Who takes this one? I'm going with Buster. Why? I think Buster's jab with his combo work is enough to outwork Cooney.
The win against Tyson was rare for Douglas. He rarely beat that top level. If you eliminate that win ( which was great stylistically in Douglas' favor) Cooney would be favored to win. I pick Cooney by early stoppage. Douglas was overrated on his great win over Mike Tyson. But the rest of his career was mediocre. Cooney on the other hand I think was underrated because he lost to Larry and busted up. I think had Cooney fought on he might have done well enough, but he would always lose to guys like Witherspoon and Tyson. I remember a fight on TV in the mid- 1980's where Cooney fought Gregg at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. So he fought, but he never went up in opposition.
What? Seriously, that is illogical to 'ignore' certain evidence. Buster proved himself against a lesser Tyson, but a Tyson none the less. Yeah, it was rare for him to perform like that. However, the single fact that he was capable of performing at that level compared to Cooney who failed to perform at that level proves a lot more. Cooney could not perform against people who could actually bring something to the table. His record proves it. As for your argument, use real evidence. Don't go fabricating situations in which you create a chance for Cooney. He never really had one.
cooney has a left hook and a decent size advantage thats ALL i feel he has over douglas, buster has a great jab, the tyson fight didn't have to prove that, he knocked somebody out with his jab and dropped brian scott with it...i think he started to ko with it, bigcat i think knows. he has mobilty which would leave a left hooker in alot of trouble for starters, also a generous reach and a dynamite 1-2. people say buster is overated because he beat tyson, but had he not won the fight i would bet there would be a few here saying he had one of the best jabs in the game. douglas shutout then maybe a tko.
I love to pick the better technician, but it doesn't always work out that way. Cooney made it to the 13th against Holmes. Cooney would be there for a while against Douglas. It is also important to note that Douglas quit while leading against Tucker. In Douglas' finest performane, against Tyson, he handled being dropped very well. Douglas came out to claim the next round. That was the only adversity he faced from Tyson. Cooney would be a different fight. Cooney would be the larger man, and would try to impose his size and power. Douglas would win the first half of the fight, but would fold under Cooney's pressure. Cooney tko 10.
Assuming both guys are at their peak and they fight their best, it's a toss up. It would boil down to whichever boxer is having the better day. Overall, I'm going with Buster, based on his performance against Tyson. Cooney never performed on the same level that Buster did that night. On the other hand, the Buster Douglas who was beaten by Tucker and Holyfield would probably be quickly kayoed by Cooney.
That's my opinion. I asked the question to see what other people think. You know, engage people in online conversation on a message board. See how pointless I just made your question? I'll also refrain from putting up an emoticon.
I like your theory except for the supposed information that Larry Holmes tried to carry Cooney. This way Cooney stays in the limelight, and Holmes has a true rival to rematch. It never really happened because Larry set his "low" standard too high. Cooney never could match up on a true competitive level. Also, Gerry Cooney was a taller fighter, but Buster Douglas had a greater reach. Another point worth mentioning; if Cooney couldn't handle a straight forward powerful jab in Holmes, how can he handle a constant jab from other angles in Buster? Then add mobile combo work against Cooney's stiff footwork. A small short Michael Spinks was able to outhustle and embarass a post-Holmes Cooney. Spinks had 76" against Cooney's 81". I like Cooney, but I just can't see him winning this matchup. He was a game fighter, but he just couldn't cut it at a higher performance level. At least Douglas did that once. He (Buster) even had flashes of excellence in his match against Tony Tucker, however, he did balance it out with quitting. One judge even had it in Douglas' favor at the time of his 'unraveling' around the 10th round. The other had a draw, and the third judge had it for Tucker. A motivated Douglas would be able to keep up, and take the desicion if he has to.
I think the real answer is that you were looking for support from others to validate your view. Those who do not provide such support however, are being lashed at.
Although you picked Buster, the above statement was primarily the reason why I went with Cooney. While Gerry never performed to the level that Douglas did that evening against Tyson, we have to consider that a single nights work hardly sums up an entire career. As much as we have to look at Douglas's win over Tyson, the Ferguson, Tucker, Holyfield, and White matches are just as pertinant, and in fact are probably more acccurate representations of Douglas. The reason some are so skeptical of Cooney is because they see a similar style in Douglas that existed in Larry Holmes. My problem with the comparison is that Holmes was in a higher class than any version of Douglas was, and Cooney battled him hard for 13 rounds before folding. I have my doubts about Douglas going 13 rounds with anybody let alone a larger, more aggressive guy who outreached him and could punch. Its possible that a fully motivated Douglas could have taken a close decision over Cooney. But, my bet is that 98% of the time, Gerry knocks him out.
The Buster that fought Tyson was pretty much a flash in the pan...he folded against Tucker and Holyfield as soon as the going got tough. Depended on when he fought Cooney and if Gerry got off 1st and with Hard shots, how long Buster would stay in there. In the Tyson fight Buster was either at his very best or Tyson was at his worst but that was not Buster Douglas as a whole picture. I give Cooney the chance for an earlier KO but the 1 fight wonder ( Tyson Buster would beat him
I meant what I said earlier. I'm curious about what others think. I'm not concerned about my opinion being validated, I already know what I feel is true. I'm lashing out at somebody who answered ridiculously, rather then simply providing me an answer. I'd expect that kind of silliness from the general forum.
You are right in the fact that the other fights in Buster's career create a more stereotypical representation, however, I'm looking for the best representation. He set a high level of performance in his fight against Mike Tyson. I am arguing that the best version of Buster Douglas can take out the best version of Gerry Cooney. The best version of Buster only applies. There are other, worser versions of Buster that you mentioned. They are not the best version of Buster, and they don't apply. So, it's the Buster that fought a weakened Mike Tyson against the Gerry Cooney that fought Larry Holmes. Not the Buster that fought Mike White or Mike Williams for that matter. Also, I disagree that Cooney survived 13 rounds with Larry Holmes. I think that Larry carried Cooney in hopes of a rematch or creating a rival. There was some mention of that not too long ago, and I need to pull that source back up again. He could have taken him out earlier. Here's something I haven't mentioned yet either, Cooney's handlers were masters in the hype game. Good tricky promoters with a whack job kind of spin. They really had an angle to create the position that Cooney was a greater fighter then he appeared to be. Getting wins over former (much older) talent looks good, i.e. Norton, Lyle, and Young.