It's rather hard to judge him, because he had a few short, spectacular, devastating knockouts, then a losing effort against the champion Larry Holmes, and seemed to be never the same after that. Boxing ability: He lacks here. He totally neglected his jab in the Holmes fight and was only looking for that one big shot to end things. Stupid strategy. He had the size and talent to have a good jab and could've used to to create openings as well as winning same rounds. I think this is one of his biggest weaknesses. Power: No question here, he has devastating power. Seemed to be mostly the left hook, although i think it was a right hand that made Norton do his usual freezing move. Chin: I think his chin is a lot weaker than given credit for. His first fight when he really caught some shots against a relatively light-hitting Holmes, he was down already by the first right hand and stunned a few other times. It should be noted that his chin wasn't the reason he lost that fight, though. But Spinks also blew him out relatively easy, who is no big hitter at heavyweight either. I think being focused, preparation, confidence and motivated are all important factors here: and Cooney lacks all of them. More than half of the knockouts occur because a fighter is mentally beaten, not knocked out. Cooney was one of those, which brings me to the next point. Mentality: Cooney had low self-esteem and this derailed his career. He did fought brave against Holmes but at the same time, he resorted to fouling when things weren't going his way. Stamina: Again, he has only gone once past 8 rounds so it's hard to judge here. He wasn't overly active past the 10th but the amount of punches he took also took a lot out of him. I think he was the Michael Grant of the 80's. While he could be dangerous, he was quite limited, safely managed and way over-hyped.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
IMO Grant was a good example, don´t forget Michael was also pretty good, you sound like he was a bum. Cooney had some skills, especially for a man of his size, power of course, no discussion here, but his stamina wasn´t also that good, his chin was at the best mediocre, so IMO he wasn´t that special...
I think Cooney was one of the most mismanaged fighters of recent times. The "wacko twins" were only interested in getting the "white hope" title shot with 0 in the lost column. Cooney was a good 18 months or 2 years away from a realistic title shot even at that he didn't do too badly. Interesting, I've heard that he was a natural lefthander but switched over. Wonder if that made him more awkward.
Grant was not that good at all, and was way over-hyped. If I'm not miistaken, he's one of these guys who took up boxing real late and didn't have much of an amateur career. As was said, Cooney was a top amateur, and a much better fighter than Grant. All Grant had was size. As soon as he faced decent fighters, he began to have problems. At least Cooney destroyed decent, if faded, fighters like Lyle and Norton. And his performance against Holmes is FAR better than Grant's against Lewis. There's no comparision between these two fighters. Cooney was MUCH better.
First of all, I wonder if Mike Jones and Dennis Rappoport should be in the IBHOF for the snowjob they pulled on the public, nailing down that huge payoff for Cooney without him having the resume to justify it. Holmes made the observation that Gerry's jaw was fine, but that if he was hit on the temple, "He wobbles like a duck." (That he was so readily able to pinpoint that weakness of Cooney's so quickly was one of the details which gave away the realization that Larry was carrying him.) I'm completely satisfied that Gerry's low blows were accidental. He banked everything on his hook downstairs. There is a clip (probably floating around on youtube) which shows Cooney doubling up on his jab. What he needed to do was deploy his jab continually (and his jab was a legitimate power weapon), as his double jab was his most effective legal manuever of the match. He was never particularly good with his right to the head, but he dug it very well into the body. For Holmes, Cooney needed to take a page out of Ingo's guide to dethroning Patterson. Ingo messed Floyd up with an unexpected jab, and diversionary hooks, and it was out of that confusion that he was able to set up his "Hammer of Thor." Gerry should have been doubling or even tripling up on his jab continually, following it with rights digging into the chest. He ought to have held way back on the left hook to the labonza, triggering it ONLY if a clear opening presented itself. Against Larry, he continually tried forcing it in, and he just didn't have the speed to carry it off. With his reach, his slow but hard jab might have posed some problems for Holmes. Jimmy Young was a good experience for him. He needed light hitting opponents who were tough enough to extend him the distance, but not beat him on the scorecards. Some good candidiates might have been Leroy Jones, George Chaplin (before Holmes, not two years later), perhaps Ocasio, or even Eddie "The Animal" Lopez in a ten round return go. He desperately needed to know that he could handle a ten or twelve round distance for necessary confidence going in against Holmes. (I think Cobb would have walked through everything Gerry had, which would have messed him up mentally, so it's just as well they didn't meet.) Cooney admitted after Holmes that he had substantial doubts about whether he could handle the championship distance, so if he'd been extended he would have performed with far greater self-assurance. Could Gerry have ever beaten Holmes? No, but he might have been able to parlay a good performance against Larry into a potentially successful WBA HW title shot, as that was a merry-go-round while Larry steadily defended his belt.
Was it really, though? Holmes was never the fighter that would blow you out of there. Holmes boxed a careful fight behind the jab; even after the early knockdown he did nothing. It's been quite a while since i've seen it but i can't remember Cooney winning more than a few of the 13 rounds. He put on a good showing but Holmes was clearly the better man. The only succes he had was landing two hard left hooks at the end of the 4th. Grant, against Lewis, decided to go for broke early which is a stupid thing against one of the hardest punchers ever, but then again, it was his only chance of winning the fight. Grant landed a hard right hand early but it was a one-sided slaughter from there on. If Holmes had Lewis' power and agression, perhaps Holmes-Cooney would've only lasted a few rounds, too. He already had him down after all. Cooney has wins over Lyle and Norton who were both at the end of their careers, but Grant has a win over Golota. Golota at that point completely destroyed Bowe twice while getting himself disqualified and was blown out by Lewis in one. A better win than two spent forces, one of which always lost to punchesr. Simply put, Golota was a top10 ranked contender, Lyle and Norton weren't.
and lets be real though... the golota grant fight was more golota distructing then it was grant having a great night ... i wouldnt call getting beating from ring post to ring post for several rounds then having the nutcase opponet quit a better win then a prospect going in there and destroying two faded heavyweights
I don't think that too many heavyweights could have done to Lyle, Norton and Young what Gerry did to them in 1980-81. What's more is that he had additional wins against John Denis, Eddie Lopez and a few other tough Journeyman/fringes that weren't all that bad. I don't know much about Grant, but from the looks of it, his record isn't any less padded than Cooney's. What's more, Grant lost in one round to Jameel Mccline, who was hardly the calibur of Michael Spinks or George Foreman, and neither was Dominick Guinn for that Matter. I also disagree with your claim that Grant getting blasted out in two rounds by Lewis was a better performance for Grant than Cooney losing in 13 rounds to a prime Holmes. It takes a lot more for a fighter to gut it out for 13 rounds in a championship fight, then for a guy to get his ass handed to him in a mere 2.
Well, having lived through both eras I can tell you that Cooney was definitely a better fighter than Michael Grant, who I called pretty early as a guy who was not at all the "champ in waiting" that the boxing press was hyping him as. His win over Golota was FAR more a case of Golota completely self-desructing, as he often did, in a fight he was well on his way to winning - than it was a demonstration of Grant's superiority. Golota beat himself far more than Grant did in that fight. The way I see it is this - the issue with Grant is that he was over-hyped,, and really not that good. The issue with Cooney is that he was very poorly managed, and consequently when thrown in the deep water with Holmes he was overwhelmed, and it ruined him, imo. I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney. But Cooney's managers took the quick route to the easy money.
Good post,Cooney lacked confidence ,some wins over durable light hitters that took him into deeper water than the "usual suspects and "way over the hill gang" would have groomed him better ,his head movement was next to nonexistant,and he looked in trouble any time a shot to the head landed ,but he fought a game fight against Holmes ,he just wasnt ready for it,I thinkVallee coddled him too much ,Rappa port might be whacko ,but Mike Smith,his other manager was a good guy,and did a good job with Billy Costello,imo.
I agreed with most of what you said in the rest of your post, but I'm not so sure Weaver would have been the path of least resistance for Cooney either. It's like you already said. Cooney was terribly managed, very inexperienced and had not been tested in the heat of battle. By 1981, Mike Weaver was a proven warrior by all accounts. He had nearly beaten Holmes and had Wins over guys like Tate, Coetzee and a few others. I think they're may have been a reason why Rappaport went for the money with the Holmes fight and forgot about Weaver. Had Gerry fought Hercules, he might have lost in bad fashion destroying any chance of fighting Holmes, and losing a fortune in the process. That said, I will agree however that Cooney should have faced some better trialhoarses and middle of the road challengers.
Cooney was hyped every bit as much as Grant was. About Golota "self-destructing", that's one way to put it. Another one is that Grant lost the earlier rounds but came on from round 8 and constistently starting to land hard right hands. In the 10th he knocked Golota down with one, who had seen enough and didn't respond when the referee asked him if he wanted to continue. Again, Golota was top10 ranked contender, none of Cooney's beaten opponents were. Well, a guy called "Lynn Ball" knocked Lyle out in 2 rounds before Cooney did, Young lost to basically everyone post-79 and Norton got iced by Shavers who is pretty limited himself. So, your statement that "not many other people could have done that to them" is incorrect. I don't know if you've seen the fight, but Grant broke his ankle against McCline and quit because of that. I thought the fight was later changed to a NC after going to court,but maybe i'm confused with Kirk Johnson. As for Foreman and Spinks, they are big names on paper, but Spinks was a pretty average heavyweight (every single of Tysons opponents gave him a better fight than Spinks did and he should've lost the second one with Holmes), and Foreman in his comeback never stopped anyone of note early,so that should tell you something. I don't really hold that loss against Cooney though, as he'd been coked up for years and was basically a big name to hype Foreman up.
Cooney was a good fighter but nothing too special. He could get you out of there with his left hook and he was agressive, but his chin was average and he didn't have confidence. Cooney is in Mike Weavers league and had he stayed focused would of had similar careers.
