Frazier '71 vrs. Cooney '81

Ken Norton was pushing 40 and has never performed well against any puncher. His chin doesn't hold up. 80% KO ratio? What's your point? Vitali Klitschko has a 92 or 93 percent KO ratio, not one KO is of a notable opponent. Simply put, Prime Frazier is not 40 old Ken Norton.

Ali for starters, was considered a big man in his day. Buster Mathis was considerably bigger and was undefeated.

Again, Size means nothing. If you studied the sport; you would see countless examples of this addage.

 

Again, Size means nothing. If you studied the sport; you would see countless examples of this addage.[/quote]

Yeah.....and the sad thing you also see numerous examples of the little guy being bounced off the floor like a basketball.

 

That was more of a styles clash than anything. If you ask posters, many would say that Tyson does the same thing despite being considerably smaller than Foreman.

 

Tyson is bigger and much more powerful than Frazier.

I like Joe......but numerous guys hurt Joe early, or put him on the floor.

Even cruiserweight Terry Daniels hurt him with a right hand.

Frazier wouldn't be able to box against Cooney...so he has to come forward.

 

Tyson is heavier than Frazier but overall, is not bigger. My point is that Foreman massacred Frazier not because of size, but because of styles.

Joe is a slow starter. How many have finished him?

The Daniels fight was after Ali in 1972 atsch We are talking about a prime Frazier in 1971. After 1971, Frazier was never the same as it showed in the Daniels fight and others.

And your point? Cooney is not a durable fighter. He was KO'd by Holmes who is an ATG, but not known for his power. The only time Frazier was KO'd was against Foreman (the hardest puncher in HW history) and Ali (Which was a corner stoppage, no knockdowns were distributed in that fight). Bonavena dropped him twice but Frazier was green, he only had year's worth of experience and later beat Bonavena more convincingly in 1968.

 

Although Frazier looks like the winner on the surface, it doesn't necessarily have to play out that way. Joe fought only one world class puncher in his career, and was destroyed by him early. Granted the one puncher in reference was George Foreman, and the fight took place in 1973, not 1971. But nevertheless, Frazier never showed that he could beat a truly dangerous hitter who also started quickly and had a collosal size advantage over him.. For whatever its worth, he was also decked twice by Oscar Bonavena who was no where near in Cooney's league in terms of size, power or formidability in the early rounds.

I'll go with Joe, but I think too many people are a bit hasty to write this one off as a mismatch.

 

How does a sustained beating that resulted in a stoppage over 13 rounds, ( many of which Cooney was winning ), have to do with being " knocked out " ? And what does Holmes have to do with Frazier anyway? If anything Frazier was better suited for Cooney than a guy like Holmes was...

And in truth, the only real puncher he ever fought....

Subject to debate.

 

Gerry did not have the physical strength to match his size. Nor was his hand speed a match for Joe's. Cooney's body represented a huge target for anybody looking to bore his way inside. Frazier would be the one coming forward here, slipping and ducking along the way. (Gerry's accuracy was not the greatest when faced with a moving target.)

Joe would have him gone sometime in the middle rounds.

 

Possibly, but I think Joe might be apt to catching a few of those left uppercuts on the way in, and that could be potentially dangerous...

 

Frazier by mid round stoppage. Cooney never proved he could beat a live quality opponent, his chin was suspect, and (most damning of all) his defense fell apart when he was hurt or under pressure.

 

Okay, fair enough. We were talking durability. My example was bad but Cooney is not as durable as Frazier. Durability is a key element in this match-up especially.

Cooney is not in Foreman's league in terms of punching power.

Doesn't discredit the fact that Foreman is ONE of the hardest punchers in history and is leagues above Cooney in that department.

 

When the hell did Cooney ever "trade" with anyone??

Anytime someone opened up on him, he either fell over or just covered up and waited for the guy to stop punching.

The guy couldn't even handle Spinks' power, and yet he's somehow going to successfully "trade" with Frazier?? atsch

 

Do you think if Norton was any younger he would have beat Cooney ? He was destroyed in his career, but it was usually against huge punchers like Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney. Cooney was always seen as a big puncher as a professional and as an amateur. I never said he was the hardest heavyweight puncher ever. But, he was a very hard puncher, and he had a good KO percentage to back it up, although most of the names on his record were not big names.

Neither of them were as big as Cooney, and neither had power to go along with their big size and reach advantage.

Size can be a useful tool, and pretty much everyone knows that. If you can use your reach advantage to land on an opponent first, muscle him around, and lean on him, size is useful. We saw a lot of that in the Foreman fight.

 

Exactly, I've said the same thing myself. Young was shot, Norton's chin was gone(as the LeDoux fight showed), and Lyle had already been blasted out by Lynn Ball. Every one of those fighters had been acknowledged as faded and/or washed up before Cooney even entered the picture.

Cooney's people were leery of taking a chance against someone even as dangerous as Mike Weaver - despite the fact that Weaver was a slow starter with a suspect chin. They probably knew if Weaver managed to survive the early rounds, then he stood a good chance of coming on strong and exposing their man later in the fight, and costing them the big payday against Holmes.

 

Cooney didn't knock out Young. He stopped him on cuts. While it's true that Cooney won the match, Young won the event.