, 14:40

Cooper could have won, but I would have fancied Ellis, who was a lovely mover, with excellent boxing skills and underrated power (particularly in the right hand).

I think Henry's tendency to cut would have hurt his chances of victory.

Ellis by decision or late cuts stoppage.