Gerry Cooney v Tyrell Biggs

There is some truth to the notion that Gerry Cooney was overhyped, overrated and perhaps even over protected. But he is also unfairly criticized for his past prime losses and unduly accused of facing weak opposition. While its true that Ken Norton, Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young were past their primes, perhaps even shot, you'd still be hard pressed to find more than perhaps 8 or 9 guys in the heavyweight division in 1980 who were better than those 3. Especially if we exclude Larry Holmes and Mike Weaver who were title holders and not contenders. Furthermore you'd have an even harder time finding guys who would have done to those men what Gerry did. In addition fighters like Phil Brown, Eddie Gregg, George Chaplin, Dino Denis, and Eddie Lopez weren't exactly slouches either, yet again they were destroyed... What Cooney basically has are emphatic wins over semi-decent opposition and a competitive losing effort to an all time great.. Nothing wrong with that, but what's missing is the " middle. " We never saw him beat an opponent who fell somewhere in between a past prime Jimmy Young and a peak Larry Holmes.. A match with Trevor Berbick or Gerrie Coetzee circa 1981 might have answered some questions.

 

1987 cooney was not exactly vintage but then Biggs is never going to be a confident pick against a big heavy with power . Yes Biggs lacked power but 87 cooney lacked a lot too focus, desire , conditioning . I am going for this sorry version of cooney however purely on the basis even this version would have sufficient power to hurt Biggs . Biggs ahead on PTS may well hang around long enough to get caught and hurt mid pita pat flurry enough to get stopped around the 6th

 

You basically just described comeback George Foreman here! :yep

 

Foreman did act white...:deal

 

I think Biggs beats him. by decision or knockout. Cooney was always a little overrated.

 

Intersting fight. It would have been a real nice fight back in 87 with the winner getting big opportunities and the loser falling down the ladder a ton.

Say if Tyrell wins this, he does better with that experience going into the Tyson bout. He might do better and give a better account of himself, but he still won't win it. But confidence after beating a Cooney might help him last a few more rounds. Cooney would have been a ko1 victim no matter what.

I tend to go with the undefeated guy and youth in these crossroad type fights. It wasn't as if Cooney's edge in experience was something I see him drawing on to pull out a victory anyway. Shaky vote for Tyrell, via decision.

I think that mobility and height/upright style keeps Tyrell circling and Benton would have him moving away from Cooney's left hook. After 4 or 5 rounds, I think the 87 version of Cooney has his parachute open and it's all downhill. He wouldn't win the second half of a bout against very many ranked fighters in 1987, come to think of it.

But it sure is a tightrope act for Biggs early. And he'd better avoid this guy's left hand a lot better than he avoided Bey's. I just think they thought--like everyone--Bey was an easy fight & he just didn't respect the guy going in. He'd have to respect Cooney early.

Given the management of both fighters, I can certainly see why the fight was never made. Too big of a career killer for the loser. Unfortunately, we the diehard boxing fans are the one's that suffered.

 

Excellent post.

I think the lack of "middle" opposition that Mr Magoo refers to was probably down to his management not wanting to "risk" their investment after the Norton fight & before the Holmes fight, & the fact that Cooney appear to suffer considerable trauma (maybe actual depression?) after the Holmes loss.

I always felt that the logical step pre-Holmes would have been for Cooney to have a couple more fights including perhaps Weaver with the hope of Holmes-Cooney being an even bigger unification fight; Cooney would have been more battle hardened & seasoned for Holmes.

Perhaps Cooney's management didn't believe Gerry was capable of winning those kind of fights though & just went for the Holmes fight while the money was there...we can only speculate...

 

Agree with what you're saying. Gerry Cooney was actually #1 for Mike Weaver's WBA title in 1981 and his people were negotiating a fight.. But Bob Arum convinced the WBA to allow Weaver to defend against #4 ranked James Tillis instead. Given that Cooney was the much bigger draw and Weaver's mandatory one might think that Arum had reservations about risking Weaver's title more so than Cooney's team fearing the tainting of their investment. This is all speculation of course, but yes I agree. Cooney was kept too inactive during the best years of his prime and needed to be tested more. Fortunately for him, he left boxing a wealthy and well liked man with a good family and his health in tact.. I wouldn't trade those things in exchange for a great legacy.

 

Thank you sir. Pleasure to have you here as well. :good

 

Cooney was over protected by managers Rappaport and Jones.

He was an average fighter with a potent left hook but could have been much better had his advisors built him up properly and fought worthwhile opponents who tested him rather than tomato cans or over the hill heavies.

That does not absolve Cooney from taking blame though. he could call his shots and chose to be passive and have long periods of inactivity due to some heavy duty partying and being chicken ****.

PS...Quick Tillis pre Tyson fight would have beaten gentleman Gerry

 

Gerry was no bum, had some good wins. Gutless? Did well against Larry, destroyed some others, went all out against Foreman. That's not gutless! But his team did steer him towards the pot of gold, instead of to heavyweight greatness I feel. But, he did makes tons of money, and he does have his health. Losing to Spinks, Holmes and Foreman is no disgrace, and he did good against Holmes. I don't think it was Gerrie's idea to play it safe, I think that was his teams idea. That guy would have a good shot at beating anybody he stepped in the ring with.

 

If Biggs utilizes his boxing ability, he wins an easy UD, but in a slugfest, Gerry would lay him flat within 3 rounds.

 

He lasted around 7 with a PEAK tyson but you say that a rusty 87cooney would get him in a single round? you are the classic person here who dont know what are talking about, go back and comment. In a tennis forum