Gerry Cooney v Wlad

My posts aren't directed at him and have nothing do with him whatsoever. The man doesn't exist to me yet he sends me unprovoked abuse over and over , going on 2-3 years. He is the one with the problem , not me.
If he doesn't like what i post he should put me on ignore because he will never get a response or conversation from me. His behavior is ban worthy , not mine.

 

I actually thought that post was aimed at me. All im saying is the man should ignore me and stop obsessing over every post i make. I don't get how it should be on me to ignore him , when i already do. By cutting contact with him years ago , I thought he'd go away , but it seemed to have only made him more rabid and obsessed.
Unfortunately i can't do anything about his cowardly abusive behavior , so reporting him is the only option.

 

I think he's a Poe, honestly.

(If you're not familiar with this term it basically means someone who says intentionally absurd **** he doesn't even mean just to stir the pot.)

 

Message received McGrain.

I'll leave mummy's boy alone.

 

A in shape non drug addicted Gerry Cooney stops Wlad in a few rounds. I don't care who won the title or anything else. Just head to head. Wlad couldn't handle pressure. He couldn't handle being hit. Cooney didn't have the best chin but it was better than Wlad's. Cooney would put pressure on Wlad and he would fold quicker than he did against Corrie Sanders.

 

Wlad would spark Lennox right out so no way does Cooney beat him.

 

I gotta disagree. Whether you're an ATG or not, you're gonna be in some tough fights. And Wlad didn't look bad against Peter. He won 9 out of 12 rounds on all 3 scorecards. I don't think that's a bad performance.

If you think Wlad looked bad against Peter, how did Holmes look against Cooney? At the time of stoppage, 2 judges had it 113-111 Holmes and one had it 115-109 Holmes. Cooney was penalized 3 points and he was down in round 2. On the widest scorecard, Holmes won 7 out of 12 rounds. I'm not trying to badmouth Cooney, he was a good boxer, but I think we should stay consistent with our criticism of ATGs. If Wlad looked bad against Peter, I gotta say Holmes looked bad against Cooney. Ali looked bad against Folley and Mildenberger. Frazier looked bad against Mathis. Evander Holyfield looked bad against Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper. Riddick Bowe looked bad against Tyrell Biggs and Herbie Hide. Lennox Lewis looked bad against Frank Bruno and Ray Mercer. George Foreman looked bad against Peralta. Joe Louis looked bad against Al McCoy, Arturo Godoy, and Tommy Farr. I can keep going but I think you get the point. Almost every ATG struggled against an inferior fighter at some point.

"Peter showed that his power is genuine and that he also had a solid chin, taking some big punches from Klitschko, the younger brother of heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko. But Peter also was exposed as a one-dimensional fighter that Klitschko was able to outbox for much of the fight. By the end of the bout, the inexperienced Peter was also even more exhausted than Klitschko as he gasped for air. With a six-inch height advantage quicker hands, Klitschko was able to box, jab and move out of the way of the oncoming rush. But Peter pressured him so much, Peter was bound to land an effective blow." ESPN (Sep 24, 2005).

Lacy and Peter aren't alike at all. Why not compare Peter to Ray Mercer? How did Holyfield and Lewis do against Mercer? Mercer wasn't that much better than Peter. Both had KO power, a granite chin and decent boxing skills. Mercer had faster hands but Peter definitely hit harder.

When Peter fought Klitschko, he was ranked #8 and Wlad was #9.

When Lacy fought Calzaghe, Lacy was ranked #3 and Calzaghe was #1. Calzaghe was the WBO champ with 17 title defences. Lacy was the IBF champ with 4 title defences. Lacy was the betting favourite but Calzaghe was considered the best super middleweight in the world.

After Lacy fought Calzaghe, he was done. Never beat anyone decent after.

After Peter lost to Klitschko, he didn't lose for the next 3 years. He beat James Toney twice and beat WBC champ Oleg Maskaev. James Toney was ranked #3 the first time he fought Peter, and #4 the second time. Maskaev was ranked #3 as well. Those are 3 solid wins. Toney was obese but he was still an elite fighter.
First fight at heavyweight, Toney stopped #4 ranked contender Evander Holyfield. Evander was an 8-5 favourite. He beat WBA champ John Ruiz. Ruiz was ranked #2. Toney beat top heavyweights. Peter beat Toney.

I don't see how Lacy-Calzaghe is similar to Peter-Wlad. Lacy was all hype but Peter wasn't. Lacy lost and disappeared. Peter lost and went on to become the heavyweight champion. He had a short run. It could have been longer if the Klitschkos weren't there. Those were the two fighters to beat Peter in his prime. Eddie Chambers beat Peter too. Wladimir basically ended Peter's career in the rematch.

I think you're wrong about this: "An obese 5'11 James Toney had far less trouble with Peter than Wlad did. Thats reality."

Toney won the first fight imo, 7-5. Peter landed 327 / 772 (42%). Toney 218 / 647 (34%). I thought Toney landed the cleaner punches.
Toney lost the second fight. Peter dropped him with a jab and won at least 10 rounds. Maybe even 11. The first fight was competitive. Even if Toney won, he won 7-5. Wladimir won 9 rounds. Peter landed 100 / 440 (23%) punches against Wladimir. Toney definitely didn't have an easier time against Peter. Neither fighter had an easy time tbh. But if anyone had it easier, it was Wlad. Peter dominated Toney in the rematch. Wlad dominated Peter in the rematch.

Peter beat Toney and Maskaev. Maskaev was the defending WBC champion and Toney was a former WBA champion. Peter also beat decent fighters like Jameel McCline, Yanqui Diaz, Nagy Aguileira, and Jeremy Williams. Aguileira was coming off a 1st round KO over #8 ranked Maskaev. Diaz was coming off a 1st round KO over Juan Carlos Gomez. Gomez was an undefeated cruiserweight champion (WBC) with 10 title defences. And Peter had more than just a resume. He scored highlight reel knockouts against credible opponents. His knockout over Jeremy Williams was one of the most brutal in heavyweight history.

It's funny that you think Peter never beat anyone noteworthy. Cooney's resume is pretty underwhelming too. Ken Norton was totally washed up when Cooney got him. Norton was ranked #10 in a shallow division. Trevor Berbick was ranked #7. Marty Monroe was #6. That should tell you something. Cooney also beat washed up Lyle and Young. Cooney's best win is Norton (#10 ranked heavyweight). He never beat anyone else in the top 10. Norton was #10 contender, not a top 10 heavyweight (#11 to be precise). And it's not like Cooney fought in the golden era. Peter has a better resume than Cooney. He won a world title and he beat world champions. It's funny how everyone is hanging on to this fight. Wlad fought Sam Peter in September 2005. Over the next 10 years, Wlad went 19-0 in title fights and there wasn't a single fight where Wlad looked "bad". He beat elite heavyweights like Byrd, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Haye, Povetkin, Chambers, and Pulev. None of these fights were close. Wlad dominated everyone he fought during those 10 years. To me, Wlad's reign is no different from Holmes. Similar level of opposition and both were dominant champions.

 

Asskicking post.

 

Holmes vs Cooney and WK vs Peters aren't comparable in any way. Did you even watch these fights?

Homles -Cooney is a classic fight in which Larry put forward a display of tactful pure boxing. It was competitive , but Holmes didn't look bad , he looked good breaking down a much bigger guy who had a high work-rate and dangerous combinations.

WK vs Sam Peter was an ugly cheat fest from start to finish. Wlad was lucky to get the win , it should have been a draw if not an outright disqualification loss. Im not the only one who thinks that , Harlod Ledderman was calling for Wlad to be DQ'd between rounds.
There was no class on display in that fight like there was in Larrys fight. His jab and right cross hitting home while on the backfoot is as good as boxing gets.

Lacy and Peter were both straight forward marching plodders who threw telegraphed hooks. Both of them were on the same level skill-wise.
Mercer an Olympic gold medals had much better fundamentals than Peter.
Peter fell off balance throwing jabs. He was useless.

Neither did Peter . He fought James Toney twice cos he lost the first one. Toney wasn't a HW , let alone an elite one. Beating a near 40 y/o obese former MW isn't a good win for a top 5 ranked HW. ANY Hw should be fully expected to beat an over weight former MW.
But that was the standard during the era Peter fought in as Toney would not be top 10 today , never mind top 5.

You have Oleg who was stopped in the first round by Naggy Agleria shortly after his loss to Peter. Average win. Later you criticize Cooneys opponents , but a win over past prime Young is better than a win over past prime Oleg.
Performance counts as well. Beside his loss to Shavers as a novice , Young never got battered like he did against Cooney did , not before or after.

No , Toney comfortably outboxed Peter in a calm and collected state. He was relaxed and composed whereas Wlad was completely panic stricken and spent the majority of the fight running away and /or holding on for dear life.
Peter was catching WK around the back of the head because Wlad was literally turning his back and running away.
Toney with none of Wlads physical advantages , was confident enough and calm enough to lay on the ropes and successfully counter punch and outbox Peter.
So no , what you just said is completely and demonstrably inaccurate. Wlads glaring weaknesses and deficiency in all time great skill was blatantly shown up in his two fights with Peter.
Cooney was a better and bigger than Peter , so why should Wlad be able to comfortably beat Cooney?

 

No , actually Wlad looked bad more times than he looked good. As i said , performance counts and Holmes visibly looked like a true ATG , while Wlad produced circus performances against the likes of Brock , Peter , Thompson , Mormeck and Povetkin.
A great champ should look good in a weak era , not bad.

Compare Larrys masterful display against Shavers to Wlads against Povetkin. He shouldn't have even won against Povetkin , it should have been a DQ loss and Povetkin is Wlads best win.
Ftr , im not arguing Cooney beats Wlad. I could see Wlad coming through in a life and death struggle. But a Wlad loss can't be ruled out as his success was mostly based on being able to shut guys sown with excessive clinching , and Cooney had a very dangerous left hook on the inside which if landed to Wlad body , could see him collapse like he did in the Brewster fight.
Two left hooks by Brewster to the body and head seemed to destroy Wlad.