Which do you think?

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

Which do you think?

Which do you think?

Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected

So he probably never had the potential. Just the hype.

5016 : good post.

until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

Or he might not have been and was just over hyped by people wanting a
white HW Champ. His record states categorically that he was totally
over hyped. I agree with 5016.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

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.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgareth at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected

until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

On Oct 13, 2:25 pm, jalexa9898 <jalexa9... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Which do you think?

Overrated at the time he fought Holmes, underrated now in that he's
thought of as this overrated dude who was supposed to beat Holmes, but
didn't really come close.

I think he would mop the floor with the current crop of heavyweights,
both klits included.

STRATEGY

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.

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 Oct 13, 10:15 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> writes:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected

So he probably never had the potential. Just the hype.

5016 : good post.

until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

Or he might not have been and was just over hyped by people wanting a
white HW Champ. His record states categorically that he was totally
over hyped. I agree with 5016.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"His record states categorically.." Huh or what? What am I, nutst?

On Oct 13, 9:52 pm, Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.

This is the most objective summary of Irish Gerry Cooney's
situation.

On Oct 13, 9:52 pm, Loki <cubby77... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar... at (no spam) my-deja.com
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.

He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.

Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.

He was 31 against Spinks, not 40 as Ali was against Berbick. He never
beat a fighter as good as Spinks in the early part of his career so
there is no reason to suppose that he would have done so.