BoxRec

Footage from those days was often edited.

Senya13 wrote:Footage from those days was often edited.

How about the BBC radio commentary?

Was that edited too?

Where is this BBC radio commentary?

Controversial wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

Senya13 wrote:Hauser book used Dundee's words to make that claim, I think. But here we have 3 different people confirming or or both gloves were replaced. And we have the official timekeeper's time between the end of the previous round and the start of the new one.
Unless we want to believe that the Ring printed a false story once in 1975, and then reprinted it again in 1990...

I just think we have many conflicting accounts. We have some saying five minutes and that there were new gloves put on, we have the time keeper, who one would think is the most reliable human source, who says new gloves were put on but that it was 40 seconds and not five minutes. We have Dundee who says a minute, but isn't sure, and who says that new gloves were not put on. Hauser says no new gloves were put on, but doesn't seem to cite a source, perhaps he was going with Dundee. And we have the film of the fight which shows only six seconds extra with no new gloves put on, which the BBC confirms it shows and which we can see on the youtube video. I would tend to think that the film would be the most reliable source, unless it was edited which it doesn't seem to be. I would go with the film of the fight, but that's just me.

I guess at the very least its a bit more complex than people make the story out to be.

There was only an extra 5 seconds between rounds. I have seen the footage where it was timed.

That would be my very opinion. I'm just acknowledging that there are other reports, though I would put film ahead of those reports.

Decagon wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Senya13 wrote:Footage from those days was often edited.

How about the BBC radio commentary?

Was that edited too?

Pwned.

didnt know you were that old collins....

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

Decagon wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: How about the BBC radio commentary?

Was that edited too?

Pwned.

didnt know you were that old collins....

Old enough to know that senya and his straw man bullshit gets a bit tiresome after a while.

Why don't we create a sub-forum where the Ali-haters and the revisionists can wallow in their own muck?

Senya13 wrote:Where is this BBC radio commentary?

Easily available to anyone with a real interest in what happened that night.

That probably excludes you, senya.

The official BBC site has nothing of course, on the contrary misc authors repeating the claims of one to several additional minutes.

Well, since only Collins2000 knows about it, and not the BBC authors themselves, how do we know he didn't make it up about BBC radio commentary? He should upload it somewhere and if it's true, I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

It doesn't matter how much time elapsed, nor does it matter if gloves were changed, or not...Cooper was never going to beat Ali no matter what happened!!!! He knocked Ali down and stunned him, but Ali was stunned several times and got back up and was never put down for the count. He was a hell of a lot more hurt when Frazier knocked him down in their first fight than when Cooper knocked him down!

barry wrote:It doesn't matter how much time elapsed, nor does it matter if gloves were changed, or not...Cooper was never going to beat Ali no matter what happened!!!! He knocked Ali down and stunned him, but Ali was stunned several times and got back up and was never put down for the count.

I agree. Ali proved time and time again he could take a tremendous shot, recover and come back fighting.

barry wrote:He was a hell of a lot more hurt when Frazier knocked him down in their first fight than when Cooper knocked him down!

Ali was also a very tired by the time Frazier dropped him as opposed to when Cooper dropped him when he was still very fresh.

Senya13 wrote:The official BBC site has nothing of course, on the contrary misc authors repeating the claims of one to several additional minutes.

The audio is on the BBC website. I can't get it too work on my PC but it is there. There's also a recent interview with Cooper who wrongly says he was the first fighter to floor Ali/Cooper, and one author on the BBC website claims the punch that decked Ali was an uppercut !!!

Controversial wrote:The audio is on the BBC website. I can't get it too work on my PC but it is there.

Where exactly? Address?

barry wrote:He knocked Ali down and stunned him, but Ali was stunned several times and got back up and was never put down for the count. He was a hell of a lot more hurt when Frazier knocked him down in their first fight than when Cooper knocked him down!

Boxing Illustrated, September 1963, page 23.

Clay admitted: "Cooper shook me up. He hit me harder than I've ever been hit. Cooper is a real fighter."

Senya13 wrote:

barry wrote:He knocked Ali down and stunned him, but Ali was stunned several times and got back up and was never put down for the count. He was a hell of a lot more hurt when Frazier knocked him down in their first fight than when Cooper knocked him down!

Boxing Illustrated, September 1963, page 23.

Clay admitted: "Cooper shook me up. He hit me harder than I've ever been hit. Cooper is a real fighter."

1963 was before he fought Frazier, Foreman and Shavers, who all hit Ali VERY hard.

KOJOE90 wrote:

Senya13 wrote:

barry wrote:He knocked Ali down and stunned him, but Ali was stunned several times and got back up and was never put down for the count. He was a hell of a lot more hurt when Frazier knocked him down in their first fight than when Cooper knocked him down!

Boxing Illustrated, September 1963, page 23.

Clay admitted: "Cooper shook me up. He hit me harder than I've ever been hit. Cooper is a real fighter."

1963 was before he fought Frazier, Foreman and Shavers, who all hit Ali VERY hard.

yeah, come back with a quote from say 82? your logic might mean something then

It's not my duty to come up with Ali's quote that he was a hell of a lot more hurt by Frazier's left hook than he was by Cooper.

If Ali in 1971 takes the left hook he took from Cooper in 1963 he might not even go down. Ali was only 21, after all.

Senya13 wrote:

Controversial wrote:The audio is on the BBC website. I can't get it too work on my PC but it is there.

Where exactly? Address?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/sport/boxin ... ghts.shtml

And the full interval between rounds is clearly shown here with the British commentator speaking throughout. I times it myself, 65 seconds in total, an extra 5 seconds. Myth exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAhQib34y0

Controversial wrote:

Senya13 wrote:

Controversial wrote:The audio is on the BBC website. I can't get it too work on my PC but it is there.

Where exactly? Address?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/sport/boxin ... ghts.shtml

And the full interval between rounds is clearly shown here with the British commentator speaking throughout. I times it myself, 65 seconds in total, an extra 5 seconds. Myth exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAhQib34y0

Poor old senya. Double owned in a week. Still, that's what happens when you pretend to be an expert on matters of which you know nothing.

Thank you. Come again.

To be owned I'd need to make an explicit false claim, that would be proved false. I haven't done such a thing here.

I argued the possibility of the story being a myth, citing the Ring magazine article (which I incorrectly cited as having been printed in 1980's, but then corrected myself to year 1990), which quotes three different officials from that bout, including the time measured by official timekeeper. Which, as I promised, was a wrong thing to do, as the Ring magazine, obviously has little credibility about such things. I admit I shouldn't have had so much trust in the Ring magazine.

I have stated that fight films from that time were often edited, as anyone having watched ESPN Classic can confirm, them showing a lot of highlights instead of full fights. In particular, this very fight, shown on ESPN has a duration of about 10 min 37-38 sec, and shows 1st and 3rd rounds only as highlights, no 2nd round at all, and only 4th and 5th rounds are shown fully.

And I have stated that I didn't find no radio commentary at the BBC site, and asked for url if anyone had it to see if it was true or not.

None of my statements in this thread were false, for anybody to claim they have owned me on anything.

Collins2000 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Senya13 wrote: Where exactly? Address?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/sport/boxin ... ghts.shtml

And the full interval between rounds is clearly shown here with the British commentator speaking throughout. I times it myself, 65 seconds in total, an extra 5 seconds. Myth exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAhQib34y0

Poor old senya. Double owned in a week. Still, that's what happens when you pretend to be an expert on matters of which you know nothing.

Thank you. Come again.

If anyone was going to make a song and dance about an extended break between rounds it would be the BBC.

Sir Henry Cooper OBE is highly regarded in the UK (as his Sir title and OBE from the Queen indicates) and was a national hero when he boxed. There would have been so much more coverage if it really happened. Unfortunately Henry still believes the rumour and made some money at after dinner speeches telling this tale. A bit like the fishermans 'the one that got away' stories, where the fish gets bigger and bigger everytime the story is told. A good tale, just totally inaccurate.

"The British boxing newspaper 'Boxing News' conducted an investigation into the 'split glove' incident in 2003. Using the original television and radio broadcasts to determine length of time between rounds 4 and 5 it was discovered that Cassius Clay only gained 5 seconds extra and not the mythical 3-5 minutes. The gloves were never changed. Other sources on the matter confirm this."

Some stories are worth telling even if they're false. If there's currency in it for Cooper, Dundee, etc... then I'm happy to hear it.

Memory is a strange thing though and can play tricks on you...

Senya13 wrote:It's not my duty to come up with Ali's quote that he was a hell of a lot more hurt by Frazier's left hook than he was by Cooper.

no, of course not, but it pretty much kills your argument stone dead that you can only get the 'proof' or whatever from after his 19th fight --- and he went on to have another 42 ---- your post claimed the point to be an absolute truth....

I simply pointed out Ali admitted Cooper's punch was very hard too, so claiming that Frazier's punch was much-much harder would be difficult to prove. I may agree that Frazier's punch was harder, but it should also be considered that it happened near the end of the fight, after gruelling 14 rounds, so the effect of the punch might have looked somewhat exaggerated by Ali's exhaustion.
Stop trying to attribute me with statements I didn't say.