Gerry Cooney vs Gerrie Coetzee

I can still suppose that he at least sparred 4d fight , can't I ?
So he was supposed 2 still know how 2 punch and how 2 not take it full force if not 2 avoid it .
How many big massive superheavies would have gotten that much humiliated by a similarly aged , quite disabled (hence his puzzling "awkwardness") , shorter , much much lighter former lightheavy ?

 

HAS THIS POST not MENTIONED GERRIE BREAKING HIS HANDS
LIKE EVERY TIME HE THROUGH A PUNCH
EITHER SPARING OR ACTUAL FIGHTING??

 

No, because that would be irrelevant.

 

Where do i start.

Cooney was one of these fighters that was never the same again as soon as he had been beaten. Heck, he barely ever fought again. History is littered with other such fighters. Going into the Holmes fight he had a completely different mindset, a confident aggressive one. He truly believed he would win. After the loss he spiralled into depression and was addicted to booze and drugs for quite some time.

What disability did Foreman have, and why was he allowed to fight with it, winning the crown 4 years after the Cooney fight. Trying to remember.

You've found reason and excuses (valid of course, which is my point) with ease for Coetzee yet hang the same version of Cooney out to dry.

Cooney himself says his best version was t vs Norton, believing nobody would have beat him that night. Obviously some would have, but the mindset and confidence is the key - this is peak Cooney right there.

Peak Coetzee? Hard to pick out. Many would automatically go for the Coetzee of the Dokes fight, and tho Dokes was said to be high at the time i'd be inclined to agree. He was coming off a really good showing against the very good Thomas. He gassed allowing Thomas to rally - a tale of two halves that one. He actually fought well vs Page who was actually switched on and soaked up some tremendous right hands that would have finished many others before leaving Gerrie prone.

Great matchup, both have big ko power.

 

Good 2 know . So Coetzee would have been better if it wasn't 4 it .
In my pre edited post I thought SLAKKA meant Cooney . My mistake .


remark : that was my original post when i thought he meant Cooney :
So maybe that's y he was **** . Good 2 know it and it does make it easier 2 understand now .

 

Foreman couldn't sit in his corner between rds because he couldn't get up . Is this enough of a disability 4 a man who makes his earnings out of fighting other men ?
And b4 any1 starts 2 overrate Foreman because of it , Foreman was a protected fighter during his comeback .

I've already explained d differences between Coetzee and Cooney .
Coetzee's excuse vs Barkley was/is valid .
edit : Cooney had no excuses , he simply was total **** , even if a big **** .

What a performance , hitting Norton full force after he went down .
Really no1 (that would have gone down) would have beaten him that night .

 

I'm speechless

 

red cobra the brittle tater chip hands of Coetzee are as relevant a comment as one could make when evaluating him as a fighter and i spoke to Jackie McCoy in re this topic.
You just got put in your place in re Tunney vs Conn
Are you a glutton for punishment yourself?

 

Yeah sure... I'm sure he drove to the gym a few times within that five year period threw on the gloves and sparred a few rounds, and that's exactly why he should have beaten spinks, right?

 

i've taken no punishment from you SLAKKA..I'm very familiar with the hand problems of Coetzee...brittle hands are a common affliction of some very great fighters..not just Coetzee, hardly an insurmountable deficit..anyway, his hands weren't as brittle as Cooney's chin. Cooney feasted on old, past it guys like Norton, Lyle and Young...and when he upped his opposition to guys like Holmes, Spinks and Foreman, he got that brittle chin shattered. You lose this one son..you just don't realize it.

 

It was inexcusable for a big guy like Cooney to get the **** beat out of him the way he did vs Spinks...not inexcuseable to lose to Spinks..but to be so cruelly battered and owned like he was.

 

I thought u meant Cooney had hand problems . So Cooney was **** and had no excuse . Like i thought b4 .

 

I edited my post after I discovered my misinterpretation of SLAKKA's post .
Cooney had no excuses . He was a **** fighter . Really **** fighter .

 

Spinks had dominated the lightheavyweight division and fought in two 15 round fights with an aged, but still formidable Holmes, within the same 5 years duration that Cooney had boxed all but 3 times against lesser men.. This does not even take into account that Spinks was an active training athlete on the world level, while Cooney had been sitting idle and exercising bad lifestyle habits... If size were the only factor that should have determined Cooney's chances, then by that logic he should have been capable of beating just about any heavyweight around in 1987.

Now for the record, I'm not sure that I'd favor any version of Cooney over Spinks, but I still say that if this had been the Cooney of 1980-1982, it might have been a different affair.

 

I can't imagine any big heavyweight, other than Cooney, even after a spell of inactivity that would be subjected to so unmerciful a shellacking..to be so defenseless and brutally beat down like that. That **** dicredited Cooney very much in my eyes, and getting put away so fast in the 2nd vs the old George Foreman didn't help either..no attempt at a smart fight like Morrison put up, or even a moderately sustained effort such as Moorer enjoyed before getting nailed. I just don't think Cooney had the heart, resources nor the chin for the sport...just a big punch vs either old, past it guys or second raters like George Chaplin and Dino Dennis.