These are all fair points. I'll be interested to see if Ruiz Jr can mount any kind of comeback and reap some further success. I don't rate either Parker or Joshua particularly highly, at the moment - an unpopular view, no doubt - but, time will tell. For now and from what information I am looking at, Cooney is still in with a shot against any of these guys.
I bet big on Cooney, but if Ruiz can have a good night against Joshua he can have an even better one against Cooney, if the stars align properly. (I presume no one thinks Cooney is a better fighter than Joshua or has some overwhelming style advantage that Joshua doesn't.)
There are so many holes in this post... First of all simplifying Michael spinks as a “ blown up “ light heavy hardly begins to describe him. He was undefeated, never been floored, an Olympic gold medalist and one of the greatest light heavys of all time. He was 6’2” 208 lbs at the time of the Cooney fight and holding the linear heavyweight title. He was certainly a tougher fight than facing Sam Peter. And the simple fact of the matter is Gerry Cooney wasn’t in shape. Comparing him to other fighters who had better comebacks doesn’t get to the root of the issue
Vitali was -175 to beat Peter Cooney was an 8/5 favorite to beat Spinks. What's interesting to me is that you seem to know everything in hindsight.
His lack of defense and inability to overcome adversity, mainly, which he never disproved at his absolute peak either.
Tell that to a prime Holmes who battled life and death with him, when Cooney was actually a serious contender unlike the shell that Spinks fought
LMAO! WHAT A NUTHUGGER! HE DID NOT FIGHT LIFE & DEATH WITH HIM. IT WAS EASY HIGHWAY. YOU COONEY LOONIES ARE A STORY ONTO YOURSELVES! LMAO! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Do you mean Norton, Weaver or Witherspoon? Cooney did not remotely take Holmes to life or death. Holmes had far less comfortable fights.
"Life and death" as of this thread. Maybe you're confusing showing heart with defense and overcoming adversity.
okay. If you think that there was no difference between the Cooney of 1982 and 1987 and that inactivity makes no difference then go with it.
Yeah - the Cooney of '82 is a different fighter than the one, who was sporadically dragged out of a bar to bring a name to an event.
You’re just deflecting. He never overcame adversity or showed great defense at his best. Michael always would’ve beaten him too.