Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

1.
ref: Frank Cappuccino
Tom Kaczmarek 38-38
Harold Lederman 39-37
John Stewart 37-39

2. Eddie Gregg was a highly regarded am and legitimate prospect.

3. I couldn’t care less about what fighters have to say about themselves. Spinks embarrassed a Cooney who was favored to win. A back from the dead version of Cooney was brought in to lay down against Foreman.

 

How can you say Holmes was close to his prime vs Michael Spinks ? that's a bizarre take and you're the first person i've ever seen make such a claim. Holmes had no where near the reflexes, speed, legs, that he once had 4 years ago that's plainly obvious just by watching the footage.

Larry Holmes was 35 years old and had fought 20 championship fights obviously he wasn't fresh was he ?

Holmes had been slipping since the Witherspoon fight in 83, hence that's why Holmes started to pick easier contenders towards the end of his reign.

 

It was a highly controversial decision that many had Carl Williams winning, certainly not a minority opinion it has 53 percent controversy rating on "Eye on the ring".

Bonecrusher was a 14-1 novice at the time with no Amateur background, and his only notable win was losing every round to a green Frank Bruno before scoring a miracle come from behind KO in the last round.

"four fight KO streak" yeah against the likes of Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, David Bey, a bit of context is needed here and the stoppage vs Bonecrusher was on a cut.

 

Pretty simple.

Holmes stopped a prime Cooney.

Spinks stopped a faded Cooney who only had 4 fights in 5 years who was also battling drug and alcohol problems.

Spinks barely beat a past his prime 35 years old Holmes in their 1st encounter, in their 2nd encounter according to the majority Holmes clearly beat Spinks in their 2nd fight in which many consider a robbery. So logically you would expect a prime Holmes to be able to beat Michael Spinks more convincingly.

Hence your logic doesn't really work for me.

PS i'm not saying Spinks couldn't necessarily beat a prime Cooney but i don't think your examples are very good ones.

 

I don't believe Holmes was far removed from his prime against Spinks. Watching the fights with Spinks the speed, reflexes, the legs, the jab, are all on display. He doesn't look past it. The only evidence of Holmes being past prime is winning a close fight against Carl Williams. Winning a close fight isn't a strong case that you're past prime unless fighters are just never allowed to be in close fights. He could have been shot or he could have just had a close fight. Sometimes fighters have close fights. You can try to say he was shot since his close fight with Witherspoon but to do that you then have to overlook him stopping his next four opponents in a row. The Marvis Frazier KO is probably the most iconic Holmes knockout and the Bonecrusher Smith fight just months before fighting Williams is classic Holmes. This does not look like a shot fighter to me. And that doesn't look like a shot fighter in there against Michael Spinks.

 

I think Spinks and Holmes basically fought each other to a standstill. If you like Holmes in those fights thats fine but those two were never not going to be in close fights with each other. Those fights were a match of wits and they were both at such a high level. We do a lot of gymnastics to justify how Holmes could possibly lose to a light heavyweight. We can bring out all the excuses but don't forget to bring out this one. Spinks was just that smart and just that good

 

As I said, extreme example to demonstrate a concept.

Holmes wasn't as far removed from his best vs Spinks as Tyson was his vs McBride, but he was most certainly past prime.

If you understand what you're watching, it's abundantly clear watching Holmes vs Spinks, that he'd slipped significantly relative to watching him vs Cooney.

 

You're either having a laugh, don't like Holmes or DKSAB and i say that kindly.

It's not often i defend Holmes but it's disgustingly obvious he well past his best by the time he fought Spinks and to make matters worse he underrated him. His decline from Witherspoon forward was noted at various stages by numerous magazines and experts. One only has to watch the fights. He got busted up by Bonecrusher who had 15 fights under his belt and had all of 10 rounds of experience against anyone that would have been a top 50 heavyweight. Smith won 2 rounds of the first 9 before getting Bruno out of there with a sudden lease of life in the final round as Bruno snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Bey gave him plenty of trouble next fight as well and the inexperienced glass jawed Williams looked the better fighter to many.

1980 Holmes would have beaten Spinks in third gear. His extra speed, reflex and timing would have made for an earlier night. Holmes looked absolutely woeful in the first Spinks fight.

 

Prime Cooney does not have the footwork or footspeed to catch a guy like Mike Spinks. Spinks is not going to stand in front of him like dino Dennis. He is going to make Gerry hit a moving target.

And you always have the Cooney defense to avoid getting hit and preventing Spinks from winning the rounds. Sure do not see that defense or head movement causing any problems whatsoever.

 

Yeah no point continuing this discussion when someone thinks Holmes is close to his prime vs Spinks obviously you're trolling good day to you.

 

I'm not even going to bother mate this guy is clearly trolling no ifs or buts.

Trying to use examples of 4 fight KO streak to suggest Holmes wasn't past his prime against such names like Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, David Bey, is absolutely laughable.

Trying to suggest the Carl Williams fight is a minority opinion that Williams won it is also very dishonest. Alot of people think Williams won it and Holmes certainly looked his age in that fight.

And then the best part of it all hes trying to say Holmes's legs, speed, reflexes, in the Spinks fights were close to what they were in his prime. And I would think anyone with good eye sight and anyone who's seen a prime Holmes knows that's complete nonsense.

As i said above hes either trolling, doesn't like Holmes, or he needs a thicker set of glasses.

I've learnt my lesson being on this forum for awhile now to know when not to bother interacting with certain posters, or when I get vibe someone is a troll I just instantly put them on ignore i'm not wasting my time.

 

Bey was the third contender behind Thomas and Page.

It is a minority opinion to think Williams deserved to beat Holmes. Most people think Holmes deserved to win.

 

Bey was a 14 fight novice and went on to pretty much lose every single fight after the Holmes fight it was also not a good performance from Holmes.

Realistically Bey was not considered a tough match up for Holmes or considered a threat, that's why Holmes fought the likes of Bey, Frazier, Frank, instead of more dangerous opponents at that time.

Both commentators and pretty much most of the crowd thought Williams beat Holmes, and it has a 53 percent controversy rating on Eye on the ring. And from most of the scorecards I've seen on various boxing forums alot of people seem to think Williams won it.

I myself had the fight a draw but it is a very controversial decision, infact I would say it's even more controversial than the Witherspoon fight.

 

Holmes did not look like a shot fighter against Spinks at all. I think thats a fib that people employ to diminish his losses to a tricky light heavyweight. In those fights he looks just as fast and as trim as he always does. Just watching these fights there is nothing to suggest he has diminished physically in any way other than your narrative that he did. The only thing that you can pick up as visually different about Holmes here vs Holmes Cooney (your example of a prime Holmes) is that Holmes is always being forced to come forward and playing the role of stalker against cutie Michael Spinks. The red pill here is that cutie style will make anybody look bad. Theres nothing else concrete to indicate we are seeing a shot Larry Holmes. Coming in around the same low 220's like he always has since about late 82/early 83 there is zero drop off in either quickness or handspeed and the jab is still snapping out and blinding like it always was. Thats a guy that still looks like he's Larry Holmes. Not somebody that used to be Larry Holmes. What you're scared to admit here is that Holmes doesn't look bad because he's physically shot. He looks bad because he's fighting Michael Spinks. That had a way of making a lot of guys look bad.

 

Bey had beaten Page and was a world level am previously. Go look up the definition of novice. You’re misusing it.

I’m not going to go researching Holmes against Williams. It isn’t a fight that’s regarded as a robbery. It’s regarded as a close win for Holmes.