Why didn't Cooney fight Weaver in 81?

To make a long story short and this is going off the top of my head, Weaver did sign to defend against Cooney and the fight was set for the fall of '81, I believe, but the WBA stepped in and nixed the fight (and threatened to strip Weaver) stating that Tillis was due as Weaver mandatory even though Cooney was the number one contender and obviously rated ahead of Tillis by that org.

Well, Tillis was due a title shot, I suppose, as he did sign to fight Weaver previous to the Weaver/Cooney signing, as those two were scheduled to meet in late 1980, early 1981, and was cancelled due to, I believe, Weaver having some kind of injury. Still, The WBA's decision does seem a little puzzling looking back on it, but maybe it makes more sense considering I don't believe Bob Arum to have been involved in the potential Weaver/Cooney fight, and with him having involvement in the Tillis fight, and also with him having the WBA's ear at the time, maybe it wasn't so puzzling.

 

I think Weaver may have been a good choice of opponent for Cooney. The fact that he was a slow starter and not the most durable big name boxer around may well have lead to an early stoppage victory for Gerry. And with that, a legit reason to fight Holmes. Not that they needed one, of course.

 

If Weaver had been stripped, they were having Tillis and Page fight for the vacant belt.

 

I recall that the politics were very thick at the time: Arum vs. King, WBA vs. WBC. A lot of good fights weren't made because of it.

 

Agree completely.

It is often speculated that unifications during the 80's were not made due to one fighter ducking another, but I tend to think that political circumstances had a bit more influence than is commonly claimed.

 

I agree, people like to ignore the politics and blame the fighters right off the bat.

 

I can think of several fights off the top of my head (and there were many more) that didn't seem real close to happening but should have.

Weaver - Cooney
Saad Muhammed - Mustafa Muhammed (fought before becoming champs)
Sanchez - Pedroza
Pintor - Chandler

 

Supposedly, the reason the WBC back in 1963 was created was to take "politics" out of boxing. Interesting reading:

The WBC and Don King
Many in the boxing community have accused the WBC of bending its rules to suit powerful promoter

This content is protected

. As journalist

This content is protected

says, “...[WBC President Jose] Sulaiman became more King’s junior partner than his independent regulator.”

This content is protected

This content is protected

Another journalist, Peter Heller, echoes that comment: “Sulaiman...became little more than an errand boy for Don King.” Heller also quotes British promoter Mickey Duff as saying, “My complaint is that

This content is protected

is not happy his friend Don King is the biggest promoter in boxing. Sulaiman will only be happy when Don King is the only promoter in boxing.”

This content is protected

This content is protected

The actions of the WBC give some credence to this charge. A partial list:

• When
  This content is protected
  won the WBA and WBC Heavyweight championships from Muhammad Ali in 1978, the WBC stripped Leon Spinks of his title. Jose Sulaiman said the WBC did so because Spinks was signed for a rematch with Ali instead of fighting a Don King fighter,
  This content is protected
  . Norton then defended the WBC title against another Don King fighter,
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  , who won the belt
  This content is protected
• In 1983, WBC
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  was signed to fight the WBC’s mandatory challenger for his title,
  This content is protected
  . Promoter Don King, however, wanted his fighter,
  This content is protected
  , to fight for the title. Even though WBC rules said the mandatory challenger should receive a shot at the title, the WBC withdrew its sanction from the fight and then stripped Chacon for refusing to fight Camacho
  This content is protected
• Under WBC rules, a fighter is supposed to defend his title against a mandatory challenger at least once a year. For fighters controlled by Don King, this rule is often ignored. Mike Tyson,
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  , for instance, were allowed to ignore their obligations to their mandatory contenders while WBC champions
  This content is protected
• While WBC Super Featherweight champion,
  This content is protected
  wanted to fight top contender
  This content is protected
  for a promoter other than Don King. The WBC withheld its sanction of the fight until Don King became promoter
  This content is protected
• When Mike Tyson lost to
  This content is protected
  during a WBC and WBA Heavyweight championship defense, Don King convinced the WBC (along with the WBA) to withhold recognition of Douglas as heavyweight champion. King claimed that Tyson had actually won the fight due to knocking down Douglas and the referee giving Douglas a “long count."
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  , in a sworn affidavit, claims that King threatened to have the WBC withhold payment of Meyran's hotel bill if Meyran did not support King's protest
  This content is protected
  Because of intense public pressure, both the WBA and WBC backed down and recognized Douglas as champion.
• In 1992, the WBC threatened to strip
  This content is protected
  of his title for defending it against
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  . Holyfield obtained a court order to stop the organization. In a taped deposition for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Holyfield stated that the WBC wanted him to defend his championship against Ruddock because Ruddock was managed by Don King.
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
• During the 1990s, the WBC did not allow its champions to engage in unification bouts with
  This content is protected
  champions. However, in 1993, the Don King promoted super-middleweight showdown between WBC champion
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  was recognized as a title unification fight by the WBC. Ironically, both men fought to a draw and each retained their respective titles.
• When Mike Tyson was released from prison in 1995, the WBC installed him as their #1 contender for their heavyweight championship. Tyson had not fought in four years, but was promoted by Don King.
• In 2000, King-promoted Julio César Chávez was the mandatory challenger for
  This content is protected
  This content is protected
  WBC super lightweight title. Chávez was the mandatory challenger though he had not fought at super lightweight for two years, had recently lost to journeyman boxer Willie Wise, and had not beaten a top contender since losing his first fight to
  This content is protected
  in 1996.
• In 2005, the WBC stripped
  This content is protected
  of his super welterweight title for fighting Fernando Vargas instead of Don King-promoted
  This content is protected
  . Mayorga somehow qualified for a shot at the super welterweight title despite the fact that he had never fought at that weight limit and had lost two of his last three fights.

 

He may have had a better punchers chance vs Weaver, more of a stationary target but Weaver can also HIT so in retrospect he may have had a better chance vs Weaver than Holmes but if he got hit he may have gone out quicker

 

Cooney had a MUCH better chance of winning vs Weaver. Holmes stifled him totally out of the fight, and even with Cooney being overhyped it was a masterful performance. A boxing clinic Holmes put on.

I agree your point with Weaver being a chance of taking Cooney out sooner, but remember he was a slow starter and had not yet learnt the lesson from the Dokes loss per coming in dry and cold. Cooney had the power to get Weaver out of there, and vice versa.

I see this fight as pick'em odds. Weaver achieved much more and was probably the more solid fighter but intangibles make this one totally open. IMO......

 

I'd give Weaver the edge over Cooney: he's the more versitile fighter of the two, though obviously Cooneys power would be a factor in the early running. If Weaver comes through the mid-rounds unscathed then it's very much there for him to win.

 

Cooney has to get him inside 7, possibly even 4. If Cooney doesn't get him early he will be ko'ed. I'm thinking of the Cooney from the Holmes fight of course, the guy vs Foreman and Spinks isn't beating anyone decent.

 

Yeah within four or five, I'd say. If he doesn't (and I don't think he would) then Weavers shots will eventually tell and he'd stop Cooney mid-late rounds IMO. Cooney, whilst dangerous with the chilling left-hook was a bit too predictible overall. Weaver has the power to gain his respect and his superior boxing ability (so long as he does stand in front of him and slug to-to-toe) should see him through.


Ps: Watching Jones Jr vs Toney for the frst time in a while. Forgot how great a performance it was, a total boxing lesson. Only a select few could stand a chance at SMW against RJJ in that mood (he decisions Clazaghe prime for prime).

 

Wow, great info Longhorn71. I think Weaver - Cooney could go either way, but I can't get past Weaver being stopped 12 times in his career. Cooney would be one of the biggest punchers he ever saw. I'd say the Cooney in the 81/82 timeframe would stop Weaver in the middle rounds.