BoxRec

I'm interested in getting some perspective on Joe Bugner's decision victory over Jimmy Ellis in 1974. I know Bugner won by a shutout. I also realize that Ring Magazine rated Ellis number ten in the world at the time, making this fight, more or less, Bugner's most significant victory. But I've also heard that Bugner was booed by the fans on this occasion for some reason.

Did anyone here see the bout? Comments?

Maybe someone has the British Boxing News write-up by Graham Houston?

Thanks in advance for any replies!

Can't give you more details on the fight itself, but by the November 1974 Bugner fight Ellis' best days were behind him. Since June 73, Ellis had been kayoed by Earnie Shavers, stopped the oft-beaten 'Memphis' Al Jones, lost to Boone Kirkman, drew with Larry Middleton, and lost to Ron Lyle.

He'd fallen out of Ring's ratings at the end of 1973 and was rated in "group 3" in Ring's end-of-1973 ratings, essentially #13 in the world, so he definitely wasn't #10 going into the Bugner fight. For whatever reason, the WBA still had Ellis at #8 and the WBC had him #9. However, Ellis was unranked by not only Ring but he was also not in Boxing Illustrated's top 10 nor in International Boxing's top 15.

Bugner, going in, was rated #7 by Ring, #6 by International Boxing, #5 by Boxing Illustrated, #6 by the WBA, and #4 by the WBC. He'd also won 5 in a row against fairly respectable opposition since losing to Joe Frazier.

sweetsci wrote: ↑21 Jun 2018, 10:19 He'd fallen out of Ring's ratings at the end of 1973 and was rated in "group 3" in Ring's end-of-1973 ratings,

Thanks for the feedback, but are you sure? Here's Ring Magazine's end-of-year ratings for 1973. Jimmy Ellis is still rated number nine.
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ings:_1973

If my memory serves me right, the old and ringworn Ellis was still hanging onto the number ten rating in Ring Magazine as of October 1974. The following month, Bugner beat him. That's why Ring Magazine made Bugner their "Fighter of the Month" for that issue. This defeat knocked Jimmy out of the ratings permanently.

Do you have all those magazines at home? Is that how you got the rankings?

sweetsci wrote: ↑21 Jun 2018, 10:19 He'd fallen out of Ring's ratings at the end of 1973 and was rated in "group 3" in Ring's end-of-1973 ratings, essentially #13 in the world,

That would make sense for Ring Magazine's end-of-year ratings for 1974. After losing to Bugner, Ellis logically would have fallen to #13 in the world. Is it possible that you mixed-up the 1973 and 1974 annual ratings?

Unfortunately, I no longer have a large collection of boxing magazines, and not the March 1974 issue of Ring. I sold most of my collection off when I lost interest (temporarily, as it turned out) in a project I was working on. Recently I've been buying boxing mags back.

Anyway, years ago I started "collecting" heavyweight boxing ratings for a potential book project on what has grown to become a 480 page (that number surprises me, I'd never checked the page count before) document of ratings. I started just collecting Ring ratings, but after awhile I realized that Ring has biases just like any other publication or organization, so I started seeking out ratings from other sources. These sources include other boxing magazines, newspaper archives, and other boxing fans with an interest in this area.

While I could have typed something wrong in my document, or mis-dated something, I don't think I did. I'm pretty meticulous about this project. My March 74 Ring ratings (year-end 73) match a document a fellow fan sent me. Interestingly, the ratings from the Boxrec link you posted come from the February 1974 issue (period ending 12/13/73), not the March issue. Why Boxrec made that error is a mystery to me, but I'm confident that the error is theirs and not mine.

As for why Ellis wasn't ranked by most (except the still fairly reliable (at that point) WBC and WBA) immediately prior to the Bugner fight, he'd lost to the previously unheralded Earnie Shavers (who would go on to lose in 1 to Jerry Quarry) and then unranked Boone Kirkman before the end of 1973, then drawn with unranked Larry Middleton in March 1974, then lost to top-5 Ron Lyle (no shame there). By the time he fought Bugner, to most Ellis just wasn't worthy of a top-10 ranking anymore.

sweetsci wrote: ↑21 Jun 2018, 20:51 Interestingly, the ratings from the Boxrec link you posted come from the February 1974 issue (period ending 12/13/73), not the March issue. Why Boxrec made that error is a mystery to me, but I'm confident that the error is theirs and not mine.

Back in those days, the boxing magazines hit the newsstands two to three months after the fights occurred. Therefore, Ring Magazine's reports about the action in December 1973 would be featured in the March 1974 issue.

As a kid, I remember feeling frustrated at not knowing the result of a fight for two or three months after it happened. Fox example, I knew that Danny Lopez and Art Hafey were set to fight in August, 1976. But that month, none of the local papers carried the result. Only in October did the newest boxing magazines report on the action. I jumped for joy when learning that Lopez had won the fight. The exhilaration was especially intense because it reflected two or three months of uncertainty.

Yeah, it was AGONIZING waiting for results in boxing magazines. Especially when you're a kid and time goes pretty slowly anyway.

In a way, World Boxing and International Boxing were worse. World Boxing was the first magazine I ever bought. In July 1976 I picked up the issue dated September, which featured fight reports from April. So now when I'm scouring the internet looking for back issues, I have to remember with those mags that the information will be four to five months behind the cover date. Crazy.

I hope someone comes up with a contemporary Bugner-Ellis report fairly soon.

ron4972 wrote: ↑22 Jun 2018, 09:30

sweetsci wrote: ↑21 Jun 2018, 20:51 Interestingly, the ratings from the Boxrec link you posted come from the February 1974 issue (period ending 12/13/73), not the March issue. Why Boxrec made that error is a mystery to me, but I'm confident that the error is theirs and not mine.

Back in those days, the boxing magazines hit the newsstands two to three months after the fights occurred. Therefore, Ring Magazine's reports about the action in December 1973 would be featured in the March 1974 issue.

As a kid, I remember feeling frustrated at not knowing the result of a fight for two or three months after it happened. Fox example, I knew that Danny Lopez and Art Hafey were set to fight in August, 1976. But that month, none of the local papers carried the result. Only in October did the newest boxing magazines report on the action. I jumped for joy when learning that Lopez had won the fight. The exhilaration was especially intense because it reflected two or three months of uncertainty.

I can't recall not knowing the results of too many higher profile bouts until months after the fact.

At the least, major newspapers would always carry boxing results in agate type 1 or 2 days after the bout.

No details, but at least you quickly learned who won and who lost.

Now I have lived in Los Angeles most of my life so Lopez vs Hafey would have gotten major play in the L.A. newspapers ( back then the newspapers and media here actually did a great job with boxing coverage. L.A. was a boxing crazed town back then) and even the night's local news sports segment would mention the fight.

Occasionally some eastern fight, often from Philadelphia, would peak my interest and so about a week after it occured, I would trudge down to the library and pour over the out-of-town newspapers to get complete fight coverage.

I guess it was a simple, almost prehistoric time without internet immediacy, but we didn't know better so it was still satisfying.

SenorPipino wrote: ↑23 Jun 2018, 07:30 I can't recall not knowing the results of too many higher profile bouts until months after the fact.

At the least, major newspapers would always carry boxing results in agate type 1 or 2 days after the bout.

No details, but at least you quickly learned who won and who lost.

Not all newspapers consistently reported fight results in the agate type section. I'm from Boston, and the few regional papers I had access to as a kid didn't always report results. At the time I was too unsophisticated to go to the library to check out out of town papers. So, I had to wait for the boxing magazines to update me.

One fight result I waited a long time to hear was Mike Rossman KO3 Christy Elliott, 1976. That fight was the quarter-final match on the Ali-Norton III undercard at Yankee Stadium. I was a big Rossman fan, and I remember being a bit worried about him when I heard that the match had been made. That's because Elliott was a full-fledged lightheavyweight, whereas Mike as still just a big middleweight. The day after the fights, I check all the local papers, but could find no information on Rossman-Elliott. Lot's of Ali-Norton talk, and certainly the Shavers KO2 Clark result was reported. But nothing about Rossman-Elliott.

I had to wait two months for the news, but I was thrilled when I finally read the news in Ring Magazine in November. Not only did Rossman win, but he won via a quick and decisive KO. He exceeded my highest expectations.

Here is the report from Boxing News. I will post them in two separate posts. I also have the Ring ratings for 1973 and 1974 and I will post these tomorrow

Miles Templeton

Miles Templeton

Prewarboxing: Thanks again! That's a great posting. Yields a world of insight into what happened in this bout.

After reading the reviews -- and based upon what I know about each fighter -- my guess is that Bugner performed satisfactorily in this fight. Even Graham Houston, who's got quite a critical mind for assessing fights, seems to agree that Bugner achieved that which was reasonably possibly. Bugner won all ten rounds easily.

The litany of rotten reviews posted by the other British writers (all of whom are highly competent journalists, BTW), I think, is unjustified. Those guys were expecting too much of Bugner, IMO. Again, I don't have the benefit of having seen the fight, but I think the English journos (outside of Graham and Peter Moss) were just shooting fish in a barrel. All snark and no self-honesty about what really happens in the ring between two highly competitive heavyweights.

I liked the way Graham reminded the reader that Ellis had lasted 12 rounds against top-rated, power-punching Ron Lyle just a few months prior. Graham also made a point of letting people know that the ring-savvy Ellis made Lyle look ordinary from time to time. That tells us something about Ellis's level of competency going into the Bugner fight. I say that Ellis could still fight at this point in time. He was fading, on the level of a fringe contender, but he was still formidable against almost anyone in the world. No pushover.

Interestingly, just after this match, Ellis lasted nine tough rounds against the man-eating Joe Frazier. That tells us something about Ellis's durability and survival skills. The Frazier fight is additional reason to believe that Bugner's performance against Ellis was worth something.

On the whole, not a scintillating victory for Bugner, but a performance that fully justified Joe's ranking among the top five or six heavyweights in the world.

That's just my two cents.

Another thing the British boxing corps overlooked (Graham excepted) is that Jimmy Ellis had dangerous power in his right hand. Ellis was known for throwing a sneak right, and it could knock a guy out. He had 15 first round knockouts for this reason.

My guess is that Bugner made a serous effort to KO Ellis over the first five rounds, and looked good in the effort. But Joe must have realized that the tough-chinned and slippery Ellis was not going down. Further, Bugner must have sensed that the more aggressive he fought, the greater the chances that he might walk face-first into a concealed right-hand bomb from the cagey Ellis. Given that Bugner had the fight won easily from the outside using his jab, the correct tactical decision was for Joe to back away and patiently skeet-shoot against his outclassed foe for the second half of the fight.

sweetsci:

I a 95% certain that Ellis still held Ring Magazine's #10 slot going into this fight. I'll try to get the issue from my local library, xerox the page, and post it here. Just to prove it you.

I can understand why Ellis, conceivably, could still be rated at #10 as late as November 1974. He was still tough, experienced, hard-hitting, and formidable despite his declining skills. His only losses in the past two years all came at the hands of contenders. I know that Even Boone Kirkman was top ten rated during this period.

I know for a fact that Ring Magazine rated Bugner "Fighter of the Month" status for his Ellis victory. Again, I'll get the copy images and post them here.

Kudos again to prewarboxing for producing this gem of a write-up by Graham!

ron4972 wrote: ↑23 Jun 2018, 15:34 sweetsci:

I a 95% certain that Ellis still held Ring Magazine's #10 slot going into this fight. I'll try to get the issue from my local library, xerox the page, and post it here. Just to prove it you.

I can understand why Ellis, conceivably, could still be rated at #10 as late as November 1974. He was still tough, experienced, hard-hitting, and formidable despite his declining skills. His only losses in the past two years all came at the hands of contenders. I know that Even Boone Kirkman was top ten rated during this period.

I know for a fact that Ring Magazine rated Bugner "Fighter of the Month" status for his Ellis victory. Again, I'll get the copy images and post them here.

Kudos again to prewarboxing for producing this gem of a write-up by Graham!

Leave this to me Ron. I will save you the trouble. I will post the ratings tomorrow

Miles Templeton.

Miles -
Thanks so much for the posts. Good stuff! Looking forward to seeing the Ring ratings.

Ron -
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing what Miles posts, Ring ratings-wise. I'm interested in having the right data / information in my files above all.

By the way, do local libraries have back issues of boxing magazines? I've never thought to try to seek them out there. I just assumed it would be too much to expect.

Here are the ratings for Dec 73 through Dec 74. They are not all there, I couldn't put my han ds on some of the Ring magazines I needed this morning, but most of them are:

Fair amount of mucking about in Adobe so that you can see the weight and the date in one view!

Miles Templeton

You will have to click on those ratings to get the date. I still struggle with trying to fit these images onto the page so that you can see them all. Does my head in!

This article also seemed relevant. It is from the March 1974 British edition of the Ring.

Miles Templeton.

I stand corrected: Ellis wasn't ranked #10 by Ring Magazine going into the Bugner fight. I wonder where I got that idea? Possibly World/International Boxing ranked Jimmy #10, but I'm not so sure anymore.

I wonder what to say about Frank Butler's scathing assessment of Bugner's abilities. Personality, I don't think there's something wrong with a top heavyweight who lacks a knockout punch. Larry Holmes, for one, wasn't a devastating hitter. To me, the secret is to beat the opponent to the punch -- particularly with a dominant jab, and to remain moving on their feet. Over time, the elusiveness, dominant jab, hand speed, defense, and ability to swing punches into the head from outside angles will pile up points and a decision victory. I always assumed that Bugner had these qualities going for him.

However Butler is arguing something else: he claims Bugner lacks the ring savvy.....the so-called "know how" to handle himself against a top heavy. Is that true? I don't know what to say.

I do recalled that, after Bugner's Frazier defeat, Ring Magazine correspondent Ron Olver rated Bugner -- on that one performance -- as the world's best heavyweight outside of Foreman, Frazier, Ali, and Norton. That's impressive. But apparently there are experts out there with different ideas about Joe.

sweetsci wrote: ↑23 Jun 2018, 19:31 By the way, do local libraries have back issues of boxing magazines? I've never thought to try to seek them out there. I just assumed it would be too much to expect.

Major, big city libraries contain the bound volumes of Ring Magazine. I live in Boston, I can have the magazines ordered from off-site. I know the Library of Congress has the bound volumes too. I'm certain that that New York City's library has them. These are books that have to be read on-site. They can't be checked out.

Anything less than a major, urban library, however, is almost certain not to have archived copies of Ring.

Good to know that major libraries have preserved this part of our culture. That's certainly worth a trip up to DC to do some research and ratings collecting. Thanks for the tip!

Miles... excellent work getting those 1974 ratings. I've already got them all in a document, but it's nice to confirm that I recorded them accurately. Thanks for putting in the time to post them.

As I stated above, Boxrec's "1973 year-end ratings" are actually from the February issue of Ring, not the March as they claim. Turns out the "1974 year-end ratings" are from the February 1975 issue, not March as they say. Maybe I'll do a little research to see if this is an issue in other years, too, and post something in the "Record Queries and Updates" forum.

Here's the March 1975 Ring ratings:

The Ring - March 1975
Year End: Jan 1 - Dec 31, 1974

World Champion:
Muhammad Ali

Group 1
1. George Foreman
2. Joe Frazier

Group 2
1. Ron Lyle
2. Joe Bugner
3. Oscar Bonavena
4. Ken Norton
5. Jerry Quarry

Group 3
1. Chuck Wepner
2. Henry Clark
3. Larry Middleton
4. Jimmy Young
5. Duane Bobick
6. Rodney Bobick

In my research, as I think I said above, the only places I can find Ellis rated going into the Bugner fight were by the WBC and WBA.

WBA Ratings
(as of October 15, 1974)

Champion: George Foreman

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Frazier
3. Ken Norton
4. Jerry Quarry
5. Ron Lyle
6. Joe Bugner
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. Jimmy Ellis
9. Henry Clark
10. Jose Luis Garcia

International Boxing - February 1975
(as of October 29, 1974)

Champion - George Foreman

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Frazier
3. Ken Norton
4. Jerry Quarry
5. Ron Lyle
6. Joe Bugner
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. Henry Clark
9. Chuck Wepner
10. Larry Middleton
11. Gregorio Peralta
12. Pedro Lovell
13. Howard Smith
14. Duane Bobick
15. Boone Kirkman

Boxing Illustrated - January 1975
(as of November 1, 1974)

Champion - Muhammad Ali

1. George Foreman
2. Joe Frazier
3. Ron Lyle
4. Ken Norton
5. Joe Bugner
6. Jerry Quarry
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. Henry Clark
9. Gregorio Peralta
10. George Chuvalo

Boxing Illustrated usually rated 40 or 50 fighters in each division, but this is all I have at the moment.

WBC Ratings
(November 10, 1974)

Champion: Muhammad Ali

1. Joe Frazier
2. George Foreman
3. Ron Lyle
4. Joe Bugner
5. Ken Norton
6. Oscar Bonavena
7. Jerry Quarry
8. Henry Clark
9. Jimmy Ellis
10. Duane Bobick

I know some people don't put much stock in ratings, feeling that, say, "just because Joe Blow was ranked number 3 in April 19xx, it doesn't mean anything because Joe Blow ultimately wasn't any good." But I find them incredibly fascinating and a nice indicator of how various boxers were viewed at a given time.

Finally, it's interesting that Butler was right in that Bugner wouldn't be able to get past Lyle and Shavers.

Sure enough... at heavyweight (at least), BoxRec annual Ring ratings are attributed to the incorrect issue of the magazine from (at least) 1960 through at least 1977. More here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=222849

sweetsci wrote: ↑24 Jun 2018, 10:39
Finally, it's interesting that Butler was right in that Bugner wouldn't be able to get past Lyle and Shavers.

Butler might have changed his tune had he written about Bugner following the 1974 Ellis fight. Don't forget: Butler's negative write-up of Joe was done from ringside at the Mac Foster fight in 1973. Looks to to me as if Bugner showed some improvement in those two fights.

It's also a fact that Bugner took the Lyle and Shavers fights under adverse circumstances.

The trouble with Bugner, who always generates an awful lot of largely unwarranted attention, is that the man didn't punch his weight.

mercman wrote: ↑25 Jun 2018, 05:42 I know that Bugner fought Lyle fight with a broken bone in a foot, which forced him to stand and trade with Lyle rather than jab and move, which was Bugner's usual game - and would have been the best way for him to beat Lyle.

I'm not sure about adverse circumstances for the Shavers fight though, other than the fact that Bugner had only had one fight in the previous five years. Or is that what you mean?

Yes, I meant that Bugner was very rusty when he fought Shavers in 1982. That was Bugner's first fight in two years, and only his second in five years. If not for that ring rust, I think Joe would have outlasted Shavers. IMO, it was a bad decision to accept the Shavers bout. Bugner must have been desperate for action in order to have taken that fight.

As for Lyle, Bugner was also dealing with a lot of ring rust, having fought only one round in nearly two years before the bout. It's also known that something was wrong with his ankle. The Las Vegas newspapers, before the fight, reported seeing Bugner visiting a massage therapist or chiropractor. Rumors abounded that his ankle was twisted, although he denied it at the time. Afterwards, he admitted he had an ankle problem, and blamed his loss on that handicap.

Personally, I thought the fight was razor close for 12 rounds, and that Lyle's victory could be attributed to that fact that both guys fought flat-flooted. That approach, naturally, favored Lyle, who was physically stronger and more hard-hitting than Bugner. I was surprised that Bugner didn't dance on his feet more, moving in circles as he had against Fraizer and Ali (in their first fight). Had Bugner done this, that might have been just enough to turn the tide in his favor, enabling him to score enough long-range jabs to secure a decision.

Interestingly, I once discussed the Lyle-Bugner fight with a boxing expert (well known and published), and that guy disagreed with me. He argued that Lyle forced Bugner to fight at close quarters and flat footed. Essentially cut the ring off on Bugner. I don't know what to say.

I do recall that for weeks leading into the bout, Bugner was a solid 2-1 betting favorite. On the last day, the odds dropped to 8-5 or even 6-5 for Bugner.