BoxRec

as noted the "instant replay" did not exist in June 1963,so obviously the film was edited in post-production.

Caractacus wrote:as noted the "instant replay" did not exist in June 1963,so obviously the film was edited in post-production.

seriously? It's not the replay aspect of it....it's the synch between the video and the radio that provides the logic lock........are you that hamstrung on this that even solid proof is not enough for you? I honestly don't think anything would convince you.
You and Walter Mitty....living in the fictional.

what Radio broadcast ?
of Clay vrs Cooper I ?
from what source ?

seriously,is it known for a fact that Clay vrs Cooper was filmed/kinescoped by the BBC for the BBC ?
could it have been filmed by another source such as ITV ? (Independant Television)
ITV used to broadcast fights back in the 1960's in Britain did'nt they as well ?
maybe someone should go check the television section of the English newspapers of the week of that fight(June 1963) to clear this up.

Bladder wrote:

klompton wrote:I can finally put this debate to bed once and for all officially. By pure luck I found an old reel to reel audio recording of the original BBC radio broadcast of Ali-Cooper 1 in its entirety recorded by a fan live back in 1963. I had the thing transferred and picked it up today. Its a very interesting broadcast running from the ring entrance of Ali (who entered the ring wearing a crown) followed by Cooper. The commentary is done by someone I didnt recognize but its different from the TV commentary so its not a simulcast. The commentator hands off the commentary between rounds to another man who I believe he named "Barry" who has a slightly thicker british accent with maybe a northern twinge to it. Anyway, after Ali is knocked down the between rounds color commentator is discussing the knockdown when about 20 seconds into the rest he stops mid sentence and mentions that Ali's left glove is burst. He says it would be a really bad piece of luck for Cooper if Ali got a rest. He then says that yes, it looks like they are going to switch gloves but then stops abruptly and says no, they arent going to switch gloves that they are going to wait and switch gloves after the fifth round. The bell rings immediately and I timed the rest at one minute and two seconds. Case closed. Another one of boxing's beloved myths shattered. Sorry Caractus.

Barry is likely BBC commentator W.Barrington Dalby ...... https://sites.create-cdn.net/siteimages ... 3x2000.jpg

I just looked at my copy of his biography to see if there's any mention of the bout but it was published in 1961

download it on youtube so we could all appreciate it then please

sounds like there may be somekind of a gap beginning at at 1:14 of this clip (if you were to ask me).
It just happens so fast,and makes a person kind of suspicioius,you know ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAvAB7sS8RU

SteveO wrote:Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hwn2mqNI1I
Forward to 15:30 to hear the truth about the torn glove incident.

Yes, Clay's glove was already torn earlier in the fight.. That excerpt from the 4th round proves it was already torn..

Clay was hitting Cooper with a torn glove that ripped Cooper to shreds.. At various times Angelo Dundee said he slit the glove to cause the tear -- or that he aggravated the tear -- always to give Clay precious time to come to his senses.. But to hear Dundee tell it, Clay got at least an extra minute as they changed the glove and that saved Clay's career.. I never believed that lie for a minute.. I never heard anything about a glove being changed form any other source, but Dundee and the rumor mill.

Ray Gutteridge of ITV was indeed there at ringside.
and was doing the live ring commentery on the audio of that film clip from 1963 earlier it sounds like to me anyway.
So could the kinescope actually in fact really be from ITV (World of Sports programme)and not the BBC as claimed by so many here over the years ?
This of course would explain a number of things.
check this out from 1977.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/676 ... oper-fight

So now it would seem (?) that the Clay vrs Cooper fight was actually originally shown (probably a day delayed)
on ITV "World of Sports" programme
back in June 1963 and never was on the BBC (until maybe outakes of it appeared on the programme THE FIGHT that didnt air until 1985).
( and who would appear to make it sound like it was a fight shown exclusively on the BBC )

any further comments on this matter or are you all still in a state of denial ?
unless you can present some evidence that it was a televised BBC fight originally after all.

and as a bonus for (apparently) solving that particular mystery.
here is a link to a schmorgasburg of photographs
from the first fight in 1963.

http://flashbak.com/four-seconds-of-bri ... tos-27322/

Reg Gutteridge "The voice of boxing " had published his autobiography in 1998 entitled Uppercuts and Dazes.
I would be surprised if he did not write about the Clay vrs Cooper fight in his book being that he was at ringside and did the live commentery for it.
Has anyone here read the book ?

BTW Tuan_Juan,
when are you going to scan the pages from Henry Cooper's autobiography (published in 1972) here
where he discusses this bout,what happened and how much time that he believed
was between rounds four and five.
It could be rather interesting to read.

I did not read any of the threads, just went right to the film.

First – I was surprised to see that Cooper was such a tall lanky fighter; he stood eye to eye with Ali

Second – he gave Ali much more trouble than I was always lead to believe; the first three rounds were close, and I would have definitely given Cooper round two.

It looked as though Ali was about to take charge of the fight in round four (Ali round), but Cooper brought round five back to even

On the head butt – in round three it looked like Ali was deliberately trying to pull Cooper’s head into him for a butt; Ali always (illegally) grabbed his opponent’s head, but that particular act looked like he was trying to head butt. In fact I would say that was the dirtiest move I have ever seen Ali attempt.

The round six cut: first off I can see why there is a controversy, it is very difficult to see; Ali does land two right hands (to where the cut eventually opens) just as they move into the corner, but then there seems to be a clash of heads just before Cooper pulls his head back and reaches for his eye.

If I have to conclude, I think it was a head butt that opened the cut, but that it was not intentional.

Because: 1. Cooper does not react to the two right hands much, 2. It’s the moment after the ‘possible butt’ that Cooper reacts not after the after the right hands; if there was a third right hand landed in the corner I couldn’t see it.

The announcer called it a right hand, and he was sitting ringside, but then after the fight ends, he calls it a ‘possible right hand’ with much doubt in his voice, so he was of no use.

Simple answer: If I was the referee, I call it an unintentional head butt and go to the score cards. - But I am not sure they went to the score cards back then - I believe it would have been ruled a NC - it is probably unfair that he ended up with a TKO on his record.

Caractacus wrote:BTW Tuan_Juan,
when are you going to scan the pages from Henry Cooper's autobiography (published in 1972) here
where he discusses this bout,what happened and how much time that he believed
was between rounds four and five.
It could be rather interesting to read.

What do you mean by: 'what happened and how much time . . .was between rounds'

The YouTube video I watched still had commercials in it and there was a strange jump coming into round five - it seemed that some of the round was missing as if they didn't get back tot he fight in time.

Jesus fornicating christ! I post rock solid irrefutable proof there was no lengthy break and you two fornicating morons still want to argue about it. Go get a room.

Klompton....I honestly sincerely believe that they did not look at it.

It was the first time I had seen such irrefutable proof....(not that I really needed to have it spoon fed to me, as I already felt I had the relevant info) but that did put another lock on it.


I don't think they recognized the collating that was taking place on your contribution.

Beats the bejabbers out of me why they wouldn't peruse it before continuing to comment. But such is the way of religious zealots and boxing fanatics.

klompton wrote:Jesus effing christ! I post rock solid irrefutable proof there was no lengthy break and you two effing morons still want to argue about it. Go get a room.

If I am one of those morons - yes I did not look at it - I stated at the top of my post I didn't read any of the posts as not to prejudice myself going in - but I'm not even sure what it's all about - I noticed the barbarian's post and remembered seeing that the video I watched had a strange jump in it, where the 5th round video seemed to start while in progress - at the time I thought it was just a lousy edit, then I saw his post so thought to ask - but me not knows what you are all are actually on about so I'll shut-up - no want to make you all mad

APerno wrote:

klompton wrote:Jesus effing christ! I post rock solid irrefutable proof there was no lengthy break and you two effing morons still want to argue about it. Go get a room.

If I am one of those morons - yes I did not look at it - I stated at the top of my post I didn't read any of the posts as not to prejudice myself going in - but I'm not even sure what it's all about - I noticed the barbarian's post and remembered seeing that the video I watched had a strange jump in it, where the 5th round video seemed to start while in progress - at the time I thought it was just a lousy edit, then I saw his post so thought to ask - but me not knows what you are all are actually on about so I'll shut-up - no want to make you all mad

Watch this one all the way through, it includes the BBC radio broadcast in the second part of the video. They break is an urban myth, the round was only 5 seconds longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAvAB7sS8RU

Controversial wrote:

APerno wrote:

klompton wrote:Jesus effing christ! I post rock solid irrefutable proof there was no lengthy break and you two effing morons still want to argue about it. Go get a room.

If I am one of those morons - yes I did not look at it - I stated at the top of my post I didn't read any of the posts as not to prejudice myself going in - but I'm not even sure what it's all about - I noticed the barbarian's post and remembered seeing that the video I watched had a strange jump in it, where the 5th round video seemed to start while in progress - at the time I thought it was just a lousy edit, then I saw his post so thought to ask - but me not knows what you are all are actually on about so I'll shut-up - no want to make you all mad

Watch this one all the way through, it includes the BBC radio broadcast in the second part of the video. They break is an urban myth, the round was only 5 seconds longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAvAB7sS8RU

Thank you for posting that - I went totally blond there - In both my posts I was talking about Ali-Cooper II and didn't realize I was in the wrong thread - The video I was watching (Ali-Cooper II) had a shortened fifth round making it look like they came back from commercial break late, (I was asking if the break between rounds had been shortened somehow) - my post had nothing to do with this fight - Now, that was one hell of a left hook, first time I have watched it - Ali looked much more hurt than he did from the Frazier left in '71 - and yes, where does all that crap about Dundee sticking his finger in the glove and opening up the hole to buy Clay/Ali extra time come from? - I must have heard Dundee tell that story three different times, does something more happen later on or is it Dundee just making himself more important? - I am all turned around here I was always told they stopped the fight and changed Ali's glove.

evrenb wrote:

Caractacus wrote:So let me get this straight,You still refuse to present the evidence here(or on youtube rather)
Just because you had paid out fifty quid for a video-tape years ago?
You dont want to end this topic of discussion for all time here and in the name of your research just because of that?
Man you are soooo sad.

People like you are a joke. Forever sponging and relying on the hard work and research of others. Not to mention their expense or time.
So - I have loaded an unedited excerpt from the BBC documentary I mentioned (aired 1984) I have loaded on to YOUTUBE from the end of round 4 to the after fight analysis by Harry Carpenter. It will be interesting to see what drivel, fantastical, conspiracy inciting comments you will come up with. Or will you be a gentleman and put it to sleep and except that this was the truth. 65 - 66 seconds.

Here is my link : -

https://youtu.be/LJlVYY2u5V0

Here is a repost of the link I provided before with Harry Carpenter revisiting the fight and dispelling the myth....

Caractacus wrote:Reg Gutteridge "The voice of boxing " had published his autobiography in 1998 entitled Uppercuts and Dazes.
I would be surprised if he did not write about the Clay vrs Cooper fight in his book being that he was at ringside and did the live commentery for it.
Has anyone here read the book ?

In his book Reg refers to the then recent archive recovery of the BBC commentary and says the round overran by six seconds.

No doubt you guys have beaten this issue to death (18 pages worth) but that doesn't mean I can't be a CS and screw with it all over again - so I have two questions: Did they change the split glove between rounds, and if so how did they do it in one minute and five seconds - or the one minute, 40 seconds identified below? - both amounts of time seem way too short to unlace and change a glove considering the video you showed me shows Clay being tended to to for at least 30 of those seconds (that whole up and down, 'where am I' moment clay was having) - that was only one question, the second question: Why does the quote below, from Fightsaga.com use Boxrec as its source; where on Boxrec is this quote taken from and how come Boxrec does not agree with you guys? Does Boxrec claim 1:40 or is this quote fallacious?

Sorry - I can understand your frustration with having to argue the same point over and over again, I apologize for that - but it is all new info to me and while I have no problem saying screw fightsaga.com and/or screw the urban legend - I must ask, why does boxrec not agree with you?


From Fightsaga

"Although conspiracy theorists assert Angelo Dundee purposely tore a slit into Clay's glove to give his hurt fighter extra time to recuperate from Cooper's monstrous left hook, footage of the bout, according to BoxRec.com, shows the glove had been split in the fourth round. However, Dundee purportedly admitted later that he widened the split on purpose to guarantee a delay.

The split glove would be replaced after Round 4, extending the interval between rounds to 1:40 - forty seconds longer than the typical minute, according to BoxRec."

APerno wrote:No doubt you guys have beaten this issue to death (18 pages worth) but that doesn't mean I can't be a CS and screw with it all over again - so I have two questions: Did they change the split glove between rounds, and if so how did they do it in one minute and five seconds - or the one minute, 40 seconds identified below? - both amounts of time seem way too short to unlace and change a glove considering the video you showed me shows Clay being tended to to for at least 30 of those seconds (that whole up and down, 'where am I' moment clay was having) - that was only one question, the second question: Why does the quote below, from Fightsaga.com use Boxrec as its source; where on Boxrec is this quote taken from and how come Boxrec does not agree with you guys? Does Boxrec claim 1:40 or is this quote fallacious?

Sorry - I can understand your frustration with having to argue the same point over and over again, I apologize for that - but it is all new info to me and while I have no problem saying screw fightsaga.com and/or screw the urban legend - I must ask, why does boxrec not agree with you?


From Fightsaga

"Although conspiracy theorists assert Angelo Dundee purposely tore a slit into Clay's glove to give his hurt fighter extra time to recuperate from Cooper's monstrous left hook, footage of the bout, according to BoxRec.com, shows the glove had been split in the fourth round. However, Dundee purportedly admitted later that he widened the split on purpose to guarantee a delay.

The split glove would be replaced after Round 4, extending the interval between rounds to 1:40 - forty seconds longer than the typical minute, according to BoxRec."

The glove wasn't replaced. They didn't have any ringside.

APerno wrote:No doubt you guys have beaten this issue to death (18 pages worth) but that doesn't mean I can't be a CS and screw with it all over again - so I have two questions: Did they change the split glove between rounds, and if so how did they do it in one minute and five seconds - or the one minute, 40 seconds identified below? - both amounts of time seem way too short to unlace and change a glove considering the video you showed me shows Clay being tended to to for at least 30 of those seconds (that whole up and down, 'where am I' moment clay was having) - that was only one question, the second question: Why does the quote below, from Fightsaga.com use Boxrec as its source; where on Boxrec is this quote taken from and how come Boxrec does not agree with you guys? Does Boxrec claim 1:40 or is this quote fallacious?

Sorry - I can understand your frustration with having to argue the same point over and over again, I apologize for that - but it is all new info to me and while I have no problem saying screw fightsaga.com and/or screw the urban legend - I must ask, why does boxrec not agree with you?


From Fightsaga

"Although conspiracy theorists assert Angelo Dundee purposely tore a slit into Clay's glove to give his hurt fighter extra time to recuperate from Cooper's monstrous left hook, footage of the bout, according to BoxRec.com, shows the glove had been split in the fourth round. However, Dundee purportedly admitted later that he widened the split on purpose to guarantee a delay.

The split glove would be replaced after Round 4, extending the interval between rounds to 1:40 - forty seconds longer than the typical minute, according to BoxRec."

No glove not replaced. I have no idea why boxrec has that, maybe no one has asked for it to be updated with all the evidence that contradicts it. For years that story done the rounds, so much people started to believe it.

klompton wrote:Jesus effing christ! I post rock solid irrefutable proof there was no lengthy break and you two effing morons still want to argue about it. Go get a room.

Then re-post it here again dude,your so called "rock solid irrefutable proof"
because thisis a long friggin thread that dates back a few years.
Maybe we all missed it.