[RING, Oct. 1981] Cooney- Holmes predictions

Some are still rolling with it.

 

Incredibly, it seems so.

 

Joe Frazier "Personally I could n't care less who wins"

 

I always envisaged Holmes winning it just the way he did.

And,yes,Cooney was hyped to the hilt.

 

Going into the fight, Holmes was the undefeated champ at the top of his form, and Cooney was also undefeated, on a roll, and appeared to have the goods. It had all the makings of a classic fight.

While the fight itself may not have lived up to its hype, it was not a bad fight. Cooney lost but did not disgrace himself in the fight. His lack of experience was exposed early, but he showed gameness in getting up after that second round KD and making a fight of it.

Had Cooney's management erred in the way they brought Cooney along? From a developmental standpoint, emphatically yes! While Gerry had an impressive string of early knockouts, he needed more fights against tough fighters that could extend him and take him the distance, giving him the seasoning he needed when facing an opponent of Holmes' caliber. In that way, his career was eerily similar to the first career of George Foreman. And when both met their first defeat, being stopped by opponents who exposed their respective flaws, their careers were derailed. Big George eventually got back on track and it is an interesting twist of fate that they would face each other in the ring in the 'Geezers at Caesar's' fight in 1990. Financially, Gerry Cooney made some good money. He had enormous potential but remains one of those 'what might have been' stories.

 

he wasnt the only one. A surprising number of people thought Spinks could do the job

 

Cooney didn't fight for two years after Holmes??? After a good performance, wouldn't you think he could step in, destroy a contender, and warrant a rematch with Larry within a year? Not? IMO just another supreme talent that wound up on the slap of "wannabes". My $0.02

 

It's easy to say Cooney was just hype. But it's not true. It's easy to say Cooney was only popular because he was white. That's not true, either.

I was a firm believer in Cooney because of his in-the-ring performances. I thought he'd beat Holmes because of Holmes' in-the-ring performances.

Holmes had gone 15 rounds with Norton and barely won the WBC belt. Holmes fought a total no-name journeyman in Mike Weaver and barely survived and was hurt multiple times in that bout. Holmes was floored and barely survived against Shavers. Holmes was floored and barely survived against fringe contender Renaldo Snipes the fight before Cooney. Meanwhile, Cooney was steamrolling everyone. I first read about Cooney and saw him at the time of the Dino Dennis fight. I saw him tear Jimmy Young apart. I saw him knock out Lyle with a body shot in the first. I saw him destroy Norton in like 55 seconds. It didn't take a leap of faith to believe Cooney would pound Holmes to the body and head and take him out, like Snipes and Shavers and Weaver had nearly done.

Truth is, Cooney and Tyson were pretty much brought up the same way. It wasn't about race. Both were New York KO artists who excited the masses. Both were the recipients of the New York hype machine. Both destroyed guys, and you could argue Cooney was better at it. (Frankly, knocking out Marvis Frazier and Jose Ribalta wasn't more impressive than spanking Young, Lyle and Norton.)

If Cooney had gotten his title shot against the Trevor Berbick who Tyson fought, Cooney likely would've won in a round or two as well.

And if Tyson had fought the 1982 version of Larry Holmes who Cooney faced, Tyson probably would've been stopped in the later rounds, as well. And maybe Tyson goes off the deep end himself, like Cooney did.

Cooney just fought one of the best heavyweights who ever lived on one of the best nights of Holmes' career. Holmes hadn't had too many great nights. Which is why so many established guys were picking Cooney.

It looked like Holmes was just going to be one of those champs who came along between two great champs.

Instead, Holmes ended up being a great champ, himself. But going into the Cooney fight, Holmes didn't look at the top of his game, unless getting flattened by Renaldo Snipes not once but twice by a single blow and needing the corner post to keep him from going down a second time, was Holmes LOOKING HIS BEST.

And then Holmes freaked out after the Snipes fight when they brought Cooney over, and Holmes suffered a major cut to his forearm because his trainer was trying to cut his gloves off when Larry decided to go ballistic.

Holmes looked like a guy on his way out.

When Holmes beat Cooney, everyone who was on the Cooney bandwagon tried to distance themselves. And instead of just admitting they'd been wrong about Holmes, they decided to paint Cooney as a fraud. The boxing media tended to downplay Holmes through his entire reign. And Holmes and his family would agree with that.

Holmes never got the respect he deserved until he outpointed Ray Mercer like a decade later and boxing media could go back and look at Holmes' accomplishments with a fresh set of eyes.

But the "Cooney was a fraud" storyline continues.

Actually, the Cooney fight may be the second greatest performance of Holmes' career (after Norton) ... because Cooney was a very good fighter entering that bout. It took arguably a top five Hall of Famer to beat Cooney that night. Any lesser champ, and Cooney likely would've won.

I'd have certainly picked the 1982 version of Cooney over EVERYONE Mike Tyson won paper titles against, including Berbick, Smith, Bruno, Seldon and Tucker (who broke his hand in the first round against Tyson). I'd probably take the 1982 version of Cooney over Spinks, too.

Tyson is an all-time great, while Cooney is considered a hype job by many. But entering their first title shots, there really wasn't a whole lot separating them.

Who Cooney faced in his first world title shot, and who Tyson fought in his, however, couldn't have been more different.

 

Cooney had fought a bunch of names who were way past it

He was white and the casual fan knew the guys he beat like Lyle, Young and Norton so they hype began.

Holmes had fought much better competition and it payed off for him. He took Cooney into the deep end and he drowned. Cooney never beat a live top 10 contender in his whole career.

I was 12 and a casual fan so I thought Cooney had a shot.

If it had happened a few years later after I started closely following the sport and understood context, I would have been sure Holmes would win.

And, no 1982 Cooney was not better than everyone Mike Tyson beat.

 

That's where the nonsense starts. "Live" top 10 contender. Young was ranked and had been for years (and would still be ranked for years afterward). Lyle was ranked for years before that and was still ranked. Norton had been ranked for a decade before that and had just come back and beaten Tex Cobb for Christ sakes.

You guys who just go to wikipedia and look up Ring Annual Top 10 lists and act like you have all the answers don't add anything to the conversation. You really don't.

I hope to be around some day when you say Joshua-Wlad was the best heavyweight fight and a great win for Joshua in 2017 and some idiot comes on and says "Well, Wlad was way past it and he wasn't a live top contender in 2017. He wasn't even ranked by Ring in their annual ratings that year."

When you hear from someone like that, you'll know how I feel when I read posts like yours.

Because the truth is if Larry Holmes had decided to defend his WBC title against Jimmy Young or Ron Lyle or Ken Norton when Cooney fought them, every network would've bought the fights.

 

Who would you have taken over the 1982 version of Cooney? Bruce Seldon? Trevor Berbick? Who?

 

And Mike Tyson was black and didn't beat anyone as good as those guys, and he was still a star going into the Berbick fight.

They were the two best heavyweights to come out of New York in the 1980s. And they were brutal KO punchers. And they had the NY media machine behind them.

That's why the casual fans knew them and liked them so much.

 

Yes, and there were doubts about Tyson.
Tyson was a hype job but he backed it up.
Also, Tyson's 27-0 run towards Berbick was completed in 20 months.

How does any of that prove Cooney wasn't a hype job ?

Cooney, in his career, didn't even achieve what Trevor Berbick achieved.
There's no lasting substance to Cooney.

 

Who did Tyson back it up against? Berbick?

The best fighter Cooney beat was Ken Norton. A hall of famer. In 55 seconds. In fact, Cooney only lost to Hall of Famers.

Who was the best fighter Tyson beat? Ruddock?

Again, if Tyson had to fight the 1982 version of Larry Holmes in his first title opportunity, odds are he loses by TKO in 13. Although, some might pick Tyson to stop Holmes early. (Both scenarios the same as the Holmes-Cooney lead in.)

If the 1982 version of Cooney enters the ring against the Berbick who Tyson faced, odds are Cooney "backs it up" and isn't considered a hype job.

Truth is, there aren't many champs in boxing history in their first challenge of a heavyweight title who would've beaten Holmes that night in 1982. Wonder if they would've all been considered hype jobs, too, when they lost?

Cooney is considered a hype job by many today, and I still don't know many who would pick Berbick to successfully defend the title against any version of Cooney, let alone the one who was undefeated and on roll.

 

Cooney doesn't get extra credit for LOSING to a great champion. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Say what you want about Tyson's resume, but it IS stronger than Cooney's.

Berbick's resume is stronger than Cooney's.