If Gerry Cooney didn't fight Larry Holmes in 1982 and picked on older and unranked

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mendoza, Apr 6, 2020.

  1. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,111
    13,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    More likely it's unfair to Foreman and Spinks!!!

    Holmes said himself Cooney hadn't paid his dues and Holmes knew Cooney would be out of his element against him.

    Holmes did not need everything going for him to beat Cooney. He beat Cooney quite comfortably in reality and Cooney never looked like winning. The inactivity made no difference even if wasn't ideal.

    Again i am not reasoning Cooney shouldn't have got a shot. As i explained to you at the start Cooney never fought anyone between the best and fringe contenders or a Norton at 10 if you like. This is factual and can't be debated against.

    Yes he made millions. It was only a flop due to what, or wasn't inside of Gerry. He just wasn't cut out for what others were.
     
    The Morlocks likes this.
  2. The Long Count

    The Long Count Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,279
    4,729
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 8, 2013
    Just rewatched the fight! Really good battle much much more competitive than most remember.
     
    choklab likes this.
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,687
    4,150
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    No that was not a comfortable fight for Holmes. He hired Eddie Futch and Ray Arcel for insurance. When else did somebody have two name cornermen like that? Larry was extremely strategic in this fight. He fought like he had to in order to win it. Apart from the flash knockdown he scored ...which he was very careful not to capitalise on..Larry knew he had to take Gerry into the later rounds, which was when he started to stand his ground and push Gerry back. It was clever stuff. He made each punch count doing it.
     
    The Long Count likes this.
  4. The Long Count

    The Long Count Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,279
    4,729
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 8, 2013
    futch can be heard after round 10 telling Holmes don’t let him take the title from you. I scored rounds 3 4,5, for Cooney and he was winning the 6th until he got hurt in final 25 seconds and Holmes unleashed a ferocious barrage on him to try and take him out. That’s nearly 4 rounds in a row Holmes lost. Gave Gerry few others and the 10th was classic back and forth action. Really good fight. Period
     
    Jamal Perkins and choklab like this.
  5. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,687
    4,150
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Cooney was cut out for everything everyone achieved who ever won WBA title at that time. money Ruined his chances. A millionaire contender. Cooney got too big to move properly. His managers wouldn’t cut Don King in. Because they could afford not to cut him in. So gerry couldn’t get fights, he became idle because he could afford to become idle. Only money ruined what Cooney had going for him.

    Tubbs, Tucker, Page..none of them did what Cooney did to Jimmy Young.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
    Jamal Perkins and The Long Count like this.
  6. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,111
    13,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    He did not hire Eddie Futch and Ray Arcel "for assurance". Eddie Futch was Holmes trainer only because he'd sacked Giachetti prior for a combination of reasons not pertaining to training. He had been training Holmes prior to any Cooney fight. Ray Arcel was there in the role of cutman! As a matter of fact Holmes asked for him to be kept away from him mid fight because he pulled out the smelling salts when he knew full well Holmes hated them. So there's that sorted.

    Holmes as i've said numerous times over the years took thew guaranteed "path of least resistance". He boxed extremely carefully in order to heavily negate any chance Cooney might get lucky. Cooney's asset was left hand power and Holmes wanted to negate it. It was conservative but also very effective as it won him the fight without any great drama excepting some big punches to the balls.

    He didn't know he had to take him to the late rounds it was simply his strategy. He planned to play the long game and did. He knew Cooney was relatively unproven and had seldom gone many rounds.

    It was a nice strategy and worked a treat. It allowed Cooney an easier ride deep into the fight but it also negated his strengths.
     
  7. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,111
    13,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    If you gave Cooney 3, 4, 5 and a few more rounds and had say 6 and 10 even you would have had Cooney ahead around 116-114 barring point deductions. There was a huge outcry in the press that if not for the 3 point deductions on Cooney he would have been narrowly ahead on two cards.
     
  8. The Long Count

    The Long Count Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,279
    4,729
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 8, 2013
    I know - that’s what shocked me. Many people felt that it was absurd to have Cooney up if not for the low blows but watching it - I can see how they came to it. I gave the 6th to Holmes he finished the round just too strong. But there wasn’t much between them in some rounds. I didn’t score it - but off top of my head round 1 was close could go either way, round two Holmes big, then I gave rounds 3,4,5, to Cooney. He was pressing and landing some heavy blows. 6th Holmes with the big late rally, 7th Holmes again, then I forget but I know the low blows came in - 10th was good round for both men. I gotta say fight was really good. And it’s in really good quality. Anyway I was surprised myself. Cooney’s corner sucked by the way all they kept instructing him to do was “rough him up” and the one round where Cooney hurt Holmes with a body shot late 4, the next round they tell Cooney to jab with him. That was the round 5 they should of told him to “rough him up” Holmes wanted no part of throwing His right that round - Holmes was one bad dude
     
    choklab likes this.
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,687
    4,150
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    That’s the right way to score the fight. I see it the same way. There were a lot of rounds where you had to score them for Cooney.

    Larry was in charge because he’s making Gerry work, being out worked benefited Holmes but he was losing rounds in the process. It was a case of Cooney was winning the rounds but losing the fight. Holmes was planning on stealing it later on. A hard way to win a fight. And it worked. He won by experience.

    If Larry was not 100% he’s getting beat with those tactics though. It wouldn't work in a 12 round fight that’s for sure. Because it took too many rounds for Cooney to fade.

    But the two judges that got criticised were blamed for no reason. I agree with them if you score it round by round.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
    The Long Count likes this.
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,111
    13,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    Hey fair enough i respect your opinion TLC.
     
    The Long Count likes this.
  11. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,111
    13,081
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 27, 2005
    I respect TLC's opinion but it is the vast minority. Not many will agree Holmes was losing the fight. I also disagree Holmes had plans to "steal it" as he and King were both disgusted with the scoring.

    The vast majority if not practically all had Holmes ahead after 12. I feel like I've entered the twilight zone.

    I'm not surprised to be quite frank.
     
    The Morlocks and Unforgiven like this.
  12. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    52,522
    12,165
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    Twilight zone, for sure.

    Cooney did come back strong from the 2nd round knockdown and maybe bagged 2 or 3 rounds but then Holmes took control and beat him up.
    Cooney was a handful for Holmes over the first 6 rounds, then not so much at all. And I think Holmes was ahead after the first 6 anyway !
     
    JohnThomas1 and The Morlocks like this.
  13. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    52,522
    12,165
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    In fact, Holmes was probably ahead after every round.
     
    JohnThomas1 and The Morlocks like this.
  14. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,680
    6,497
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    The tenth round was an all-out war. Both of those guys could punch. And they both lit each other up, which is why Eddie Futch was so agitated.

    That fight doesn't get the credit it deserves. People describe it as a boxing lesson and things like that. In many ways, it was a brawl.

    Actually, it has similarities to Leonard-Hearns 1 more than people care to admit, with the bigger puncher becoming the jabbing boxer and the smaller boxer becoming the puncher looking for a KO. Cooney wasn't ahead like Hearns was, but through 10, he boxed evenly with one of the best heavyweight boxers who ever lived. And nobody thought that was possible.

    It gets lumped in with mismatches, too often. It was an excellent, competitive fight - with an emphasis on fight.

    One of Holmes' greatest wins.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
    The Long Count and choklab like this.
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    24,687
    4,150
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Agree one hundred percent.
     
    The Long Count likes this.