Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

I get what you're saying but there is a slight difference though.

Holyfield bulked up on PEDs as you well know so that was to his benefit with extra muscle, especially against Tyson where he had the extra physical strength especially in the clinches.

Holmes mostly put on fat and whilst he did perform well vs Mercer his performance in that fight was completely different to his hey day, because Holmes had to adjust his style somewhat in his 40s. Because he no longer had the legs anymore so he adapted a different approach fighting off the ropes.

 

Mercer looked at his best against Lewis, 13 pounds over his weight for Morrison.

At the end of the day, Spinks beat a sharp fighter with a great jab x2 when there was maybe one other guy in the division who could claim to be better.

Holmes would never have an easy time with Spinks unless he hit the chin lottery. Probably barely wins on his best night.

 

I agree Spinks always poses a challenging style for Holmes but I still feel like a younger, fresher, Holmes would be able to win more convincingly.

Holmes in the 2nd fight was able to land right hands quite frequently, and control early part of the fight before gassing.

Not to mention almost knocking out Spinks in 14th round with one right hand he just didn't have the energy levels to finish him off.

 

So first it was a close fight, which the referee's scorecards supported. Then Cooney got embarrassed, and now it's "he only got embarrassed in the last round. You're all over the ****ing place.

And I'm the one who hasn't watched the fight.

Any luck on finding any ranking for him yet?

Why would he make an excuse for the Spinks bout and not Foreman? The Foreman loss was far more embarrassing. It was literally called "The Geezers at Caesars". He was wiped out in the second round (far earlier than Spinks did) by a guy who was perceived to be a joke at that point.

He also wasn't known to make excuses, for any of his losses. He didn't cite his lack of ring activity going into the Holmes fight.

It's also clear as ****ing day he was in terrible shape against Spinks. Far worse than against Foreman.

Don't sell yourself short. Your whole life's a waste.

 

I have finals right now and don't have time for your non-sense. Your name is fitting. Your boxing knowledge is truly tragic.

 

I don't need to know what you're doing. You don't need to put on a big show and tell everybody how upset you are. Stick to the topic or shut up.

 

Nice job typing out another paragraph and responding several times in order to finally understand that he was competitive before getting embarrassed and stopped.

For Spinks, he was a rebounding contender who was favored to win lineage. For Foreman, he was a never was fighting a has been who signed up for his first fight in 2.5 years.

Ask yourself how many contenders in their thirties came back solidly after sitting out 2.5 years after taking an ass kicking.

 

Nice try. It's all there for everyone to see.
You clearly brought up the scorecards to indicate it was a close bout, then proceeded to say he got embarrassed in the bout. When you got called on that, you stated he was only embarrassed in the last round.

Unfortunately your pathetic attempts at backtracking won't work here.

You realize in that same time period before the Spinks bout he'd fought all of 84 seconds right?

Nobody is saying he was solid. This is yet another strawman you're manufacturing. The point I was making is that he was in much better shape against Foreman than Spinks.

To answer your question though (a foreign concept to you considering, you still haven't answered my question regarding Gragg's ranking) Ali was just over a year away from his 30s and hadn't fought in nearly and a half years when he came back, and established himself as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

 

At about 28 1/2 yo, Holmes came relatively late to the title when he beat Norton - a fact that is often oversighted or ignored.

Since that time, I saw no evidence that Holmes put on any muscle, rather, he simply gained age onset weight.

I also did not read/hear of Holmes expressly putting on muscle via any means.

For Holmes style and accents, sleek was best, around 209 lbs to 212 lbs. Perfect.

One might be able to cite some higher weights post Norton but then if you look at the more significant/challenging fights during that post Norton period, , Holmes did train/trim himself back down to his best weight range.

Likely harder for Holmes to get the weight down than when he was younger, but Holmes still saw fit to get down to peak weight for such fights.

Holmes was near 36 yo for the first Spinks fight and an actual 36 yo for the rematch. He appeared that much slower of hand and foot, less reflexively reactive and less mobile than he was at peak.

He was not a patch on the Holmes that fought Norton in 1978 - and by the time Larry fought Spinks, Spinks himself was about 29 yo - only a little bit older than Larry was when he beat Ken.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to calculate that a lighter, peak Holmes doesn’t do so much better against the 85/86 version of Spinks.

 

LOL at comparing Cooney to Muhammed Ali. We're done here.

 

Their's no point. You've clearly shown you don't know **** about boxing, nor aging. Either that or you have a massive agenda. Their is zero argument for Holmes being in his prime, or anywhere near it by the time he fought Spinks. You and noneck seem to think we don't have footage at our disposal. We can clearly see, he'd slowed considerably, and his reflexes, speed, timing, weren't what they once were. This is to be expected after wear and tear from boxing for 18 years or so, and more importantly aging. He was 36 years old at the time of the bout and it's inevitable by that point, that father time diminishes all the aforementioned aspects.

 

Any aging professional athlete who puts on weight will gain muscle with the fat. 100% of the time. And Holmes never looked cut even at his lowest weights.

 

That's an odd way to say "I can't refute your post so I'm just going to manufacture another strawman". You asked me "how many contenders in their thirties came back solidly after sitting out 2.5 years after taking an ass kicking."
Ali was a contender returning, very close to the age of 30, after sitting out for over a year and a half.

But fine. Joe Bugner was gone for three and a half years, came back, beat some fringe contenders, and actually beat Greg Page, who was the former WBA champion, and made it back into the top ten.

I honestly don't even know where this is going at this point. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Bugner never fell off. He sat out after a SD loss for whatever reason and continued his career. Cooney got spanked by Spinks.

And yes, Bugner was better in the 70s than during the comeback.

 

No, if you’re not simultaneously training with weights or employing any other means to build muscle, the weight again is just fat or primarily so.

Muscle and fat cells are separate and not interchangeable. Gain weight alone, you will gain size on your arms - but it’s fat, not muscle.

This isn’t 2nd career Foreman that we’re talking here.

True, Holmes was never a body beautiful but at his best conditioned, he was straight up and down trim, his peak physical appearance being distinctively different to that of his later career.