Michael Spinks vs Prime Cooney

Holmes packing on weight is consistent with a man naturally growing through his 30's and doesn't indicate that he became a slob that can't train and keep his weight down if thats what you're alluding to. We should expect a guy in his 30's to start to weigh a little more and I call that muscle because Holmes isn't flabby here. Holmes looks trim and muscular at that weight and you don't need to rely on opinions about this because there are many pictures that back that up.

I also think any assessment of Holmes looking slower is totally subjective. The Holmes jab still looks like a quick whip and his hand speed still looks very fast. And I'm willing to admit Holmes slowed down, but only if you're willing to admit fighting Michael Spinks has a lot to do with that. Theres a very simple reason for looking like your reflexes are slowing down and its called fighting Michael Spinks. Theres no way you're going to look your best fighting a cutie spoiler like Spinks. Give that man some credit while you're busy heaping out all the excuses.

 

I didn’t allude to anything - what I stated was clear and direct.

Of course the propensity to gain weight (fat) is consistent with ageing - stating same back at me is pointless and certainly does not support the line that Holmes hadn’t deteriorated - nor does it refute that Holmes wasn’t a his best with the extra weight (fat).

Of course (again) you can judge losses in speed, reflex etc. in absolute terms and you’re certainly ignoring the context (supplementary evidence) of judging a 36 yo old Holmes to be little different from the slimmer, 8 years younger version of Larry.

So, you’ll only admit to something if I admit to something else? Lol. So you won’t admit to counter facts if you don’t receive some “barter” in kind?

That’s not a good admission to make.

I’ll admit to anything I see as reasonable/fact - what you have to say otherwise has no bearing on my deference to facts and common sense.

You’re personally invested - because you’ve tried to frame sound qualifications and refutations as being “excuses” when they’re clearly not.

I’ve no investment or ulterior motive to overstate or overly diminish Holmes related fitness relative to peak at different stages of his career - however, you clearly do.

How did Holmes “magically” put on this “muscle” that only you claim to see? You don’t gain muscle unless you pointedly work to create muscle - especially at the age Holmes’ was.

In fact, without the express effort to create or at least maintain muscle - beyond a certain age, you can lose muscle AND, if you gain fat at the same, a later 10 lb upsize in weight (per the scales) could actually equate to having put on more than just 10 lbs of fat - when one also accounts for the possible loss of previously held muscle weight.

 

Heres Holmes against Cooney
https://imgur.com/axEWJPz
Heres Holmes against Spinks
https://imgur.com/VCOgg96
Not exactly a big difference is there or should I trust your paragraphs of opinions over my own eyes.

 

Yes, there is a notable difference visually.

Per the scales there was a also 9 lb to 11 lb irrefutable and OBJECTIVE difference.

So yeah, you should trust my objective and contextually supported opinions as opposed to your one squinty eye (with your other eye being closed, off course. ).

Check out the difference in Ali’s physical appearance from Norton 1 to Norton II - I guess you can’t detect any differences there either?? Use both eyes now, don’t cheat.

But hey, “believe” your own eyes (= what you “want” to believe) if you want. No skin off my nose.

 

I'd trust Wilder's excuses for his first loss to Fury before I trust your eyes.

 

If Holmes looks bigger its mostly around his back, arms, and shoulders. He clearly isn't fat. Lots of pictures can show that. Lots of talk won't.

 

Larry Holmes took away Gerry Cooney's prime in one fight?

 

Gerry Cooney took away Gerry Cooney’s prime by his lack of ring activity, and drug addiction.

 

This.

All credit to Gerry for showing a hell of a lot of courage, though,

 

Literally nobody said Cooney was better against Foreman than he was during his prime. But keep up with the strawmen.

But OK here's a better example. You for years, have harped on about Foreman got embarrassed by Young. He retired, was gone for TEN years, came back in his very late 30s, and oh yeah won back the title he'd lost 20 years earlier.

 

Foreman was worse in his comeback.

 

OK You've obviously been backed into a corner, and have resorted to trolling. I think I'm gonna step out at this point.

Take care.

 

He was better in the 70s than his comeback and had like 20 fights before Holyfield. That's not the same as Conney supposedly improving after getting his ass kicked and being inactive for well over two years.