Page 1 of 1
billy conn vs chuck wepner
Posted: 21 May 2006, 02:48
by jimbraddock
i call it the battle of the underdogs. who do you think would win?
Posted: 21 May 2006, 08:51
by Expug
I like Conn in this by a wide Ud.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 09:25
by BoxBuzz
Wepner would be chasing a ghost and getting whacked along the way. Billy might not make the mistake of being arrogantly over confident and would just rip his target to shreds without suffering much at all in the way of incoming.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 09:31
by Expug
Chuck wasnt exactly the best fighter in the world when it came to slipping left jabs. In fact he was probably hit with every single one that was tossed his way. Conn had a good one.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 09:44
by BoxBuzz
Did Chuck ever find a left jab he didn't like?
Posted: 21 May 2006, 09:46
by Expug
I think Liston landed a jab or two on the old "Bayone Bleeder " didnt he?
Posted: 21 May 2006, 12:55
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
hahahahah wut a joke of a matchup. chuck wepner is the worst fighter to ever challenge for a heavyweight title.
chuck wepner had no skill, no power, no defense, hes not strong, he cut easily, he didnt have a good chin, he had no speed, no reflexes, basically he sucked. besides size, wepner had nothing.
conn TKO 9 wepner in a one sided blowout
Posted: 21 May 2006, 13:48
by dempseyfire
Not only would Wepner get dominated, I don't even see him lasting the distance.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 14:27
by KOJOE90
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:chuck wepner is the worst fighter to ever challenge for a heavyweight title.
I'm not so sure BB49, although I respect any fighter that gets in the ring and tries his best so I don't like using the term 'worst ever' was Wepner any better or worse than Jean-Pierre Coopman, Richard Dunn, Scott Ledoux etc?
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:besides size, wepner had nothing.
Thats a bit harsh Wepner for all his limitations was a tough, strong and brave fighter.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 14:32
by BoxBuzz
KOJOE90 wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:chuck wepner is the worst fighter to ever challenge for a heavyweight title.
I'm not so sure BB49, although I respect any fighter that gets in the ring and tries his best so I don't like using the term 'worst ever' was Wepner any better or worse than Jean-Pierre Coopman, Richard Dunn, Scott Ledoux etc?
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:besides size, wepner had nothing.
Thats a bit harsh Wepner for all his limitations was a tough, strong and brave fighter.
KoJoe's right Brock, you could sift through the trash heap of contenders and probably come up with a few names that could outstink Old Chuck. uh...that was said with all due respect.