From your friend,
From your friend,
Last edited by raylawpc; 02-20-2008 at 05:36 PM.
Originally Posted by Michael Frank"The ropes helped make the situation but they also saved Clay. If I'd caught him in the centre of the ring there would have been nothing to break his fall, and it's the fall to the canvas where you hit your head that shakes you up as much as the punch. If he had fallen more heavily I don't think he would have got up. As it was he slid gently down the ropes..."Originally Posted by 10-8
-AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY FROM HENRY COOPER
Apparently I saw the same fight as Henry.
Repeats this on page 15 of his book: The Great Heavyweights, by Henry Cooper. (1978)
"But once the punch had landed, Ali's being on the ropes was the factor that went agianst me. Half the time when you hit guys, like I'd jsut hit Ali, it the acutal shock of when they hit the deck that does the damage. And if thier head hits the canvas as well, it has practically the same effect as a punch..It scrambles their brains a bita dne they dont know where they are.
When I hit Ali, he had a soft fall. He went from the top rope to the middle and then to the bottom. His fall was broken. If only I'd caught him in the middle of the ring...he'd have gone down in a heap and he might not have been able to get back up."
Ironically, Cooper states the ropes actually helped him catch Ali, just shortly before:
"I knew I had the ability. My good punch was being able to hook off the jab. SO I went bump, bump, bump ad the got him the hook becuase he couldn't go back any further. That's how he got caught. Going back, doing it his way."
So in essence, the one thing that helped Cooper catch Ali, the Ropes, was also what hurt him as Ali went down gently.
10-8, this is also an excellent resource for the bout.
And Ray, if you are wondering: Nary a word re the minute's rest following the 4th round. He doesn't even mention that there was a controversy or anything about Dundee or the glove.
Server's acting up again.
Hawk, I had that book but gave it away a few years ago along with alot of other things I wish I'd kept.
In Cooper's autobiography (which I fortunately did keep) Henry takes the glove theory a step further by stating that at the start of the 5th round Ali's glove had a "big hunk of stuffing" missing which had the same effect as wrapping his fists with "glasspaper." No finger pointing at Dundee other than to say the split was noticed between rounds but no one at ringside had noticed it prior.
On the extra time he first guesses it "must have been" half a minute to 3/4 of a minute extra time to look for another pair of gloves. A couple of sentances later he states definitively that it was an extra 3/4 of a minute.
He does mention it was the right glove but then offers up a picture of Ali's left glove with the split.
What a can of worms.
Last edited by 10-8; 02-20-2008 at 06:23 PM.
I don't argue that the fall was not less harsh than if in the middle of the ring with no ropes. Never said that or made that comparison.
It is interesting the tiny details that people get in real back and forth arguments here over. To read these posts, even Cooper's text, one would think Ali was barely hurt, that he needed his head to bounce off the canvas before he was hurt. Thank goodness his time in the corner and his bewildered looks there (moving action, not a perhaps-misleading still shot) show what no one here seems willing to agree to even slightly: that the man was hurt.
The attorneys on TV often point to the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, preferring DNA or fingerprints. I'm not knocking Cooper, but if there was no film, who knows what would be said or written. Maybe he didn't rewatch the fight before he wrote his book. If so, maybe his account would be different had he seen the film. I don't know.
Any chance his memory isn't perfect? I know mine isn't. And asking Ali--how would HE know for sure? The worse a guy is clocked, the less he remembers it, usually. They asked Starling questions after the Molinares KO and he was out of it (can't believe his people let him do the interview). Is HE really the best source for how hurt he was at that moment? I submit "no."
That Cooper doesn't mention the controversial alleged extra time: this tells me he's a class act, but it's not definitive proof it didn't happen. My God, how many millions of people to this day think it DID happen, based on accounts circulated since the time of the bout?
Now, Angelo's being a liar or exaggerater is dismissed as nothing.
I give up spending this much time disagreeing about small details that make no difference to me and that don't affect any of our lives. How about: there was no knockdown at all, the fight was legit in all respects, the cut glove wasn't cut at all so who cares if Angelo cut it some more, there wasn't an extra couple minutes or even 8 seconds... it doesn't matter to me.
There are tons of differing accounts of the JFK assassination of the same year. Thousands of books, often written with the input of people who were there. And the amount of differences on all details is staggering, EVEN BETWEEN DOCTORS AND NURSES WHO WERE IN THE SAME EMERGENCY ROOM. There, too, we have a film, which in 40 years' time has not led to much that's conclusive.
Last edited by Michael Frank; 02-20-2008 at 06:24 PM.
Nothing from Cooper.
Dundee's version of the story, if you check different sources, is all over the place. In Dave ANdersons book In the Corner, he actually states that he went over and Picked Ali up off the canvas and dragged him to the corner.
Stories just keep getting more and more overblown and farfetched.
My point exactly.
might I suggest you take a peak at Vince Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assasination.
All the contradictions you have read and seen in movies are not nearly as great in number as the conspiracy theorists would have you to beleive.
BTW, Oswald acted alone.
FACING ALI by Stephen BruntOriginally Posted by hawk5ins
The Lyons Press: 2002
“Now the referee had to go the steward in charge, who was sitting outside. The steward in charge had to send a guy back to the dressing room where all the gloves were. Now the dressing room at Wembley Stadium is 150, 200 yards away. He had to go there, bring them up. They had a confab and decided to change the glove the next round. But he’d had a two-and-a-half-minute interval. I mean, to a fit guy, that’s all you need. That’s why they only give you ten seconds to recover from a knockdown.”
Sitting in his corner, Cooper was aware of the delay. “I knew something was going on. Because what you’ve got to realize is that as a fighter, I could judge three minutes to a second, and I could judge a minute to a second. What am I sitting in the corner for? I’m not retiring? Jimmy said, “Don’t talk.’ Something was going on and we never knew what it was. What it was, it was all this confab—see, that’s all part of boxing.”
. . .“You’ve got the guy but now he’s recovering,” Cooper says. “He came out refreshed.”
“But when you hit ‘em solid, it’s just that lovely feeling. And the eyes tell you everything in boxing. When he went down he was in trouble. He had gone. He had gone. I said to myself, I’ve got him. And then the bleedin’ bell went.”
But wholly inaccurate.
I think he Mis-remembers.
Thanks for posting this, Obama Fan. If this Cooper account is true, then I guess "Ole 'Enery" is as bad as Dundee with respect to his memory.
As they say in England, brilliant! or Fuckin mint!
In 1971 when Cooper wrote his autobiography it was "must" have been an extra half or 3/4 minute extra (1:30-1:45 total rest time).
In 2002 it was 2:30.
Ask Cooper in another 10 years and it will be an hour.
Yet the film shows 1:08.
I encourage you to do your own research Micheal.
Don't take my word or 10-8's or even Dundee's or Coopers.
Research this thoroughly yourself.
There are multiple sources that cover this issue and they don't all agree.
DOn't do a disservice to yourself by latching on to the one that sounds good to you, becuase it fits your pre-existing belief on the subject matter prior to entering into this conversation.
Research the issue COMPLETELY and then make up your mind.
Vince Bugliosi was renowned for prosecuting Manson.
Oswald acted alone? Maybe, but no one can prove it. The Zabruder film would make one think otherwise.
The Magic Bullet Theory doesn't sound believable, and I personally have read various books with various theories by doctors, photo experts, and God-knows-who, and they are all over the place.
I doubt Vince combed all the thousands of books to conclude what you say about the number of contradictions. His work on TV in 1995 discussing the O.J. Simpson case was pretty weak.
I agree with you. Unfortunately this issue just isn't very important to me, but if it were, then I'd do as you say. Apparently there are very conflicting sources.Originally Posted by hawk5ins
But I wouldn't latch on to the one that fits, just was glad there was one that me me feel, for the moment, that I wasn't crazy or blind.
That's the best you can do?Originally Posted by hawk5ins
Michael, Hawk is referring to "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Its a 1600+ page tome written by Bugliosi.
The genesis of the book is a mock trial Bugliosi had with Gerry Spence in which they tried Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. Bugliosi prosecuted and Spence defended Oswald. In the mock trial, Oswald was convicted. I read about the mock trial in a bar journal,, and apparently both these guys took it very seriously.
Bugliosi bases this book on the extensive research he did for the "trial."
The book has gotten mixed reviews. I looked at it briefly at an airport bookstore during a layover recently in Phoenix. It looked pretty good, but was very expensive ($50.00+)
You know, after O.J. Simpson was exonerated in the criminal trial, some of his supporters wondered publicly why the cops now didn't go out looking for the "real" killer. But the D.A. had the opinion that I do, which is that a jury's verdict doesn't necessarily reflect the most realistic interpretation of the facts. So, back to JFK, whatever verdict Oswald would have gotten in a mock trial, I'd still have needed a real trial plus all the evidence that is excluded, for my own determination.
Oswald was a great marksman? Or a terrible marksman? One of the many contradictions. Bullets entered JFK from the front? Or only from the rear? The magic bullet took twists and turns in hitting Kennedy and Connelly? Ruby and Oswald conspired months in advance?
Cubans wanted JFK dead over the Bay of Pigs? Rogue elements in the CIA, too? And Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, etc. were angry at RFK for prosecuting them as Attorney General, so killing JFK would get him out of the way? LBJ wanted to be President? The post-mortum photos were inconsistent, therefore some were doctored...? The number of shots is in dispute (due to "the open mike on the cop's motorcycle")? The theories seem to be endless.
This ain't the place for it, but my ONE reason why I think there must have been a conspiracy: Oswald, on film (not the movie!), when asked did he kill the president, said among other things that he was "just a patsy." I can't imagine ANYONE not involved in a scheme with at least one other person--whether to kill Kennedy or just to show up to shower him in confetti--answering the question with that word, "patsy." Just wreaked to me of "Oh crap, I was set up by my cohorts." Anyone else not in a conspiracy when asked "Did you do it?" says "NO", "Not me", "You've got the wrong guy", "I wasn't there," "Hell, I loved the president," etc. Not, "I'm just a patsy."
The Z-film, of course, would lead one to think JFK was hit from the front (argued vehemently by Gerald Posner in his book, Case Closed, where he says if you're shot in the back of your head, your head jerks BACK). I'd guess JFK was hit from the front, based on the film (but with no knowledge of ballistics, just knowing lots of people when blasted from the front FALL backwards). So, o.k., those TWO bits of info tell me "conspiracy."
Last edited by Michael Frank; 02-20-2008 at 08:01 PM.
Maybe there are others, but the only negative reviews I've seen of Bugliosi's book were from conspiracy theorists.
I am constitutionally opposed to conspiracy theories. The beautiful thing about them is they can't be disproven. Why? Because successful conspiracies are invisible. Any time you whack down a conspiracy mole, another pops up someplace else.
Sometimes conspiracy theorists inappropriately shift the burden of proof. "You can't prove that Oswald acted alone": a statement that shifts the burden, requiring that the conspiracy theory be disproved.
It can be shown that Oswald was in the Book Depository, etc. It can be shown that all of the shots are consistent with being fired by one person. It can be shown that Oswald was a marksman, etc. All of that is sufficient to establish that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The conspiracy theorist has the burden of proving the existence of the conspiracy. And there is essentially no direct proof of a conspiracy: just doubts about Oswald and speculation that some things constitute circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. The conspiracy theorist asks the trier of fact to infer the existence of a conspiracy from those shreds of evidence. In my opinion, they do not suffice to raise a serious question about the issue. (In lawyers' terms: they do not raise a genuine issue of material fact.)
I feel the same way about the conspiracy theories about Ali-Liston II and Ali-Cooper. Show me direct evidence. Without it, one can speculate at length. But speculation is only that.
Me, I prefer to speculate about other issues. Jessica Alba, for example.
All righty then. . . Let's see, we talked about Clay-Cooper I, Ali v. Superman, who hurt Ali the most - Cooper or Frazier?, did Oswald act alone?, Andre the Giant masturbating, Jessica Alba (I much prefer to think about her than Andre), loose ropes (but so far no hanging chads), and I went on vacation and sent a postcard to Hawk . . .
Anybody want to talk about whether Sonny Liston was one of the most accomplished heavyweight champions in history?
Sorry Ray but I can't even think of Liston right now.Originally Posted by raylawpc
I still can't get my head around the theory that pro wrestling may be fake.
I'm reeling and may need to re-evaluate the validity of the career of Abdullah the Butcher.
Ray, I think you are completely vindicated. This has definitely gone full circle.......Originally Posted by raylawpc
Sonny was not an accomplished heavyweight champ, decent, but a quitter!!!!
And A Cheat!!!
If you believe in the Magic Bullet Theory ( whihc was in reality a straight line), then There isn't much here that I can really say that is going to help you look past other conspiracy theories.
If you were to look at a book that fully covers the JFK assassination, then Vince's book is the place to go. Posner's book is very good as well, but Gerals took a few short cuts, that lead him to the truth, but opened holes for conspriacy nuts to have a field day. Irrational field days, but he leaves them enough wiggle room to make it seem like there is doubt to his analysis.
Heck if you don't have time to read the whole book, simply read the chapter whihc discusses Ollie Stone's movie JFK.
Any rational open minded adult can not come away from reading that single chapter, and still beleive there was a conspiracy.
Dan is spot on, the only negative reviews that I am aware of, have come from other conspiracy theorists. Many of them are detailed in Vinces Book and I guess I'd give the tome a thumbs down too if the author completely blew holes in my warped sense of reality.
Back to ALi Cooper, I am trying to dig through some old mags to read the Ring's coverage of the bout. I recall reading it a few years ago and recall that NO mention of an extended betweens round break was mentioned. If anyone has a newspaper account of the bout from that time (Calling on Ray), I think that would be interesting to view as well. My NY TImes Encyclopedia, does not cover the fight unfortunately.
Obama fan, not that was not the best I could do. But I think 10-8's post following mine whihc cited Cooper's previous recollection of the "extended round" does lay quite a bit of credence to my sarcastic "mis-remembers" line.
Dundee's recollection of what he remembers has been all over the place according to the source you read. Few extra seconds....or Mins....He widended the rip...or he simply pulled out the horse hair so the ref could see it....He sent some to the dressing room.....there were no extra gloves anywho.....someone forgot to have an extra pair left under the ring....they coined the phrase "the Dundee Glove Rule" to ensure there was a second pair under the ring, based on the Cooper fight.
Dundee is all over the map here with this. And given to two seperate accounts that Cooper give, whihc have exxagerated in 30 years time, it's safe to say his recollection of what he THINKS he beleives, is wholly inconsistant as well.
And thanks for the Postcard Ray!
Looks like it was an awesome trip! (just like this thread....well a "trip" at least.)
I said mixed reviews, not negative reviews. I'm going back on vacation.
The reviews I referred to were specifically in the New Yorker and Publisher's Weekly. These reviews criticized his writing style, and some of his research methods, but not necessarily his conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Here is the Publisher's Weekly Review:
"Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson's prosecutor, spent more than 20 years writing this defense of the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President Kennedy, but his obsession has produced a massive tome that's likely to overwhelm most readers. At times, the author seems determined to present every detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn't add to the overall picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further, while Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don't claim the FBI or Secret Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each. The book's structure—it's organized by subject, such as theories about the role of the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans—leads to needless repetition, and, for an author who excoriates conspiracy theorists, charging them with carelessness and making wild accusations, Bugliosi is not always temperate in his language; for example, twice he makes the nonsensical claim that some Warren Commission critics "were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to rest." His decision to devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie JFK as to his chapter on organized crime (identified by the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassination as the likely conspirators) is a curious one, as is the choice to open the book with a dramatic re-creation of events surrounding the assassination rather than a straightforward chronology of the relevant facts. Moreover, Bugliosi does not always probe whether individuals who are the sole source for certain facts (for example, Oswald's widow, Marina) had any motive to lie. Bugliosi's voluminous endnotes are on an accompanying CD. Gerald Posner's 1993 Case Closed made most of the same points in a much more concise way. 32 pages of illus."
Here is the New Yorker review:
"This weighty book (its pages number sixteen hundred and twelve) claims to be the final word on the assassination of President Kennedy. It is as if Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson murders, intended to overwhelm with sheer, footnoted bulk. But in the way that others have "proved" conspiracies, Bugliosi "proves" yet again the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. He does this by reëxamining familiar evidence but also by dismissing preposterous theories, such as one that J. Edgar Hoover masterminded the murder to keep his job. Bugliosi steps less certainly in considering the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, in 1978, concluded that J.F.K. was "probably" killed as the result of a plot. Citing a National Research Council study, Bugliosi brushes aside the committee’s acoustic evidence suggesting that four shots were fired in Dallas (a fourth shot would confirm a second gunman); he is uncomfortable with a subsequent analysis, by the British Forensic Science Society, which challenged the N.R.C. opinion. Mysteries are like that."
And thanks for reprinting them.
"His decision to devote twice as many pages to critiquing Oliver Stone's movie JFK as to his chapter on organized crime (identified by the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassination as the likely conspirators) is a curious one,"
What is that supposed to mean, a "curious one"?
A blurb like that is thrown out with nothing detailed about what the reviewer is supposed to mean here.
Vince's time devoted to Ollie's movie is EXPLAINED in the book. The main reason it needs so much time tearing it apart is becuase of the sad fact that the overwhelming majority of folks who saw that movie take it's premise as gospel.
I don't understand the comparison here. It comes accross as if Vince spent No Time talking about Organized Crime and that could not be further from the truth.
Just odd one off lines that has me shaking my head.
"Bugliosi does not always probe whether individuals who are the sole source for certain facts (for example, Oswald's widow, Marina) had any motive to lie."
Clearly written by someone who has not read the book in it's entirety. Bugliosi dedicated more time to analysing the motivations of virtually every witness or opinion in the case than anyone else who has ever written about the assassination. Bar none. And I've read close to 40 books on the subject.
We went through this on another thread, and I can honestly say that discussing this case with those who are not fully informed about it is too wearying to bother with. Bottom line is Oswald shot Kennedy, and he was no great shot (he aimed at his head three times and hit it once, to a nearly stationary target at under 150 yards. I could hit 3 of 3 at that range at least half the time and I am not a trained rifleman.) So it's 100% Oswald is guilty, 99.99% he weas the only shooter, and at least 95% there was no conspiracy (noone else knew about it in advance).
Those that say there is no way to prove Oswald acted alone are looking at the argument backward. There is a mountain of evidence of his guilt, and ZERO evidence of anyone else's complicity. Why does anyone have to prove Oswald acted alone, and nobody has to prove he didn't?
Because they can't. Because he did.
By acted alone, are we saying that Oswald just shot JFK because he wanted to, with no orders from anyone etc etc etc. I personally think he acted alone in the assassination, but I'm not too sure if he acted completely alone as regards the whole plot to assassinate JFK...
The Ruby incident. What was that all about?
Ruby shot and killed Oswald. No more to it than that.
Anyone can go into a long pseudo-psychoanalytical speil about why Ruby did what he did. It's all speculative and a waste of time. What is NOT is to investigate Ruby's movements the day he killed Oswald, and what the expected schedule of Oswald's move to the jail was supposed to be.
You look at THAT and you know unequivacably that if Oswald's murder was a professional or contracted hit, I am a left-handed Epsicapalean kangaroo.
Back to the subject at hand - boxing - the only account I have of Clay-Cooper I is an AP wire service report. It makes no mention of a delay between the 4th and 5th rounds.
I don't have access to any British newspapers.
Re Oswald, the Mob and Ruby.
"To put it mildly, it is almost INSANE to beleive that organized crime would decide to murder the President of the United States, the take this insanity to an even higher level by getting Oswald, of all people to do the job and then thake the insanity to previously unimaginable heights by getting Ruby to Silence Oswald. What fool could possily believe this?"
I'm assuming the reviewer from Publisher's Weekly that criticizes Vince for dedicating more time to Garrison and Stone than to the "mob involvement".
I guess 43 pages disecting the subject frontwards and backwards wasn't enough.
Like T here, I suspect the reviewer thumbed through the book and speculated much of what he wrote.
It's obvious he didn't read it.
And I'm going to cut and paste from this point forward re this subject. It IS pointless to discuss this subject with anyone who has taken no time to research this.