Is Gerry Cooney delusional or does he have a point?

Spinks>Cooney
Holmes>Cooney

 

Cooney really should have beaten Spinks (who wasn't a particularly good HW)

 

Holmes began to slow down a bit after the Cooney fight. Cooney lacked big fight experience. Perhaps another year, and the fight could have been different.

 

There are no excuses for the beating that Spinks put on Cooney...it should have never happened with a man so much bigger, with all those physical advantages and power...that defeat, that bad whuppin, more than anything else, discredits Cooney with me.

 

Shouldn't the valid excuse have been that Spinks was just a far better fighter?...Same for Holmes, really. At no point was he ever beating Holmes.

 

No it shouldn't Cooney was inactive for years after Holmes, was an alcoholic and out of training. That really wasn't the same man by a long stretch. Holmes I don't think he'd ever beat but its the truth he was rushed and inexperienced when it happened

 

If they built him up, got him some 15rounders under his belt and wait until 85 when Holmes was a faded force, yes he'd seriously have a good shot then. In '83 no, because Holmes would have been up for the fight with all the hype so Cooney wouldnt catch him sleeping

 

Against whom?

 

Perhaps Cooney could have caught Holmes on the slide had he waited a couple of years, although in that case he would have had to face some of the better contenders and title holders of the era and there's no telling whether he would or wouldn't have gotten himself involved with the "drink" by then.

Cooney does not ever beat the Holmes of 1982 though.

 

What I'm saying is that there was no excuse for Cooney getting destroyed like he was against Spinks...losing to a better fighter in Spinks would have been a given, but getting bossed, owned, and obliterated like he was went beyond the pale...a big man like he was..he didn't even have the basic wherewithall to survive a few of Spinks big shots and on the basis of all that bulk he had..those natural physical advantages..to ride out any rough seas and go on to lose a decision. Spinks could probably have beaten an uninspired, lethargic Bonecrusher Smith..in the same way that Marvis Frazier beat Smith...but Bonecrusher sure as hell wouldn't have been there for Spinks to DESTROY him like Spinks did Cooney. Out of sheer pride, a big heavyweight like Cooney should have grasbbed, used his superior bulk and strength to at least deny Spinks a knockout...a humbling, humiliating knockout like the one he suffered.

 

Well, gees, Cobra. You make it sound like Cooney got destroyed or something.

 

Well, the evidence that I gather from the 5th round of his fight with Spinks would pretty much determine that as fact, wouldn't you say?

 

You know me well enough by now, man, come on.

 

As described though, there were several very big extenuating circumstances. Physically, yes, it was a mismatch, and if you put the '82 Cooney in there against Spinks he bombs him out rather easily I think. The truth of the matter though, is that in no way, shape or form was that version of Cooney standing in front of Spinks that night.

I give him a pass for it, and see what he's saying completely. Holmes? No. He never beats him.