Controversial decisions revisited, volume two. Cooper-Bugner, 1971

How do everyone, sorry to bore you all again but I think that there was just about enough of a reaction to the inaugural edition of this series the other day to warrant a second round.

In terms of all-British affairs, there haven’t been many fights as controversial or notorious as Joe Bugner and Henry Cooper’s 1971 clash, in which the grizzled veteran Cooper put his British, Commonwealth and European Heavyweight titles on the line. I’ve decided to cover this fight for a few reasons; first off, Cooper’s sad death a couple of months back has, hopefully, encouraged one or two people to take a look at some of his biggest fights and, as a result of that, I’m hoping that a few more people will be able to comment on this article than would have had I written it at the turn of the year.

Next, from my own experiences, it seems that not only is opinion split on who won the fight, but it is also split by wild margins. Literally, I’ve heard people saying that Bugner won almost every round in their eyes, while at the other end of the spectrum I’ve encountered fans stating that Cooper secured a near shutout in their mind.

And finally, this bout – like no other in terms of domestic clashes – brings up the question of whether or not people allow the popularity for one fighter and a dislike for the other cloud their judgement. As we all know, Cooper was one of Britain’s most loved fighters of all time. Bugner, on the other hand, remains one of the most derided. If we looked purely at the propaganda of the British media, we’d be forgiven in thinking that Bugner had committed some terrible sin that night, on which referee Harry Gibbs – who, in the outdated British way, acted as sole judge – awarded the twenty-one year old Bugner the decision by a half point margin.

Harry Carpenter, famously, stated that he found the decision amazing in his commentary, and asked “how in the world can you take away the man’s three titles like that?” The British boxing public, by large, never forgave Bugner for taking away Cooper’s belts, and Our ‘Enry retired on a huge wave of public sympathy. So here is the key question; how did you see the fight? Was Cooper robbed and is he really the hard luck story often portrayed? Or are Gibbs’ and Bugner’s critics merely being blinded by misty-eyed romanticism for Cooper, and being influenced by the respective popularity of both fighters?

Let’s get the first aspect done and dusted – this was, by any measure, a very, very average fight. Both fighters employed a jab and little else; Cooper may have remarked in 2008 that his right hand was “only for wiping the sweat away”, but even so, he never made any great efforts to regularly throw his famed left hook, either. Likewise, Bugner did a fair amount in the way of jabs, but you could probably count on one hand the amount of times he followed it up with his right hand cross.

Even so, I scored this fight (using the modern ‘ten point must’ system) 145-140 in Cooper’s favour. While I’m sure some will agree with me, I know for a fact that there are one or two on here (captain, of the top of my head, in particular) who will be lining up to give me a good kicking for that, too.

But personally, I think that Bugner was far, far too tentative and negative to warrant a win on that night. Granted, Cooper’s performance didn’t set the pulse racing. But in the first five or six rounds, almost every single worthwhile exchange was initiated by Cooper, with Bugner happy to let him make the first move on the high majority of occasions. Not once was Bugner hurt, however Cooper did double the jab up more often, and only in the mid rounds to Bugner seem to snap out of his trance and begin to realise that, in order to make this a fight, he needed to start making the first move a little more often.

And he certainly began to do that. Popular perception seems to be that Cooper was in control more and more as the fight progressed, however in my mind, once Bugner began to throw caution to the win a little (very liberal use of the term there, remember) he did have a lot more success. However, I maintain that he simply had left himself too much to do, and as I gave Cooper the last round, I simply can’t see how anyone can have Bugner ahead in that fight.

Just my take on it, but with the aforementioned circumstances and issues, it would be good to get yours, too. For my money, Bugner fought far too tentative and negative a fight to take the belts from Cooper who, for me, dictated the pace, forced what little action there was and, just about, landed the better punches throughout.

Sorry it’s dragged on, but if anyone wants to share their opinion, then please do. Ta, lads.

Well, you know my opinion, Chris. I've watched the fight dozens of times and bothered to score it three times - the identity of the winner changed, but there was never more than one round between them. At no stage did either boxer put together enough shots to establish dominance; indeed, were it not for the controversy, we'd be looking at yet another in the long series of dull heavyweight contests between British fighters that littered the domestic scene in the late 60s and 70s.

I blame Harry Carpenter, myself, plus Cooper's childish reaction to the loss. Bugner was just a boy at the time in comparative terms, and Cooper should have disposed of him with ease. Bugner showed himself to be at least his equal on that night and in his subsequent career, comfortably outstripped Henry, not least by actually getting into the ring with all-comers. And yet, because Carpenter's commentary went into its usual hysterical overdrive and Henry sulked with Bugner and Harry Gibbs for nearly four decades, Bugner was booed round Britain by ignorant sections of the boxing press and public.

Shame on them all - that fight was no robbery.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Shame on them all - that fight was no robbery.

Despite the fact that I had Cooper winning by five rounds, given that so many of them were close and tentative affairs, I agree with you on that point. I have seen plenty of worse decisions. I just feel that had it not been for Cooper's work, it would have been even less of a spectacle. Bugner spoiled, held, backed off and reacted (rather than being proactive) too much for my liking, although I'm glad you've pointed out how young Bugner was at the time, which I alluded to in the article. Cooper really should have dealt with him, which does tend to get convenienty ignored.

I suppose it's one we'll all still be disagreeing on for a long time, but I'd certainly agree with your point that Carpenter and (to a lesser extent) Cooper's reaction has lead many to have a seriously distorted view of the bout.

I remember listening to the fight live and seeing it - probably the following night - a little later.

The radio commentary team had Bugner shading it and I felt the same thing when I watched it. Have only seen it once since, and with every respect to Chris I still believe Bugner nicked it.

This was a genuinely close fight, whomsoever we might think deserved the nod, and the only genuine injustice was the unsavoury targeting of Bugner in the aftermath. Cooper's behaviour was juvenile, and that of the British public utterly distasteful.

Captain doesn't like Cooper as we know..Don't know why...

Thought he was a quality heavyweight looking at his record..

I'm neutral and I saw it because I heard it was scandalous.....

After watching I agreed!!! without Cooper there wasn't a fight....

A while ago now but I had for Cooper by at least 3/4 rounds..

All water under the bridge now..

HumanWindmill wrote:I remember listening to the fight live and seeing it - probably the following night - a little later.

The radio commentary team had Bugner shading it and I felt the same thing when I watched it. Have only seen it once since, and with every respect to Chris I still believe Bugner nicked it.

This was a genuinely close fight, whomsoever we might think deserved the nod, and the only genuine injustice was the unsavoury targeting of Bugner in the aftermath. Cooper's behaviour was juvenile, and that of the British public utterly distasteful.

You're of the same opinion as my step granddad then Windy, with whom a debate about this fight the other day prompted me to put this question to you fellas. As many rounds were close I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with me, and to be honest the two of you are quite right in your criticism of Carpenter / Cooper in the aftermath. I still feel that Bugner spent too much time spoiling on top of Cooper's slightly more aggressive work, but ah well, that's the beauty (if you can call it that) of scoring in boxing.

Thanks for your contributions too, Trussman. Valued as ever, but at the same time they merey demonstrate even further how subjective scoring can be, and how divided the boxing public are on this particular bout.

Just think Cooper was trying to make the fight...

.....and the British public merely appreciated the fact that one of the participants was.

Bugner stunk worse than a skunk in the sewer...

Awful fighter to watch...

Think that Cooper gets a ridiculously easy pass from a lot of people, Truss. By comparison with Bugner, who fought men of the calibre of Frazier (one of the gutsiest performances ever from a British boxer, IMO), Shavers and Lyle, Cooper's record is something of a half-baked one. He openly admitted that he wouldn't get into the ring with Liston or Frazier under any circumstances and turned down a world title shot at Patterson, which went to London instead.

Don't think that Cooper was an especially "quality heavy", either, certainly not in world terms. Contemptuously swatted by Johansson and Patterson, twice beaten by Erskine....Henry's record is as full of holes as a colander. His fame rests almost entirely on ruling Britain for eleven uninterrupted years, or whatever it was, and knocking Ali onto his wallet. Poor old Sonny Banks, who also decked The Greatest, but is scarcely remembered at all these days; a pity that he wasn't born British, he could have made a fortune.

A great, legendary bubble has somehow built up around Henry's career as a boxer. Whatever his fine qualities as a man, I think that it's a bubble that needs popping.

Poor old Sonny Banks never made it to his 25th birthday dying after getting knocked out if a fight.

His fight with Ali was initially a good little contest between a 20 and 21 year old.

You obviously know Cooper better than me so i'll bow to your superior career knowledge...

Maybe he was overrated...Brits tend to overrate crowd pleasers like we do back home...

However I will say I thought he fought well against Clay.....think he was a European heavy of some distinction and beat Bugner when they fought..

But I won't argue over British fighters from the past as I'm not really in any position too..