BoxRec

Sheila wrote:

ThatOne wrote:i will withhold my opinion on whether or not Shelia is a doppelganger until he or she gives me his or her's evaluation of Rudi Lubbers.

Who or what is a Rudi Lubbers ?

BoxBuzz wrote:Sheila, it wasn't vey nice that Ali taunted and picked on Ernie for their entire fight. I mean, it would have been better if he would have just knocked him out earlier, rather than show that sort of cruelty to another professional. It was obvious that he only kept him in the fight, to further humiliate him. Sometimes Ali was devoid of all professional courtesy. Of course Ali was just asking for Ernie to acknowledge his chosen name....so maybe it was justified.

Wouldn't you agree?

Cap wrote:Actually in answer to the original question, I recall the media of the day felt he was kind of an interim champion. A lot of them didn't like Clay/Ali and were willing to give Terrell and his mob connected backers some ink. What does Real Champion mean anyway? He was recognized by one of the original governing bodies [The WBA predated the WBC if I remember correctly] and had their championship belt. Nat Fleischer founder and publisher of The Ring Magazine was one of the small faction that supported Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cap wrote:Actually in answer to the original question, I recall the media of the day felt he was kind of an interim champion. A lot of them didn't like Clay/Ali and were willing to give Terrell and his mob connected backers some ink. What does Real Champion mean anyway? He was recognized by one of the original governing bodies [The WBA predated the WBC if I remember correctly] and had their championship belt. Nat Fleischer founder and publisher of The Ring Magazine was one of the small faction that supported Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali.

Really, I have never heard anyone from the media gave Terrell any support as champion; but I'm sure there were a few.
He was recognized by one of the governing bodies for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Many members of the media didn't like Ali, but like Nat Fleischer considered him the "real champion".

What does real champion mean? I guess it means different things to different people. To me it's the guy who deserves the title because of who he beat in the ring. (Usually this means beating the previous champion.) If he was justifiably stripped (which Ali wasn't) then he is not the "Real Champion" anymore.

Ernie Terrell probably wasn't considered the champion by his immediate family. He had so little support that some books don't even bother mentioning him as being the WBA champion. The same books mention people like John Tate and Mike Weaver.

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cap wrote:Actually in answer to the original question, I recall the media of the day felt he was kind of an interim champion. A lot of them didn't like Clay/Ali and were willing to give Terrell and his mob connected backers some ink. What does Real Champion mean anyway? He was recognized by one of the original governing bodies [The WBA predated the WBC if I remember correctly] and had their championship belt. Nat Fleischer founder and publisher of The Ring Magazine was one of the small faction that supported Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali.

Really, I have never heard anyone from the media gave Terrell any support as champion; but I'm sure there were a few.
He was recognized by one of the governing bodies for no legitimate reason whatsoever.
Many members of the media didn't like Ali, but like Nat Fleischer considered him the "real champion".

What does real champion mean? I guess it means different things to different people. To me it's the guy who deserves the title because of who he beat in the ring. (Usually this means beating the previous champion.) If he was justifiably stripped (which Ali wasn't) then he is not the "Real Champion" anymore.

Ernie Terrell probably wasn't considered the champion by his immediate family. He had so little support that some books don't even bother mentioning him as being the WBA champion. The same books mention people like John Tate and Mike Weaver.

To my way of thinking, Ali was the one and only champ from February, 1964 up until February, 1970 when he announced his retirement shortly before the Ellis-Frazier fight.

Sheila wrote:Was Ernie Terrell the best of a bad crop of Heavyweights. Yes

But, the WBA was correct in their decision in 1964.

Give the WBA credit. They had the guts to strip Muhammad Ali, and also ban Sonny Liston from
their association at the same time.

That's two birds with one stone.

DrDuke wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 12:47 Terrell was a good boxer. He was big, especially for his time, but he was pretty mobile, had a good jab. Maybe a bit dirty with holding. Anyway he had decent scalps. What about him being a champ? Well, he was a champion of Dokes and Weaver caliber. Kinda secondary champion, but the belt had been vacated and Terrell had won it. Of course, Dokes, Weaver and others, who had been in Holmes era, would have lost to Larry and some of them had actually lost, Weaver had been among them, for example. So as Terrell, he had finally lost to the main champion, so to speak. In his time people strictly wanted to see only one champion, but for today the phenomenon of several champs is normal. So, the poll isn't fully reflects the situation. Terrell was a legitimate beltholder, but he still wasn't a major champion.

yancey wrote: ↑11 Jun 2014, 23:23 A minor belt holder, not a real champion.

Kalan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 12:12

yancey wrote: ↑11 Jun 2014, 23:23 A minor belt holder, not a real champion.

I agree... ET may have been worse than Michael Bentt.... Bentt could hit, even if he was the worst boxer you ever saw.

Terrell never looked like a threat to do anything in his first 30 fights... He got beaten twice by a terrible Cruiserweight Johnny Gray... He lost to the ridiculous Wayne Bethea...

ET won his Title by beating 192-pound Eddie Machen who was no threat to the top Heavyweights.. ET defended against cherry picked Doug Jones and George Chuvalo... Jones was a fat Light Heavyweight... Chuvalo was a punching bag.

I was pulling for Chuvalo to get the upset over Terrell, but he weighed in as light as Ernie and had no gas... Chuvalo wasn't going to outbox anybody.. He'd have done better if he muscled up to 225 and did more roadwork and wind sprints.. I watch boxers jog along at 5 miles an hour. Maybe they're running with their trainer who's 40 or 50. No wonder they can't push the pace. There's weight rooms all over the place and they don't lift weights. They don't do sets of pushups, pullups, situps, back extensions, lunges, obliques, and bitch about the officials when they lose a fight.

Terrell lost to Ali... Then he lost to Thad Spencer, fighting a really terrible fight... He went down to Mexico and lost to Manuel Ramos which defies common sense.. You couldn't miss Ramos with a punch so how can you possibly lose?.. Ernie probably won every round like he swore he did--but you knock Ramos out.. Terrell was a lame assed hitter.

actjac wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 23:23 He was a white, good looking, intelligent, well spoken Italian-American from New York. He was in a position and could have coasted to a title shot ala Gerry Cooney and made a chunk of money.. . . .the name of the game is money.

oogiebe wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 13:34

Kalan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 12:12

yancey wrote: ↑11 Jun 2014, 23:23 A minor belt holder, not a real champion.

I agree... ET may have been worse than Michael Bentt.... Bentt could hit, even if he was the worst boxer you ever saw.

Terrell never looked like a threat to do anything in his first 30 fights... He got beaten twice by a terrible Cruiserweight Johnny Gray... He lost to the ridiculous Wayne Bethea...

ET won his Title by beating 192-pound Eddie Machen who was no threat to the top Heavyweights.. ET defended against cherry picked Doug Jones and George Chuvalo... Jones was a fat Light Heavyweight... Chuvalo was a punching bag.

I was pulling for Chuvalo to get the upset over Terrell, but he weighed in as light as Ernie and had no gas... Chuvalo wasn't going to outbox anybody.. He'd have done better if he muscled up to 225 and did more roadwork and wind sprints.. I watch boxers jog along at 5 miles an hour. Maybe they're running with their trainer who's 40 or 50. No wonder they can't push the pace. There's weight rooms all over the place and they don't lift weights. They don't do sets of pushups, pullups, situps, back extensions, lunges, obliques, and bitch about the officials when they lose a fight.

Terrell lost to Ali... Then he lost to Thad Spencer, fighting a really terrible fight... He went down to Mexico and lost to Manuel Ramos which defies common sense.. You couldn't miss Ramos with a punch so how can you possibly lose?.. Ernie probably won every round like he swore he did--but you knock Ramos out.. Terrell was a lame assed hitter.

Great insight Kalan! Really! I'm glad no one mentioned the "thumbing" that "robbed" Terrell v. Ali.

Cap wrote: ↑28 Jun 2014, 08:26 Only the greatest heavyweight the Netherlands (formerly Holland) ever produced.

APerno wrote: ↑17 Apr 2018, 13:02 This usually gets the ire of those who like to live with sanctioning body cock in their mouths but . . .

Who thought Frazier was champion before he beat Ali in '71?

Who thought Tyson was champion before he beat Spinks in '88?

To me there is only one champion (lineal) and he can't be stripped of the title no matter how many times you close your eyes and say it over and over.

Terrell - Ellis never champions just someone's political convenience.

Yes I have said it before, Frazier wasn't (to all of us) champion until he fought and beat Ali in '71, many of us waited until the issue was finally settled in the ring, we didn't accept the proclamations of self appointed authorities no matter how many times they said it over and over. There seems to be enough support to suggest that even Joe Frazier felt that way, never comfortable with his title until he finally got Ali (where he wanted him) in the ring.

Sanctioning body titles are for the television and causal fan. The WBA, the NYSAC, or even the phrase "undisputed" all scream of qualifications, suggesting there is still something that needs to be proven.

Terrell is right out; of course that is just my humble opinion.