Jimmy Ellis vs Gregorio Peralta

[scorpio83]

Jimmy Ellis was supposed to defend his WBA Heavyweight Title against Argentina's Gregorio Peralta after winning a controversial decision over ex-champion Floyd Patterson, but the deal failed through and Ellis would get destroyed in 4 or 5 rounds by NY State Heavyweight "Smokin" Joe Frazier, who unified as the World Heavyweight Champion. What if Jimmy Ellis went through the fight against Gregorio Peralta and would he get the better of him with jabs and combinations to take the decision? For me, yes, Ellis would.

[DrDuke]

Yeah, Ellis got unlucky and faced Joe instead. Could have been a champ for a bit longer period of time.

[klompton]

Ellis wasnt unlucky to face Joe. He was lucky he didnt fave him sooner. He sat on the shelf for two years trying to avoid a fight with Frazier. Had he fought him instead of Patterson he would have lost his title even sooner. Regardless Ellis would have beaten Peralta in a clear decision but Peralta would have made him work for it.

[Scypion]

Jimmy Ellis had three fights fall through in 1969 (Henry Cooper, Bob Cleroux, and Peralta) and did not end up having a fight in 1969. Even if he did fight Peralta in 1969, and won, he still could have fought Frazier in 1970.

I am sure that Ellis' handlers were well aware that Jimmy Ellis had little chance of beating Frazier, and probably wanted to make some money with a few fights before trying Frazier. As it turned out, Jimmy only made money from the Patterson fight with his WBA title before the Frazier fight.

As for Peralta, I think Ellis would have taken him.

[scorpio83]

Jimmy Ellis had three fights fall through in 1969 (Henry Cooper, Bob Cleroux, and Peralta) and did not end up having a fight in 1969. Even if he did fight Peralta in 1969, and won, he still could have fought Frazier in 1970.

I am sure that Ellis' handlers were well aware that Jimmy Ellis had little chance of beating Frazier, and probably wanted to make some money with a few fights before trying Frazier. As it turned out, Jimmy only made money from the Patterson fight with his WBA title before the Frazier fight.

As for Peralta, I think Ellis would have taken him.

I think Ellis would stop Henry Cooper by a cut and decision Bob Cleroux in 15 rounds.

[Scypion]

This may be a surprise to some here, but I was not always a fan of Jimmy Ellis. I was a big Patterson fan and thought that Floyd got screwed by the decision in his fight with Ellis. Part of me enjoyed seeing Jimmy take a beating from Joe Frazier. I don't feel that way now.

Sometime since those days, I heard that Jimmy Ellis was really a nice guy; a family man with six children, that even sang with his wife in a church choir. I started looking over his record and began to see that he really was a very good fighter that had speed and power.

His record was misleading because he started off fighting some contenders in the middleweight division like Holly Mims, Don Fullmer, Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, Henry Hank, and George Benton. He was also too big to be fighting as a middleweight, IMO, and would have been better served to start out as a light Heavyweight and with some easier competition at least for awhile (Ellis was bigger than Floyd Patterson, yet Patterson had his first pro fight at 17 years of age and at 164 lbs. Ellis was 21 years old in his first pro fight at middleweight and fought at that weight for almost 4 years).

Jimmy Ellis had courage (All boxers have courage, but Jimmy had more than most). In his 1970 fight with Joe Frazier, Ellis was hit with some bombs that would have finished the fight with almost any other boxer. Jimmy got up and beat the count twice after taking terrible shots. Not many others would have or could have gotten back up.

I think as a light heavyweight, Jimmy Ellis might have become a lineal champion and maybe would have held the title for many years. Ellis practically skipped over the light heavyweight division and into the heavyweight division in 1965. He was Muhammad Ali's sparring partner and won the WBA Heavyweight Championship in 1968.

Ellis fought in a bad era. He was overshadowed by fighters like Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. In the late 1960's he was probably as good as anyone else. On an all time heavyweight list, I would have him just below Floyd Patterson, and that is not too bad. Patterson has been in the IBHOF since 1991. I hope that Jimmy's turn is coming.

[klompton]

Jimmy Ellis had three fights fall through in 1969 (Henry Cooper, Bob Cleroux, and Peralta) and did not end up having a fight in 1969. Even if he did fight Peralta in 1969, and won, he still could have fought Frazier in 1970.

I am sure that Ellis' handlers were well aware that Jimmy Ellis had little chance of beating Frazier, and probably wanted to make some money with a few fights before trying Frazier. As it turned out, Jimmy only made money from the Patterson fight with his WBA title before the Frazier fight.

As for Peralta, I think Ellis would have taken him.

The fact that Ellis was pursuing fights with Cleroux, Cooper, and Peralta while avoiding Frazier, who had been the number one contender before Ellis was even in the division, says it all. Cooper was 34, had been nearly decapitated two to three years earlier by Patterson in four rounds so Ellis trying to face him was a huge step backwards. Cleroux was 31, had been retired for five years after losing a one sided ten rounder to Zora Folley in 1963 and was in the midst of a comeback when Ellis tried to defend against him. The only fighter even remotely world class that Cleroux faced on this comeback was a shot Cleveland Williams who he squeeked out a narrow one round decision against. Williams hadnt fought a world class opponent since losing on a one sided ko to Ali and would go on to lose three of his next four. To show how soft Cleroux was at this point he lost to 9-5-3 Billy Joiner. Peralta was 34, a natural light heavyweight and his only fight against a world class heavyweight in YEARS was a gift draw against Bonavena in Uruguay. The Peralta fight didnt just “fall through” the public was so disgusted by this “championship” that only $3,000 worth of tickets were sold so it was cancelled due to “lack of interest.” Ellis and Dundee were clearly looking for soft touches to mark time against while avoiding Frazier. At one point in 68/69 promoters offered Ellis a VERY generous purse to face Frazier and he declined. Joe Frazier was willing to unify against Ellis from day one and after the circus of Ellis’ revolving soft touch fights falling through the WBA returned Frazier to their #1 contender spot and forced Ellis to begin negotiations for the fight. Otherwise Ellis likely wouldnt have fought him anytime soon. Immediately after Ellis beat both Quarry and won that gift over Patterson Dundee made it clear he wasnt interested in facing Frazier. So it wasnt just bad luck on Ellis’ part that he went two years between fights. He was doing everything he could to extend his title reign. They knew Frazier would whip his ass.

[Scypion]

Jimmy Ellis had three fights fall through in 1969 (Henry Cooper, Bob Cleroux, and Peralta) and did not end up having a fight in 1969. Even if he did fight Peralta in 1969, and won, he still could have fought Frazier in 1970.

I am sure that Ellis' handlers were well aware that Jimmy Ellis had little chance of beating Frazier, and probably wanted to make some money with a few fights before trying Frazier. As it turned out, Jimmy only made money from the Patterson fight with his WBA title before the Frazier fight.

As for Peralta, I think Ellis would have taken him.

The fact that Ellis was pursuing fights with Cleroux, Cooper, and Peralta while avoiding Frazier, who had been the number one contender before Ellis was even in the division, says it all. Cooper was 34, had been nearly decapitated two to three years earlier by Patterson in four rounds so Ellis trying to face him was a huge step backwards. Cleroux was 31, had been retired for five years after losing a one sided ten rounder to Zora Folley in 1963 and was in the midst of a comeback when Ellis tried to defend against him. The only fighter even remotely world class that Cleroux faced on this comeback was a shot Cleveland Williams who he squeeked out a narrow one round decision against. Williams hadnt fought a world class opponent since losing on a one sided ko to Ali and would go on to lose three of his next four. To show how soft Cleroux was at this point he lost to 9-5-3 Billy Joiner. Peralta was 34, a natural light heavyweight and his only fight against a world class heavyweight in YEARS was a gift draw against Bonavena in Uruguay. The Peralta fight didnt just “fall through” the public was so disgusted by this “championship” that only $3,000 worth of tickets were sold so it was cancelled due to “lack of interest.” Ellis and Dundee were clearly looking for soft touches to mark time against while avoiding Frazier. At one point in 68/69 promoters offered Ellis a VERY generous purse to face Frazier and he declined. Joe Frazier was willing to unify against Ellis from day one and after the circus of Ellis’ revolving soft touch fights falling through the WBA returned Frazier to their #1 contender spot and forced Ellis to begin negotiations for the fight. Otherwise Ellis likely wouldnt have fought him anytime soon. Immediately after Ellis beat both Quarry and won that gift over Patterson Dundee made it clear he wasnt interested in facing Frazier. So it wasnt just bad luck on Ellis’ part that he went two years between fights. He was doing everything he could to extend his title reign. They knew Frazier would whip his ass.

So, after winning the grueling WBA Heavyweight tournament, Ellis should have rewarded himself by immediately having Joe Frazier knock his block off. I doubt if any other boxer would have gone that route if they had won the tourney (possibly Patterson, because he did fight Liston after he broke from D'Amato.).

I don't blame him for wanting to take a couple of easier fights before trying Frazier, who could beat anyone at that time. Besides, it was Dundee that called the shots for Ellis.

Another reason that the WBA title was not taken too seriously was that many people still considered Muhammad Ali to still be the real heavyweight champion.

[klompton]

Yes, he absolutely should have fought Frazier first. As stated previously, Frazier was the top contender in the division before Ellis even entered the tournament. That entire "grueling" competition lacked 100% legitimacy because after Frazier fought his way to the top of the WBA rankings they wanted him to fight two or three more fights before awarding him the title shot that he had already earned and was already next in line for. Ellis got his "gimme" by defending against 33 year old Floyd Patterson who had lost in the first round of the WBA tournament and was 3-2-1 in his last six fights fight and hadn't won a fight in a year and a half and Ellis still had to settle for a gift decision in that fight. It was AFTER that that Ellis went two years without a fight because he kept trying to fight worn out, unreliable retreads that nobody had any interest in seeing. That's why I say it had nothing to do with bad luck and Ellis and Dundee were the only two people to blame for his layoff. The Cleroux fight fell through because Cleroux a weak opponent after his five year layoff. So weak that he lost to 9-5-3 Billy Joiner. That's what killed that match. Peralta was a weak defense because he was a 34 year old Ex Light Heavyweight who had never shown he could beat a legitimate HW contender convincingly and the match was killed because absolutely nobody cared about it. Cooper was a soft defense because he was a well known commodity with 13 losses, eight of which came by stoppage (both on cuts or clean KOs) and at 34 years old with his body rapidly failing him its no wonder he got an injury in training and cancelled the fight. The only fight that made any real sense at this time was Ellis-Frazier. Literally from every aspect, financial, fan appeal, legitimacy to both guys, etc. It was the only fight that made any sense and there was no point in waiting because the big money was already being offered, its not like they had to wait to build it up. Yet every time it was mentioned Ellis and Dundee squirmed, you can literally see them squirming and looking for excuses not to fight Frazier. The bottom line is that they knew Frazier was going to run through Ellis like a hot poker and rather than be a fighting champion and prove he was actually top dog he tried to extend his reign. That may be forgiveable in an era of "businessman" boxers like Floyd Mayweather but if you actually want to see the best fight the best and see the cream rise to the top then you should have nothing but disdain for Ellis and Dundee's behavior during this period.

[Scypion]

Yes, he absolutely should have fought Frazier first. As stated previously, Frazier was the top contender in the division before Ellis even entered the tournament. That entire "grueling" competition lacked 100% legitimacy because after Frazier fought his way to the top of the WBA rankings they wanted him to fight two or three more fights before awarding him the title shot that he had already earned and was already next in line for. Ellis got his "gimme" by defending against 33 year old Floyd Patterson who had lost in the first round of the WBA tournament and was 3-2-1 in his last six fights fight and hadn't won a fight in a year and a half and Ellis still had to settle for a gift decision in that fight. It was AFTER that that Ellis went two years without a fight because he kept trying to fight worn out, unreliable retreads that nobody had any interest in seeing. That's why I say it had nothing to do with bad luck and Ellis and Dundee were the only two people to blame for his layoff. The Cleroux fight fell through because Cleroux a weak opponent after his five year layoff. So weak that he lost to 9-5-3 Billy Joiner. That's what killed that match. Peralta was a weak defense because he was a 34 year old Ex Light Heavyweight who had never shown he could beat a legitimate HW contender convincingly and the match was killed because absolutely nobody cared about it. Cooper was a soft defense because he was a well known commodity with 13 losses, eight of which came by stoppage (both on cuts or clean KOs) and at 34 years old with his body rapidly failing him its no wonder he got an injury in training and cancelled the fight. The only fight that made any real sense at this time was Ellis-Frazier. Literally from every aspect, financial, fan appeal, legitimacy to both guys, etc. It was the only fight that made any sense and there was no point in waiting because the big money was already being offered, its not like they had to wait to build it up. Yet every time it was mentioned Ellis and Dundee squirmed, you can literally see them squirming and looking for excuses not to fight Frazier. The bottom line is that they knew Frazier was going to run through Ellis like a hot poker and rather than be a fighting champion and prove he was actually top dog he tried to extend his reign. That may be forgiveable in an era of "businessman" boxers like Floyd Mayweather but if you actually want to see the best fight the best and see the cream rise to the top then you should have nothing but disdain for Ellis and Dundee's behavior during this period.

I guess we disagree. No big deal. Everyone has their own opinions.

Many boxers take easy fights after winning championships. Look at Patterson, Holmes, Leonard, and many more. Champions like Robinson, Gavilan, and even Roberto Duran used to have non-title fights in between some of their title fights. And guys like Holmes and Patterson did not have someone like Joe Frazier around when they got their championships (Liston was in prison during the 50's and did not become number one contender until after the Patterson-Johansson trilogy started).

At least Ellis did fight Frazier eventually (twice). You could say that the WBA forced him to fight Frazier, but Ellis could have given up his WBA title (that is what I would have done). Ezzard Charles was the best light heavyweight during the 40's, but the champs of that division wanted no part of him. Charles finally moved up to heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

I actually don't think Frazier should have got the first tile shot after Ellis won it. Why should immediately get a title shot after sitting out the tournament? Ellis had to beat three good fighters to win it.
The problem with the tournament is, when it's over, what's next? You ave 7 guys who recently lost and another guy who sat it out.

My problem with Patterson ( a guy that I really like) is that he could have fought better competition. He could have defended it against guys like Folley, Machen, and Williams instead of some of the weak contenders that he did fight.

I think if a champion fights the best contender (at least someone you could argue was the best contender) in a year, it's OK if his other title defense are not against the #2 or # guy. He should not be given credit for beat a stiff. However, it should not count against him if he is also defending the title against the best.

However, he does need to be defending against the #1 guy.

[Scypion]

I actually don't think Frazier should have got the first tile shot after Ellis won it. Why should immediately get a title shot after sitting out the tournament? Ellis had to beat three good fighters to win it.
The problem with the tournament is, when it's over, what's next? You ave 7 guys who recently lost and another guy who sat it out.

My problem with Patterson ( a guy that I really like) is that he could have fought better competition. He could have defended it against guys like Folley, Machen, and Williams instead of some of the weak contenders that he did fight.

I think if a champion fights the best contender (at least someone you could argue was the best contender) in a year, it's OK if his other title defense are not against the #2 or # guy. He should not be given credit for beat a stiff. However, it should not count against him if he is also defending the title against the best.

However, he does need to be defending against the #1 guy.

Some good points here Alp.

Patterson should have defended against Machen and/or Folley after winning his heavyweight title in 1956. It was his manager, Cus D'Amato, that made the decision not to fight those guys due to his personal war against the corrupt IBC. D'Amato would not let Patterson fight boxers who were involved with the IBC.

Cleveland Williams was never the number one contender during the 1950's as he was knocked out a couple of times by Sonny Liston. Ingemar Johansson became the number one contender in 1958 when he knocked out Eddie Machen.

[Ambling Alp II]

Always wondered in D'Mato was making a moral stand against the IBC, or if he was doing it because most of the contenders had ties with the IBC.
For the most part Ring Magazine did not seem to think much of Cleveland Williams. There were several years when he was not in the their Top 10 Annual Ratings when you would think he would have been. Strangely enough, if I remember correctly, they had Williams at #3 in their monthly rankings before he fought Ali. They dropped him after he lost.

Anyway, I think Ellis would have won a decision in a competitive fight.

[klompton]

I actually don't think Frazier should have got the first tile shot after Ellis won it. Why should immediately get a title shot after sitting out the tournament? Ellis had to beat three good fighters to win it.
The problem with the tournament is, when it's over, what's next? You ave 7 guys who recently lost and another guy who sat it out.

My problem with Patterson ( a guy that I really like) is that he could have fought better competition. He could have defended it against guys like Folley, Machen, and Williams instead of some of the weak contenders that he did fight.

I think if a champion fights the best contender (at least someone you could argue was the best contender) in a year, it's OK if his other title defense are not against the #2 or # guy. He should not be given credit for beat a stiff. However, it should not count against him if he is also defending the title against the best.

However, he does need to be defending against the #1 guy.

Frazier fought his way to and was rated #1 BEFORE Ellis even fought in the division. Why should Frazier, having already acheived his rating, be forced to go through a lengthy elimination process and two to three more fights before getting the title shot he was already the first in line for particularly when he was now the most bankable hw on the planet with Ali out of commission? Why did Patterson, who lost in the first round of the tournament deserve a shot at Ellis before Frazier?? Or Peralta, or Cooper, or Cleroux, as Ellis and Dundee wanted. Even if you think it was perfectly fine for Ellis to defend first against Patterson you have to recognize that in the aftermath of that robbery against what should have been considered a soft touch on paper Ellis’ legitimacy was on shaky ground and what does he do? He doesnt try to prove hes the best. Ge turns around and tries to defend against a litany of undeserving retreads that you had to go out of your way to dig up and nobody but Ellis wanted. That shitshow went on for two years and all the while Frazier was trying to get Ellis in the ring.

[klompton]

I actually don't think Frazier should have got the first tile shot after Ellis won it. Why should immediately get a title shot after sitting out the tournament? Ellis had to beat three good fighters to win it.
The problem with the tournament is, when it's over, what's next? You ave 7 guys who recently lost and another guy who sat it out.

My problem with Patterson ( a guy that I really like) is that he could have fought better competition. He could have defended it against guys like Folley, Machen, and Williams instead of some of the weak contenders that he did fight.

I think if a champion fights the best contender (at least someone you could argue was the best contender) in a year, it's OK if his other title defense are not against the #2 or # guy. He should not be given credit for beat a stiff. However, it should not count against him if he is also defending the title against the best.

However, he does need to be defending against the #1 guy.

Some good points here Alp.

Patterson should have defended against Machen and/or Folley after winning his heavyweight title in 1956. It was his manager, Cus D'Amato, that made the decision not to fight those guys due to his personal war against the corrupt IBC. D'Amato would not let Patterson fight boxers who were involved with the IBC.

Cleveland Williams was never the number one contender during the 1950's as he was knocked out a couple of times by Sonny Liston. Ingemar Johansson became the number one contender in 1958 when he knocked out Eddie Machen.

D’Amato was ready for Patterson to defend against the winner of Machen-Folley. Machen was #1 Folley was #2 but they fought a very boring draw which most thought Folley won. If Patterson defended against Folley he would be criticized for avoiding the #1 contender, Machen. If he defended against Machen he would have bern criticized for avoiding the guy most thought won, Folley. The fight was so bad no one was eager to see either Folley or Machen again and to add to the confusion Folley sued to try to get an immediate rematch with Machen. Patterson had to defend his title quickly in order to comply with the NBA mandate that a champion defend once a year and couldnt wait for those two to sort out their issues so he defended against Roy Harris who was the #3. Its all fine and good to say Patterson should have done this or that but it ignores the context of the time. After that Folley lost to Cooper and Machen lost to Johannson. Patterson was going to defend against both Cooper and Johannson but Cooper priced himself out of the fight so Patterson defended against Brian London, who had just lost a competetive brawl to Cooper, as a tuneup for Johannson.

[Scypion]

Floyd Patterson was knocked a lot because after winning the heavyweight title in November of 1956, he first defended against Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, who he had already beat despite having a broken hand, then he defended against Pete Rademacher, the amateur champion who had never had a pro fight, then a fight with Roy "Cut 'N Shoot" Harris.

Again, Floyd let his manager Cus D'Amato make those decisions, much like Ellis let Dundee make his.

[Ambling Alp II]

I actually don't think Frazier should have got the first tile shot after Ellis won it. Why should immediately get a title shot after sitting out the tournament? Ellis had to beat three good fighters to win it.
The problem with the tournament is, when it's over, what's next? You ave 7 guys who recently lost and another guy who sat it out.

My problem with Patterson ( a guy that I really like) is that he could have fought better competition. He could have defended it against guys like Folley, Machen, and Williams instead of some of the weak contenders that he did fight.

I think if a champion fights the best contender (at least someone you could argue was the best contender) in a year, it's OK if his other title defense are not against the #2 or # guy. He should not be given credit for beat a stiff. However, it should not count against him if he is also defending the title against the best.

However, he does need to be defending against the #1 guy.

Frazier fought his way to and was rated #1 BEFORE Ellis even fought in the division. Why should Frazier, having already acheived his rating, be forced to go through a lengthy elimination process and two to three more fights before getting the title shot he was already the first in line for particularly when he was now the most bankable hw on the planet with Ali out of commission? Why did Patterson, who lost in the first round of the tournament deserve a shot at Ellis before Frazier?? Or Peralta, or Cooper, or Cleroux, as Ellis and Dundee wanted. Even if you think it was perfectly fine for Ellis to defend first against Patterson you have to recognize that in the aftermath of that robbery against what should have been considered a soft touch on paper Ellis’ legitimacy was on shaky ground and what does he do? He doesnt try to prove hes the best. Ge turns around and tries to defend against a litany of undeserving retreads that you had to go out of your way to dig up and nobody but Ellis wanted. That shitshow went on for two years and all the while Frazier was trying to get Ellis in the ring.

I guess Ellis was not the class act Frazier was. Maybe Ellis should defended the title against Terry Daniels or Ron Stander.

[klompton]

Floyd Patterson was knocked a lot because after winning the heavyweight title in November of 1956, he first defended against Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, who he had already beat despite having a broken hand, then he defended against Pete Rademacher, the amateur champion who had never had a pro fight, then a fight with Roy "Cut 'N Shoot" Harris.

Again, Floyd let his manager Cus D'Amato make those decisions, much like Ellis let Dundee make his.

Hurricane Jackson was the number one contender when Patterson fought him the second time. Moore was the #1 when Patterson fought him for the vacant title. He defended against Rademacher three weeks after defeating his top contender because he was offered one of the highest purses of the era to do so. You can blame Ellis for Frazier defending against Zyglewicz. Frazier had been waiting for that fight to be negotiated to unify when Ellis turned down their offer. When Frazier defended against Daniels it was a tuneup after the year off from the grueling Ali fight. He had defeated 4 of the top 6 contenders at the time and there was no clear consensus on who he should have defended against as the talent dropped off dramatically outside the top five with Foreman (who didnt even deserve his high ranking of #3) saying he wasnt ready for Joe.

Heres an idea: instead of talking about a subject you dont know anything about with so much righteous indignation try reading a book on the time period and then you could argue intelligently on it.

[Scypion]

Floyd Patterson was knocked a lot because after winning the heavyweight title in November of 1956, he first defended against Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, who he had already beat despite having a broken hand, then he defended against Pete Rademacher, the amateur champion who had never had a pro fight, then a fight with Roy "Cut 'N Shoot" Harris.

Again, Floyd let his manager Cus D'Amato make those decisions, much like Ellis let Dundee make his.

Hurricane Jackson was the number one contender when Patterson fought him the second time. Moore was the #1 when Patterson fought him for the vacant title. He defended against Rademacher three weeks after defeating his top contender because he was offered one of the highest purses of the era to do so. You can blame Ellis for Frazier defending against Zyglewicz. Frazier had been waiting for that fight to be negotiated to unify when Ellis turned down their offer. When Frazier defended against Daniels it was a tuneup after the year off from the grueling Ali fight. He had defeated 4 of the top 6 contenders at the time and there was no clear consensus on who he should have defended against as the talent dropped off dramatically outside the top five with Foreman (who didnt even deserve his high ranking of #3) saying he wasnt ready for Joe.

Heres an idea: instead of talking about a subject you dont know anything about with so much righteous indignation try reading a book on the time period and then you could argue intelligently on it.

I guess that it is Alp and I both being insulted here. Next we should start calling each other idiots. That would be the intelligent thing to do.

Actually, I started becoming a Patterson fan when I watched the first Patterson/Jackson fight in 1956. I was impressed with that and how easily he won the title fight against Moore. I didn't like it very much when he was criticized so much in the media for not fighting top opponents, which started about the time that he signed to fight Rademacher and increased when he fought Roy Harris.

[Rockytony67]

There may be something to what you are saying Joe, but I think it was more to do with the BBBofC not recognizing the WBA although I could be wrong.

[Woller]

It is very simple. The British Boxing Board did not respect WBA. They did not accept Ellis as world champion, saying that there were only one champion, at that was Joe Frazier.

The Ellis v Cooper fight was going to take place, even if it had to be outside Britain, but then Cooper got a very bad knee problem, and was out for more than six months. So the fight was scrapped.

[Woller]

No need for theory - just look at the facts.

[Woller]

It is the story I got from my old copies of Boxing News plus several books (4) of Henry Coopers career.
What are your sources?

[Woller]

Yes, and several other british fighters lacked support from the Board, one of the Ken Buchanan if I remember correcly.