Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

Thats two times now of you talking just to talk. Talking just because you got a mouth. Why don't you contribute to the topic or just shut the hell up about it talker.

 

I either think you didn’t watch the fight with Spinks or forgot it. He boxed competitively for a few rounds and then got bombed out once Spinks figured out that he couldn’t deal with angles. He had also destroyed a prospect in the year before.

Whatever positives were present in his fight with Foreman were entirely due to having Foreman in front of him.

 

For the same reason I'd pick the Mike Tyson who beat Spinks, to beat the Michael Murray that beat Kevin McBride, despite McBride later beating Tyson.

That's an extreme example to emphasis a concept, but I assure you the concept is sound.

 

Cooney never proved himself against an opponent in the face of adversity. Spinks would be my pick & I would collect, were I a gambling man.

 

I'm with Man Machine on this one. Part of Michael's success was definitely timing anyway.

 

Yeah its extreme because you'd have to use 2002 Holmes to replace 2005 Tyson in your example. Those were both the last time they fought. You're telling me you think 85 Holmes = 05 Tyson? Thats how you view the 1985 Holmes that Spinks fought? I say Spinks fought Holmes really close to his prime and was not showing signs of slipping anywhere even near the extent you tried to imply here.

 

Spinks doesn't have anywhere near the heavyweight accomplishment that Holmes has which is why he isn't rated highly at the weight.

Many had Holmes losing to Carl Williams prior to Spinks

 

Cooney was an excellent hitter.

I still pick Spinks with his herky-jerky style.

 

It's hard for me to rate Cooney's prime because against Holmes he was obviously rusty and not as well conditioned as he should have been. I daresay Norton.

I just don't think Spinks could cute his way out of Cooney's left, plus Gerry proved he had a ton of heart against Larry.

To be completely forthright, and I'm going to make certain people outrageously heated after I write this: I think even the Foreman who beat Qawi would have beaten the Spinks of Tyson. Michael couldn't take a super powered punch, the first time he did (against Mike) he was done.

Just my opinion.

 

That was a close fight. But the idea that Carl Williams beat Larry Holmes is a minority opinion. Most thought Holmes did enough to win a decision. Just six months before that fight Holmes outboxed and stopped Bonecrusher Smith and was on a four fight KO streak.

 

Agreed, Spinks just wasn’t built to take heavyweight punishment. He matched favourably against Holmes due to Larry beginning to slow down and because Holmes wasn’t a massive puncher or physically dominating.

 

The Spinks fight was def Cooneyś lowest point as he looked like a dead man in there and was probably more interested in booze than boxing at that point. It was a horrible performance and Cooney should be ashamed. At his best he blows Spinks away in a few rounds he simply hit too hard for a blown up light heavy like Spinks.

 

Holmes and Spinks fought on "equal terms" because Holmes was very much past prime while Spinks was in his prime.

Regarding Cooney being stopped by both, Cooney was near prime against Holmes (even so he was still considerably rusty which showed later in the fight), and in the worst shape of his career against Spinks.

 

Ffs you realize we have footage of the fight right?

This content is protected

He's quite clearly a shell of himself here. Are you gonna deny this?

What was that prospect's ranking at the time? As a matter of fact, did Gragg ever make it into the top ten?

Also do you know how much can change in a year? He was a full blown alcoholic and drug addict at the time.

And because he was in much better shape. He even says so he was "fighting through a fog" at the time he fought Spinks, and actually attempted to withdraw from the fight.

He accepted the Foreman loss, and even said he was in much better condition for the bout.

 

Larry Holmes was an undefeated fighter when he fought Michael Spinks and I don't view winning close fights as a barometer for being past prime when you were just riding on a four fight KO streak just months earlier going into that fight. And saying Cooney was never prime against anybody is a really convenient way to pump up Cooney at the expense of diminishing what everybody else actually did. I guess those losses shouldn't really count because Cooney wasn't really trying. Its all excuses. What we do know for sure is Spinks fought on equal terms with Holmes for 30 rounds and outsmarted and knocked out Cooney in 5 rounds. Those are facts.