Foreman versión of lyle vs peak ****ey!!

I've always said you can't prop up a fighter based on tough 'losses' IMO. And Ellis and Bonavena were past it AND fighting in Denver and...Lyle may have been another Shavers victim had the LH landed earlier in round 2...my $0.02

 

Yes but you can't prop Cooney up on much of anything. At least Lyle beat a couple of genuine top 10 contenders.

I do agree about losses and am very wary of them myself at times unless the fighter is well proven around them. He has better wins and some better losses. He showed real heart in the Foreman war and i could never see Gerry doing similar. Tho lucky the round finished right after the Shavers hook from hell he none the less came back and pulled it out.

At the end of the day Lyle is more proven than Cooney. You can debate for either but Lyle's proven heart and wins over better guys pips it for me.

 

It depends on the context, i.e. what you're propping said fighter up against, surely?

There are such results, which can be counted as quality losses, if against the right level of opposition. If nothing else, these cases allow one to see what a fighter was made of, at a given stage in their careers. The same principle is applied to the quality of a win all the time, is it not? How much credit does Cooney really get for beating a shot-to-oblivion Lyle?

We have little to go on with Cooney, who represents untapped potential (maybe?). At least with Lyle we can hazard that, if he were somewhere near his best, he'd have been far less likely to simply folder under Cooney's best weaponry.

Lyle was 39 years old, by that point. Four years earlier, he was taking and giving as good as he got, from one of the biggest punchers in the sport.

 

Lyle was not 37.he was 39 ignorant

 

But he went into boxing late and only 3 years earlier seemed to still be prime, he was almost 35 when he faced Foreman

 

I'll give you that MM