Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:





Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabo... at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter.   Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him.  He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...

No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If

so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?

On Oct 14, 1:09 am, Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:





Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabo... at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter.   Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him.  He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...

No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that a serious question? Frazier's top of the list. Then prime
Norton, and Ron Lyle when he wasn't 39. Maybe Chuvalo.

But we don't have to look at mutual opponents of Foreman and Cooney in
order to decide which of them is the greater: Foreman beat Cooney when
Foreman was 41 and Cooney 33. Foreman is clearly a far greater fighter
than Cooney.

I don't think that one can ever assume that a fighter is any better
than he has proved to be. To argue that Cooney was a potentially great
fighter when he never beat a good fighter is not much different to
arguing that you yourself could have been great if only you had tried
boxing. The burden of proof lay with Cooney, and he failed to meet it.

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If

No.

so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?


See above.

Foreman was a one dimensional power house who scared everyone to death.

On Oct 14, 1:09 am, Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:





Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabo... at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter.   Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him.  He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...

No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that a serious question? Frazier's top of the list. Then prime
Norton, and Ron Lyle when he wasn't 39. Maybe Chuvalo.

But we don't have to look at mutual opponents of Foreman and Cooney in
order to decide which of them is the greater: Foreman beat Cooney when
Foreman was 41 and Cooney 33. Foreman is clearly a far greater fighter
than Cooney.

I don't think that one can ever assume that a fighter is any better
than he has proved to be. To argue that Cooney was a potentially great
fighter when he never beat a good fighter is not much different to
arguing that you yourself could have been great if only you had tried
boxing. The burden of proof lay with Cooney, and he failed to meet it.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.


I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Loki <cubby77267 at (no spam) aol.com> writes:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong' at (no spam) canada.com> writes:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>):

Are you on the cat nip again?

He would not get close to either Klit.

He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.

He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.

I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...


No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.

How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.

A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If

No.

so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?


See above.

Foreman was a one dimensional power house who scared everyone to death.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:09:24 -0600, Loki wrote
(in article <76nad5940jl0k2s0f84lfu3a0rl35oac36 at (no spam) 4ax.com>):

Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?

Lets not forget that Foreman lost to Ali when George was at the top of his
game and Ali was supposed to be finished/washed up. Cooney held his own yet
lost to Larry which really isn't something to be ashamed of. I still think
that Gerry could have done better but he didn't so that's the history of the
story...

I remember seeing that Cooney/Holmes fight. Cooney never moved his
feet, never jabbed enough to keep Holmes off of him and if not for his
strong chin, would have been kissing the canvas numerous times. There
was a lot of hype leading up to that fight but I never thought Cooney
was that good.

Regards,

After serious thinking 5016 wrote :

On Oct 13, 5:25 pm, jalexa9898 <jalexa9... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Which do you think?

Overrated. And easy to assess. He lost to all the good fighters he
fought and beat the poor ones. There are no complexities on his
record, such as one finds with many fighters who beat A and lost to B
even though A was the greater boxer.

The worst fighter he lost to was Spinks or old Foreman, and the best
fighter he beat was probably a shot Norton coming off a win, draw and
loss from Tex Cobb, Le Doux and Shavers. So he is somewhat worse than
Spinks and old Foreman as a heavyweight, and a little better than an
old Norton. However, one hears people rate him much higher than this,
claiming that only Holmes could have beaten him, could have been a
great, etc etc.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Holmes say of Cooney "he's the
right colour" not long before they met in the ring ?

--
Count Baldoni

In hoc signo vinces