Jimmy Braddock vs Gerry Cooney

Tossing around "bums" is really easy. Monroe was a skilled guy, with a good amateur background who ended up being just too small for the best of the new heavies of his era. But he was a comer in 1980. Most thought he got robbed by a hometown decision against LeDoux. He then beat Lynn Ball and Ernie Lopez, two dangerous gatekeepers. I wouldn't call him a bum, a guy who was just a bit too small for the division and who didn't catch the right breaks.

Leon suffered from out of ring problems but was talented and could show up. In 1980, he seemed to be putting the pieces back together with wins over Evangelista, Lopez and Mercado, the last who himself had a big time right hand (if not a whole lot more) and stopped Shavers and Berbick.

 

They're the kind of "contenders" Deontay Wilder faces.
Even Tommy Morrison probably beat men like that.

LeDoux was a tough journeyman at best. Eddie Animal Lopez was similar level. Lynn Ball was a mediocre journeyman. None of those three ever developed beyond journeyman status, just ham and eggers who were willing to have a go. If guys are getting rankings and praise for beating that level of opponent and nothing else, the division must be at a low ebb.

 

The Cooney that destroyed Norton was the peak performance of his career.
Cooney later said it ruined his career because he started partying and
he never regain his focus after this fight.
Cooney in interview " When i ko Norton that night i could have beaten anybody
in the world . But that was the night my career ended because i started messing
with party drugs and drinking and staying out all night "
The Cooney of the Norton fight too big and powerful for Braddock .

 

So just how high do you have that version of Kenny Norton rated? Did you see his previous efforts against Cobb and Ledoux? What other top heavies do you think Norton beats? Let alone an A+ performance---that was against Bobick in 1977.

 

I have rated above Corn Griffin.

 

I completely disagree about Norton Cobb and let anyone watch the fight and they will see for themselves. It was no more a meaningless win the DOkes would be right after .. Ken looked much better than he did against LeDoux who he was shutting out till he got tagged in the 9th .. I agree that Lyle was long in the tooth but he was still active, still beating modest opposition and won all his bouts other than Ball including a win over LeDoux .. No one is arguing that Cooney was not managed in a way but he still flattened Lyle when Ron was still fresh and prepared for a fight with a nasty , rib crushing opening round hook .. it was nasty .. Cooney also looked pretty good slicing up Jimmy Young who was only 31 ..

I think your quick to label and harsh .. to call Jimmy Braddock a bum speaks for itself. Cooney in his loses showed plenty of heart as well .. no bums there in my opinion ..

 

Completely agree .. very good post. BTW, Mercado was a murderous puncher who flattened a long Trevor Berbick and in my opinion may have done so to the chinny Morrison ..

 

Norton Cobb

This content is protected

This content is protected

A great fight and win by Norton .. let the fight speak .

 

I don't think any pro fighter should be called a bum.

 

I understand this.

Was he actually ranked in the top ten when Cooney beat him?

This is an important question, if you are playing your trump card here!

That version of Norton?

Yes I would have to1

Then you have one simple challenge.

Demonstrate which eras were superior to others, and why they were superior.

Unless you can do that, we are kind of left with equivalency of sorts!

 

This is what it all boils down to for you every time, isn't it? And since you know perfectly well, that no one can actually PROVE anything, one way or the other, you use this as a "defense" for your weird opinions.

Now I don't want to say a single bad word about Braddock, who was an honest, hard-working fighter and as brave as they come, but let's be honest here... was he really much more than a decent journeyman, who was lucky to be in the right place at the right time?

 

Demonstrate why a 30 to 50 pound increase in weight among top participants would not be an advantage in a sport that segregates its participants by weight. Demonstrate why every other major sport shows a major performance jump by the added size of participants but heavyweight boxing (the only division where this can happen) does not experience this? Demonstrate to me the superiority (or even existence) of high level operators in the division who fall under the previously accepted norms of sub-200 pound fighters who you give great credit for beating other sub-200 pound competitors.

 

I can’t believe I’m seeing the revisionism of a fighter in real time. Cooney is starting to take first in most overrated fighter on the forum.

 

Arguing that Norton was still good (at age 37 or 38) in 1981 because he beat Tex Cobb in 1980 is similar to those who over-rate the Joe Louis of 1951 for being active and winning against ranker contenders.

Yet the very same regulars here who are quick to suggest Louis was a shell, or washed up, or shot against Marciano (which he kinda was) are getting all fuzzy and fudging the issue of Ken Norton being an obviously SHOT fighter in 1981.

 

Yes, you've mentioned that before.