Gerry Cooney vs Tyson’s title challengers

Cooney makes it through those names with a winning record - If he was in his prime every fight.

I think Douglas, Holmes, Biggs would be the biggest challenges and would not favor him but he is a live underdog in most of them.

He would obliterate Spinks. ( prime Cooney)

 

An often fighting agressive Cooney with Championship experience obliterates all but Holmes and Smith. Douglas of any night but Tokyo goes down from body shots.

 

I'm not convinced he'd beat Berbick and i'd certainly back Thomas. Cooney never beat anyone as good as these two.

 

I see a case for him losing to Tucker.

 

Cooney beats everyone but Tucker and maybe Spinks

 

Thank You! I was surprised he wasn't mentioned sooner.

 

Cooney was actually only 30 when Tyson fought Berbick and only 33 when Tyson fought the last name on the list, Douglas.

That would tend to be your prime.

Hell, four of those 11 were actually older than Cooney anyway (Berbick, Smith, Holmes and Spinks) and he couldn't beat those he did fight when he fought them. Most of the others were only two or three years younger, anyway.

Cooney was essentially their peer and was bigger and outweighed nearly all of them.

So I don't know why Cooney gets to be in his mid 20s and they have to remain their older selves in this scenario.

Shows how we often bend over backwards to try to prop up some of these guys from 'yesteryear' and wouldn't do the same for a lot of current fighters now.

Cooney at his best wasn't even that good for that many years. The amount of time from Gerry's win over Dino Dennis to Norton was only a year and a half. He was good in his day, but it was only for a ridiculously small amount of time.

Cooney at his actual age in those actual years Tyson fought them loses to all of them.

And the vast majority of them had drug and/or alchohol problems, too, or weight issues, or all three, so we can forget that excuse.

 

He wasn't in his prime at 30, prime in boxing refers to a fighter at their best, not just their physical prime

 

The 'boxing prime' of Gerry Cooney that many people on this board refer to lasted about as long as the time between the Fury-Wilder II and Fury-Wilder III -- or a year and a half. It was a ridiculously short time frame.

To say he wasn't in his prime anymore at 30, though, rings false to me. I watched his whole career - going back to the NY Golden Gloves in '76.

The reason people at the time kept thinking he could come back after the Holmes loss and why they kept giving him opportunity after opportunity was Gerry Cooney still "WAS" in his physical prime, he just didn't fight all that much.

And, when Cooney did fight, he either knocked people out in a round or two or lost.

So his fans tend to fall back on the brief period in the early 80s before he lost when everyone believed he was going to conquer the world (and want to ignore when he stepped up and lost).

Cooney was so frustrating to watch as fans because he just chose not to fight. He was offered bouts all the time against top fighters, he just turned 99 percent of those fights down.

So, as a fan of his back then, I have a hard time cutting him slack anymore.

These types of threads just seem like another attempt to prop him up as something we thought he'd be, but he never was.

He wasn't a top fighter for the length of time Tyson was champ.

Hell, quite a few of the guys Tyson defended against had as many problems as Cooney, if not more, when it cames to drugs, or alcohol or weight/training issues. And most were either older than Cooney or only two or three years his junior. They were all his peers.

So threads like this - taking many of them when they were battling problems and pitting them against an idealized version of Cooney that really never existed, and certainly never existed for almost four years - seems weak.

Because not only were all of Tyson's challengers not at their best when they fought Mike, Tyson wasn't his best against all these guys every time he defended his title. Nobody is at their best every time they fight.

But in threads like this we're supposed to give Cooney every advantage and then ask who he'd beat? Why?

So Cooney fans can say Gerry finally would've beaten Spinks? Or they can say Cooney would beat someone else who, in reality, he turned down an offer to fight or had no interest in challenging himself against?

Gerry Cooney fought in 1986 against Eddie Gregg, why not match THAT COONEY against the 1986 Berbick who fought Thomas and Tyson? Cooney was bigger and two years younger than Berbick in 1986. Why do we have to match Berbick with 1981 Cooney?

Cooney fought in 1987 against Spinks. Match that Cooney against the Bonecrusher (who was older than him) who fought Witherspoon and Tyson. Why do we have to match Bonecrusher with the 1980 or 81 Cooney. Gerry was three years younger than Bonecrusher in real life. They both fought in 87. Compare them that year. Why pit Bonecrusher against a Cooney who is eight years younger?

Hell, Cooney got all the breaks in real life. Now, nearly 40 years after the myth imploded, we're supposed to give him all the breaks in fantasy fights, too? (LOL)

 

Yeah im not reading all of that off topic BS. Gerry Cooney was at his peak (prime) when he beat the past it versions of Lyle, Young and Norton and did pretty good against Holmes but after that his career took a dive and he took some long layoffs and delt with drugs and alcoholism. Because of this he declined in skill after the Holmes fight. Thats why he was past it against Spinks, Foreman, Greg, etc. Mike Tyson was well past it by 30 even though 30 is around the age of a average prime boxer

 

I just can't see him being in his prime for that many fights, or even half that number.

 

Let’s say he starts in his prime, I’m not even sure he goes better than 2-2 against the first four fighters on that list.

 

He probably loses to most if not all of them.

 

I think he loses to the entire list