Gerry Cooney

Four weeks before the Cooney-Holmes fight, with Cooney already in training camp for Holmes, Page called out the #1 rated Cooney?

Got it.

 

Cooney was a never was? He aquited himself well in boxing and in life. had some great wins, a great effort against Larry. WTF did u have? I wouldn't call any boxer a never was, what balls!

 

When’s the last time you watched Holmes vs Weaver?? Weaver was competitive throughout and shook Larry very very Badly at either the end of the 9th or the 10th Larry’s legs buckled and he wobbled against the ropes very hurt, bell sounded. The classic uppercut that Holmes dropped Weaver with was actually pretty extraordinary because he was backing up and in some serious trouble and it bailed him out for sure Weaver never recovered. Sure Holmes took him lightly maybe but Weaver had kinda earned that reputation at that point. It all changed that night.

A fantastic fight that I’m very fresh on because I put the old VHS in just last weekend to revisit.

 

I might have to watch it again then. From memory it was a good fight. Some thrilling moments.

 

No, after Gerry beat Jimmy, Greg called him out at the press conference.

 

I liked Gerry but grossly mismanaged, wouldnt even let him face Joe Bugner let alone a top ranked contender

Not even Mike Weaver and threw him in with the top heavyweight to risk one big payday

I remember an October 1981 mythical matchup vs October 1971 vs Foreman where KO Mag called no edge to either man but I knew even then, the writers were less than honest. Thankfully, the contest actually did come off and everyone got to see the outcome.

 

Lol. How could a fight between 1981 Cooney vs 1971 Foreman have actually happened and everyone got to see it?

 

Too bad that Cooney-Bugner fight scheduled for the end of 1981 didn't come off. If Bugner would've gone the distance it'd have been a good tuneup. But then if Cooney would've stopped him in two, a la Shavers, it would've been another faded 1970's has-been he steamrolled. Of course, unlike Lyle (not counting the 90s "comeback") and Norton, Joe Bugner would go on to fight another day.

Regarding the 1981 KO article, at that time Foreman's stock was as low as it could be, while public opinion on Cooney was very high. Foreman's comeback did wonders for his reputation. KO's call seems very fair considering what we knew about both guys at that time.

 

What? His top four or five wins would probably be Ken Norton (Hall of Famer), Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, George Chaplin, Eddie "The Animal" Lopez or maybe S.T. Gordon (a future cruiserweight champ). For a contender in the late 70s/early 80s, those are fine names.

Not much different than the top wins by someone like Earnie Shavers - which would be Ken Norton, Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis and maybe Roy "Tiger" WIlliams.

Is Shavers sad because he never won a title and those are his top wins?

And Shavers had a lot of bad losses, like Ron Stander, Bob Stallings, Walter Santemore.

Cooney only lost to Hall of Famers - Larry Holmes, George Foreman and Michael Spinks.

Cooney was an excellent top contender. He just didn't win a title. Everybody doesn't win a title.

If he'd fought Mike Weaver in 1982 like Michael Dokes did and Joey Curtis was the referee, weeks after Duk Koo Kim died, Cooney would've been the WBA heavyweight champion, too.

But Cooney fought best heavyweight champion Holmes instead. And he lost.

Cooney fought Four Hall of Famers in 31 fights.

Michael Dokes fought 61 times and only fought two hall of famers (Bowe and Holyfield). Greg Page fought 75 times, and didn't fight any hall of famers.

Hell, Shavers fought 89 times, and only fought three.

Cooney fought four in 31 fights.

Shows how "protected" Cooney was.

55-3 as an amateur. Two NY Golden Gloves titles. 28-3 as a pro. Was the #1 heavyweight contender of both the WBC and WBA. Only lost to three guys who were among the best ever.

Cooney has nothing to be embarrassed about.

He'll probably be the last fighter standing from that era.

 

After Cooney stopped Norton in May 1981, they tried to make a fight with Mike Weaver for that fall but the WBA (and Bob Arum) blocked it. The WBA insisted Weaver had to fight Quick Tillis first.

During the delay, Cooney's team negotiated to fight Holmes in 1982 instead of Weaver.

Weaver, Tillis Set Fall Bout
By Thomas Rogers
July 5, 1981
The clouded World Boxing Association heavyweight situation was apparently resolved Friday at a meeting in Pomona, Calif., with Mike Weaver, the champion, scheduled to meet James (Quick) Tillis in early fall and the winner meeting Gerry Cooney within four months.

The meeting, held at Weaver's home, was attended by Bob Arum and Sam Glass, promoters, and representatives of Weaver, Cooney and Tillis.

Weaver had hoped to fight the undefeated Cooney, ranked the No. l contender by both the W.B.A. and the World Boxing Council. But the W.B.A. ruled that Weaver must defend his title next against Tillis , the No. 3 contender.

In the agreement, it was decided that Arum's Top Rank Inc. would be the promoter of the Weaver-Tillis fight, probably in Chicago in late September or early October. Weaver's purse reportedly will be $750,000 and Tillis would receiving $200,000.

Then, acccording to Dennis Rappaport and Mike Jones, the managers of Cooney, Weaver will fight Cooney (if he beats Tillis) within 120 days, probably in February, at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. The bout would be promoted by Glass's Tiffany Promotions, with each fighter receiving approximately $3 million.

Arum, as part of the agreement, waived all rights to Weaver's future fights and will not be part of the Cooney-Weaver promotion. ''I have a written agreement with Mike Weaver and Don Manuel, his manager, that Weaver will fight Gerry Cooney within 120 days after the Weaver-Tillis fight,'' Glass said last night.

A further part of the agreeement was that all lawsuits involving Arum, Weaver, Tillis, Glass, Rappaport and Jones would be dropped. ''The situation was getting to the point where the many lawsuits were holding up the boxing matches,'' Jones said. '' Some compromises had to be made. And it was all handled very amicably.

''There had been false reports last week that Gerry Cooney would fight on the undercard of the Weaver-Tillis fight and that Sam Glass would co-promote the card. But we would never let Gerry fight on an undercard. We plan to have him fight sometime in September, but so far we haven't picked an opponent, a date or a site.''

Rappaport said: ''The whole agreement was signed by everybody except Cooney, who was in New York. He will sign it sometime this week.''

 

In 1981, Bugner had been involved in one fight (against a journeyman) since his loss to Lyle in 1977.

Given the garbage people are laying on Ron Lyle in this thread, had Cooney faced Bugner (a guy Lyle had brutally beaten and sent into retirement), I doubt Cooney would've been given any credit for beating him.

The only fight (other than Weaver) of Cooney's I wish had come off was the Shavers fight. Cooney was supposed to fight Shavers on the Hearns-Cuevas undercard, but he was injured in training camp and was replaced by Tex Cobb (who stopped Shavers).

If Cooney would've beaten Young, Shavers and Lyle in 1980, and Norton and Weaver in 1981, that would've been cool.

But the Shavers fight fell thru with the injury and the Weaver fight was blocked by Arum and the WBA.

That damn Bob Arum has been blocking fights forever.

 

Bugner-Lyle was a very close fight. A hard fight, but it could have went either way. Bugner was not brutally beaten at all. Bugner was disgusted with his purse. That’s why he retired.

In a televised twelve rounder between two top ten contenders, veteran Ron Lyle battled British and European Heavyweight Champion Joe Bugner in a boring, drawish fight. It was a highly defensive matchup. Lyle and Bugner fought cautiously, with Lyle perhaps being abit more aggressive. No heads turned in the division in a twelve round split decision which could virtually have gone either way, and did not affect the heavyweight rankings in any way.

Unofficial scorecards

• AP - 55-54 Lyle
• Las Vegas SUN - 55-55 Draw

This content is protected

A good fight might have been Cobb vs Cooney. Tex would have given Gerry some rounds and kept him sharp for Holmes.

 

Please. Cooney never beat a bonfide top 10 heavyweight and certainly not someone in the top 5. You (somehow) severely criticize Tyson because he beat contenders that hadn't fought other contenders in a while and here you are championing a guy that NEVER beat a contender.

Sums you up to a tee.

 

Bingo Ingo.

 

Yes. He sucked, and Tyson exposed that. That's one of the reasons Michael retired, he couldn't take a heavyweight punch (a Holmes operating at 75% capacity had him near the canvas on several occasions during both their fights...Michael never hurt Holmes once).

He disputably beat a Holmes three years past his prime in the first fight (I had Spinks ahead by one point as well, but there is a good-sized contingent that feel he lost that fight), in most cases like this (see Carl Wiliams) the judges would have given Holmes the

This content is protected

​

sympathies.

Then (according to 95% of both boxing fans and writers I've had dealings with) Michael clearly got beat by a Holmes going on four years past his prime and was gifted the decision. As big boxing opinionators like Pacheco and Dundee spoke of, neither of Michael's performances could be considered "good", he simply moved up at the right time to befuddle a champion whose last flash of greatness was a single round a few years earlier (Witherspoon).

The Cooney fight featured a washed up power puncher who was never the same or anywhere near as good after the Holmes fight. And that's forgetting some of the notable factors mentioned by the Cooney camp of that era.

Michael was already a great light-heavy, and I wish he'd just stayed there because I think we would have had a Holmes-duration type of championship reign from him.

But Larry would have lost the title anyway, even if the judges had given his the decision he deserved in the second Spinks fight, Mike wasn't far around the corner.

I totally respect your views on paper, @Bonecrusher hard to argue them. But off-paper things look differently.