Jimmy Braddock vs Gerry Cooney

My point being that I find your logic specious at best if scrawny, chinny, breadline guys like Corn Griffin are equated even with past prime real heavies of the 1970's. If you want to make that equivalency, go head, but you are bathing in waters of your own drawing.

 

Corn Griffin was a flash in the pan, who wen't nowhere, lets forget him for this discussion.

We have to look at their best respective wins, and where it leaves them.

Cooney hits the wall very abruptly, when he has to beat somebody in the top ten.

Braddock gets to the very top of the pile, and repeatedly proves himself against people in the top ten, en route to doing it!

Do wins over a few 70s contenders in their final years really carry so much weight?

 

The Norton that Cooney destroyed had just gone a very fast and impressive ten rounds in beating perhaps the best conditioned Tex Cobb we ever saw .. this Cobb went on to beat an older Shavers and fight extremely close fights with a terrific Mike Dokes .. Gerry looked terrific in slashing up a still pretty talented Jimmy Young in a manner few ever did before or after .. Lyle was clearly past his best but still only a year off of beating LeDoux and it was not that the lost but how he got blasted out so fast .. Cooney was without a doubt managed carefully on his way to the Holmes fight but in 1980-81 he was a talented , dangerous guy and not the shell we later saw against Spinks and Foreman .. I don't think I'd pick Braddock against the Norton that Cooney beat ..

 

This is circumstantial evidence that he was better than his record suggests.

He might have been, if you make certain assumptions about these opponents.

The bottom line is that he never really proved himself.

Could he have been a lot better than his record suggests?

Certainly.

Can I pick him over Braddock on that assumption alone?

No.

 

What are you building Braddock up based on ? His victory over Baer was one of the worst title bouts in history. Baer completely under performed and Braddock won a dreary decision. His victories against John Henry Lewis and Tommy Farr were razor thin and contested. His career at 175 was the definition of a journeyman .. Braddock was na gutsy guy with a feel good story but I don't see any serious wins other than maybe Lasky I guess ..

 

Cooney as i stated ONLY lost to ex/present Heavyweight champions, he did not beat a Weaver or a Page as he did not fight them.

You favour Braddock to beat Cooney i take the alternative view, that is it, but seeing some of the fighters Braddock lost too, i could not imagine Cooney losing to a lot of them.

Braddock put in a workman like performance against a clowning Baer, and deservedly won.
Where he and his management truly were world class was the financial deal he made with Louis should he lose the title, 10% of Louis ring earnings for 10 yrs, if i was going to lose the title with that deal on the table, then Mr Louis would have been the fighter i would wish to lose to.

 

Weaver and Page might disagree with that!

Are you prepared to hand him the wins, without him even stepping into the ring?

That is the kind of win that he needed, but never actually got!

 

Braddock surpassed Cooney, simply by winning the elimination tournament!

 

I got Cooney by KO.

 

OK, lets look at the range of possible scenario's and their implications:

A. Braddock wins:
This just proves what we always knew about Braddock. He can be problematic for anybody. Lets's not get carried away though, who did this guy actually beat?

B. Cooney wins:
This is the best win of Cooney's career, by a large margin. OK so he didn't beat Holmes, but perhaps he was a head to head monster, who just happened to live in the wrong era?

C. Draw:
Still by far the best result of Cooney's career! Now he is getting into Cleveland Williams territory!

 

Look, to make sure I am clear, I am not knocking Braddock who had an iron chin, a hard right hand and as much courage as any fighter. I just think he really was a blown up light heavyweight with bad hands and not a good match up for a fast starting, murderous punching, 6' 6", 230 pound prime Cooney .. not a terrific match up ..

 

Not sure how any boxer can disagree that a boxer has not lost to them, if they have never fought.

Why would i be handing him the wins? As stated above they did not meet in the pro ring. it is you who grabbed the names of Weaver and Page out of the air.

By the way how many times did Weaver and Page box in a professional fight.....NEVER, oh look the same as Cooney.

 

In 1980, Ken Norton rounded out the heavyweight Top Ten according to Ring's Annual Ratings. Are you going to pick Braddock to beat Norton? How highly rated do you think Braddock would get in that era? Where you and I disagree, and have done so for years, is the relevancy of being rated as a heavyweight across eras. The sport has changed, and in no place has it changed more than the top division. But you keep basing every argument on the equivalency of the quality and nature of the division across eras.

 

Ken Norton looked old and poor against Cobb and didn't necessarily deserve the decision. He was certainly gifted a draw againt LeDoux of all people, and Shavers had done him in 1 round. Those 3 fights probably took a great deal out of him too, at that age. I wouldn't rate him as a contender at that point in time.

Ron Lyle was KO'd early by Lynn Ball previous to Cooney beating him. A completely shot name.

Those were virtually meaningless wins.

Braddock was a mediocre fighter too, of course. His resume is being exaggerated by some. I think Baer threw that fight anyway, he did nothing but fool around for 15 rounds.
But let's not continue with pretending Cooney was any sort of proven contender. He was a mediocre hype job at best.

Braddock v Cooney is a third-rate heavyweight fight. A couple of bums, relatively speaking.

 

Bernardo Mercado was #9, Marty Monroe was #6, Leon Spinks was #3 (just below Cooney).
Bums, all of them.