Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

Yeah, Michael Spinks!!!!

The reason he was beating the likes of Bey and Smith were they were face first warriors compared to someone like Spinks. Heck Holmes still beat Mercer way later.

The fact of the matter is that a smaller quicker more elusive fighter like Spinks was the one to expose the very lack of timing you mention....ironically.

 

Thats exactly why Holmes would have always looked bad against Spinks. Spinks would have always made him come to him and force him to fight in a way that is uncharacteristic to his strengths. You guys would rather turn yourselves into excuse factories instead of simply admitting this.

 

lol. I laughed harder at this, than I should’ve. I realize rules had misread the post.

As for this back-and-forth debate, whether Holmes was in his prime against Spinks, I’d say no. But he wasn’t completely shot either, unbeaten fighters don’t know how to be beaten until they finally are. The success that Holmes had later in his career in his 40s, would also be further proof that the man was not completely shot years before vs Spinks. Spinks just had a tricky style, ridiculously insane cardio and made Holmes fight his fight. Prime for Prime I’m obviously taking Larry Holmes, even though I’m one of the biggest Michael Spinks fans on this forum. I do think Spinks would always be a tricky outing for Larry, styles make fights. It’s just crazy how much that Tyson fight soiled Spinks’s reputation (to the masses) if he retired after Cooney he would be looked at way differently. But he got paid, taking a fight that judging by his body language and face that he wanted no part of and that’s all that matters I guess, the lifetime money. The guy was also able to keep most of his money & faculties, and he’s doing well today which makes me happy.

 

Now we're just playing word games. He's not prime but he's not shot what does it mean? Holmes comes into the Spinks fights in the low 220's like he had been doing for years and for several fights by then, lean and muscular up only a few more pounds from the 214 and 215 weights he often came in for fights and still just as trim with no flab showing at all. His body looks great with no indication of being out of shape. I'm rewatching the Holmes Bey fight right now and Holmes looks phenomenal deconstructing and stopping Bey in 10. This is just two months before the Williams fight! "Holmes is outclassing him" says Larry Merchant after round 7. You can't say Holmes looks bad and just look the other way when Holmes looks good. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment here but theres been so much selective talking points just to push the narrative that Holmes had to be past it to lose to Spinks. Thats just not a fact.

 

1. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Those scorecards are terrible. Cooney only won the fourth, and that's because Spinks was coasting. This version of Cooney compared to the one who fought Holmes is night and day. Are you going to deny this?

2. Do you know how many highly regarded amateurs turn out to be a bust at pro? Ever heard of Duane Bobick? Oh wait, he doesn't count because unlike Gregg, he actually managed to make it into the top ten at one point.

3. I don't understand. On the one hand you say Spinks embarrassed Cooney, but you just brought up the scorecards from their bout seemingly to imply it was a close fight?

Also it's clear as day, the Cooney who fought Foreman was vastly superior to the one who fought Spinks.

You say you don't to accept Cooney's statement because "you couldn't care less about what fighters have to say about themselves?" You were awfully quick to accept Foreman's claim that he avoided Tucker, and even brought up a quote of his to reinforce your opinion.

But yeah only take a fighters word when it supports your agenda.

 

He was undefeated primarily because he was picking soft opposition as he aged, by his own admission.

Would you consider Floyd Mayweather in his prime at the end of his career merely because he was undefeated?

3 out of four opponents of his four fight KO streak were the likes of Marvis Frazier, David Bey, and Scott Frank.

Nobody is pumping Cooney up. I have cited many criticisms against him, such as the lack of top ten opponents on his resume, except a shot Norton. I do think he was better than his record suggests however.

He was near prime for Holmes, but he was also very inactive going into it, and imo it showed at times, particularily later in the fight in regards to his endurance.

Now you're just manufacturing strawmen at this point.

What anyone with a brain (obviously excludes the likes of @NoNeck and yourself) also knows for sure, is Cooney was in the worst shape of his career against Spinks.

It's the definition of intellectual dishonestly, is what it is.

 

You are off your head.

The speed, reflexes, legs and jab are on display? Get outta here.

He looks just as trim as he always does? The guys peak fighting weight was 212-213. Everyone sees your disingenuity regarding his weights. He never weighed over 215 in his life until Cobb at a stage when he had to let go of chasing his peak weight due to age.

Even going by your 214 and 215 pounds he was 221 1/2 and 223 vs Spinks. A few pounds? Try 7 1/2 and 9 pounds!!!!

He looked as trim as he always does? Stevie Wonder would see the difference of his flabby body of the Spinks fights vs how he looked vs the likes of Ali and Leon. The pear was certainly ripe and ready to be picked.

I'll leave the remains of you to Holmes fans to pick apart.

I'll respond to Bonecrusher's excellent post at some point tho.

 

Cooney did get embarrassed if you watched the last round. Before that, no. You didn't watch the fight which is why I'm explaining it to you.

Gregg was a ecent prospect without hindsight of his career outcome.

Yes, there's a difference between fighters making excuses for themselves (a dime a dozen) and admitting to ducks. Do better next time. What a waste of 30 seconds of my life.

 

Theres no way what this guy is posting is what he truly believes this has to be a troll.

Let's look at some of Holmes's most notable fights or best performances shall we ? In the first half of his reign when he was younger.

Weighed 210 vs Shavers 1

Weighed 210 vs Shavers 2

Weighed 209 vs Norton

Weighed 211 vs Jones

Weighed 212 vs Cooney

Weighed 213 vs Witherspoon

Ok as we now go into the later stages of Holmes's reign where many people believe Holmes started to slip after Witherspoon fight, and started to pick easier opposition notice his weight starts to balloon up to 220+ is that coincidence ?

Weighed 222 vs Bonecrusher

Weighed 224 vs Bey

Weighed 222 vs Williams

Weighed 221 vs Spinks 1

Weighed 223 vs Spinks 2

So on average theres atleast 10 pound difference which is a considerable difference compared to his peak, and it's no coincidence around this time people believe that Holmes was starting to slip and ready to be taken.

Also Holmes was trim and athletic looking between 210-212 where as he looked flabby at 220+.

Anyone who believes Holmes at 35 years old and a 10 pounds above his prime weight, looked the same fighter he was in regards to speed, legs, reflexes, appearance, is just a troll and their opinion is not to be taken seriously.

 

When Holmes was fighting around 210 don't leave out that he'd also often come in 214 and 215 for fights and does this many times. That was another common weight for him during the same time period. The 5 or 6 pound jump from 214 or 215 to the low 220's seems perfectly normal for a guy growing into his 30's. He had been growing into that weight for years since around the Cobb fight and had some of his best looking showings fighting at these weights. It wasn't a sudden jump up in weight indicating some problem with his training and all the weight he packed on was in his back and arms and shoulders. It was all muscle. And you don't need to take my word for it because there are a lot of pictures that show it.
Rfcoyqd.jpeg (1200×800) (imgur.com)
You can't see any flab on Holmes. He just looks trim and muscular. Not exactly the Jarrell Miller you are trying to paint him out to be.

 

Would you try to make that kind of argument for Lewis and Holyfield?

 

This is exactly what I mean by using selective talking points. Holmes weighs 215 to fight Weaver the fight right before the Shavers fight and weighs 214 to 215 in the same time period multiple times. Why would you just skip over all those examples? "10 pound increase" except when it was often only a "5 pound increase" but that wouldn't have sounded as dramatic if you had put it that way would it.

Its because Holmes looks phenomenal in these outings. You can't look at Holmes here and act like you're looking at an over the hill fighter. You have to stick your head in the sand to act like Holmes doesn't still look good at this stage which is exactly what you're doing. Thats unfair to Holmes and thats unfair to Spinks.

 

Do you mean in regards to Holyfield being past his best vs Lewis ?

That's kind of a tricky one for me because Holyfield was seen as a finished fighter after the 3rd Bowe fight. But then went on a run of form beating Tyson, Moorer, which are arguably his best ever performances at Heavyweight except for Bowe 2.

There was also the flat performance vs Vaughn Bean aswell but I'm not sure if that was down to Bean being defensive/negative plus Bean was pretty durable aswell.

To answer your question I would say Holyfield was in better shape than Holmes, and fighting a higher quality opposition so I would think based on that ? That Holyfield was probably in better form than Holmes overall.

 

Looking at weights. Weights don’t always tell the story. Holyfield and Lewis are two who turned in some of their best performances with added weight. Even Holmes turned in a great performance against Mercer while well above his early weight.

 

Calling Holmes fat or out of shape for the Spinks fights is a bold faced lie. The only thing he looked like in those fights was pack on some more muscle.
https://i.imgur.com/rv2DnA3.jpeg
These guys will try to tell you thats a beer gut