Bert cooper vs Tony Galento

[drunkenpiper36]

Probably been done here before, but the search engine is temporarily down. Galento was probably a more revered contender where as Cooper spent most of his career as being more or less a gate keeper. But Burt arguably fought in a more competitive era. Neither was big on training but Cooper looked good for a brief period between about 1990-1992. A fight in a telephone booth is what I think we'd be looking at.

[Tomasino]

A very good match up and it would have surely been a great fight.

Hard to pick a winner since I think Cooper was more talented but Galento more seasoned and ruthless. Tough call but Galento KO9 in a foul filled brawl.

[DaveyMac]

I liked Bert Cooper a lot but you gotta believe Tony Galento would have messed him up.

[HomicideHenry]

The thing with Galento was, his greatest ability as a fighter, was that no matter how gifted a tactician, or no matter how fast you were--- Galento had the amazing ability to make you fight HIS fight, rather than stick to your game plan. Poor Lou Nova, was one of the best heavies of his day, and was nearly a foot taller than Galento, but wound up getting so angry with Two Ton that they traded punches in what was called the most bloody battle of the decade.

Galento did the same thing to Louis, making him lose his cool. However, the tactic failed against brothers Max and Buddy Baer, who were simply too big and too powerful for Galento. But, despite his short comings (short, limited skillset, part-time fighter) Galento was one hell of a hoss. He could take a beating, he had a hell of a punch, and he was as strong as he was dirty. Elbows, low blows, shoulders, head butts. There was nothing that Galento wouldnt do to get the best of you.

As for Cooper.... probably one of the top ten greatest journeyman boxers I have ever seen. He could give anyone on any given night the fight of their lives. He certainly gave Holyfield all he could handle for several rounds. The only problem with Cooper, though, was he could be rather inconsistent. He may pull out the win (or competitive loss) of a lifetime, and then have a string of losses. Galento, in regards to Cooper, was far more consistent. If Galento lost, it was by disqualification rather than by points or tko or kayo.

Also, you have to figure, Cooper lost to alot of guys. Galento, on the other hand, lost primarily to HOF quality guys or he lost (as stated before) by DQ or it was early on in his career. So head to head, I think this would be one of the greatest slugfests that could be made between an old time heavyweight and a modern heavyweight, but I would favor Galento to win. Cooper's best shot would be to start off fast and come out guns blazing and try to cut up Galento and score a TKO down the stretch. But knowing Galento, mouth that he was, he could some how, some way find the right thing to say to make Cooper pull the trigger and lose his cool and become victim to Galento's tactics.

[drunkenpiper36]

The thing with Galento was, his greatest ability as a fighter, was that no matter how gifted a tactician, or no matter how fast you were--- Galento had the amazing ability to make you fight HIS fight, rather than stick to your game plan. Poor Lou Nova, was one of the best heavies of his day, and was nearly a foot taller than Galento, but wound up getting so angry with Two Ton that they traded punches in what was called the most bloody battle of the decade.

Galento did the same thing to Louis, making him lose his cool. However, the tactic failed against brothers Max and Buddy Baer, who were simply too big and too powerful for Galento. But, despite his short comings (short, limited skillset, part-time fighter) Galento was one hell of a hoss. He could take a beating, he had a hell of a punch, and he was as strong as he was dirty. Elbows, low blows, shoulders, head butts. There was nothing that Galento wouldnt do to get the best of you.

As for Cooper.... probably one of the top ten greatest journeyman boxers I have ever seen. He could give anyone on any given night the fight of their lives. He certainly gave Holyfield all he could handle for several rounds. The only problem with Cooper, though, was he could be rather inconsistent. He may pull out the win (or competitive loss) of a lifetime, and then have a string of losses. Galento, in regards to Cooper, was far more consistent. If Galento lost, it was by disqualification rather than by points or tko or kayo.

Also, you have to figure, Cooper lost to alot of guys. Galento, on the other hand, lost primarily to HOF quality guys or he lost (as stated before) by DQ or it was early on in his career. So head to head, I think this would be one of the greatest slugfests that could be made between an old time heavyweight and a modern heavyweight, but I would favor Galento to win. Cooper's best shot would be to start off fast and come out guns blazing and try to cut up Galento and score a TKO down the stretch. But knowing Galento, mouth that he was, he could some how, some way find the right thing to say to make Cooper pull the trigger and lose his cool and become victim to Galento's tactics.

good post

[drunkenpiper36]

Much has been made of Cooper's inconsistency when contrasted to Galento's. But who was Cooper losing to during his peak period for as brief as that may have lasted? Evander Holyfield, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe? Galento would have lost to all those men.

[cfang]

The thing with Galento was, his greatest ability as a fighter, was that no matter how gifted a tactician, or no matter how fast you were--- Galento had the amazing ability to make you fight HIS fight, rather than stick to your game plan. Poor Lou Nova, was one of the best heavies of his day, and was nearly a foot taller than Galento, but wound up getting so angry with Two Ton that they traded punches in what was called the most bloody battle of the decade.

Galento did the same thing to Louis, making him lose his cool. However, the tactic failed against brothers Max and Buddy Baer, who were simply too big and too powerful for Galento. But, despite his short comings (short, limited skillset, part-time fighter) Galento was one hell of a hoss. He could take a beating, he had a hell of a punch, and he was as strong as he was dirty. Elbows, low blows, shoulders, head butts. There was nothing that Galento wouldnt do to get the best of you.

As for Cooper.... probably one of the top ten greatest journeyman boxers I have ever seen. He could give anyone on any given night the fight of their lives. He certainly gave Holyfield all he could handle for several rounds. The only problem with Cooper, though, was he could be rather inconsistent. He may pull out the win (or competitive loss) of a lifetime, and then have a string of losses. Galento, in regards to Cooper, was far more consistent. If Galento lost, it was by disqualification rather than by points or tko or kayo.

Also, you have to figure, Cooper lost to alot of guys. Galento, on the other hand, lost primarily to HOF quality guys or he lost (as stated before) by DQ or it was early on in his career. So head to head, I think this would be one of the greatest slugfests that could be made between an old time heavyweight and a modern heavyweight, but I would favor Galento to win. Cooper's best shot would be to start off fast and come out guns blazing and try to cut up Galento and score a TKO down the stretch. But knowing Galento, mouth that he was, he could some how, some way find the right thing to say to make Cooper pull the trigger and lose his cool and become victim to Galento's tactics.

I like this post too. sums it up well

[HomicideHenry]

Much has been made of Cooper's inconsistency when contrasted to Galento's. But who was Cooper losing to during his peak period for as brief as that may have lasted? Evander Holyfield, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe? Galento would have lost to all those men.

That may be true. I can see Foreman and Bowe doing it because Max and Buddy were so much larger and stronger.

I can see Holyfield doing it also, because Joe Louis had great combinations, and so did Evander.

Michael Moorer, however, is the question mark. Though he lost to Foreman, he was an exceptional fighter. Very fast, and he had some pop to his punches, and very skilled. But I do think he could be thwarted mentally, and possibly engage in a slugfest with Tony. And that isnt where you would want to be with a guy like him.

However, I think with all of those men listed, it wouldnt have been easy for any of them to defeat Galento. Sure, they could beat him. But by how much of a margin, and by how little of effort? That is the question. A man like Galento, who ate pain as if it was smarties, and perferred it that way would of given any of those guys problems if they were willing to engage with him.

[DaveyMac]

It's a lock neither of them would have trained for the fight :)

Are there two heavies of their quality with a worse reputation for training?

[misterpunch]

homicides first post is very fine

[jackclem]

......interesting and thoughtful posts.

the only thing i have to add is that galento had never been knocked off his feet until joe louis did it.

[ghoster]

Two Ton would have roughed Coop up until Coop turned his back around the fifth round.

[drunkenpiper36]

Much has been made of Cooper's inconsistency when contrasted to Galento's. But who was Cooper losing to during his peak period for as brief as that may have lasted? Evander Holyfield, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe? Galento would have lost to all those men.

That may be true. I can see Foreman and Bowe doing it because Max and Buddy were so much larger and stronger.

I can see Holyfield doing it also, because Joe Louis had great combinations, and so did Evander.

Michael Moorer, however, is the question mark. Though he lost to Foreman, he was an exceptional fighter. Very fast, and he had some pop to his punches, and very skilled. But I do think he could be thwarted mentally, and possibly engage in a slugfest with Tony. And that isnt where you would want to be with a guy like him.

However, I think with all of those men listed, it wouldnt have been easy for any of them to defeat Galento. Sure, they could beat him. But by how much of a margin, and by how little of effort? That is the question. A man like Galento, who ate pain as if it was smarties, and perferred it that way would of given any of those guys problems if they were willing to engage with him.

Good points. I'm still not sold on the fact that Galento would beat Michael Moorer or that he'd last very long against some of those other guys, but the man was tough. I'll give him that. Cooper wasn't anymore of a glutent for training than Galento was, but I think there was a brief period for about a year and a half where he was actually showing up in good shape for some of his fights. He certainly looked about as fit as anyone could be against Evander. while his win list wasn't spectacular, he did beat some respectable foes in Orlin Norris, Joe Hipp, Willie De'Witt, Loren Ross and Henry Tillman. He also gave fits to Moorer, Mercer and Holyfield. So an inside war with Galento could have resulted in just about anything in my opinion, especially if Cooper happens to be the one who actually shows up looking like he trained somewhat. BTW if you've never seen Cooper vs Mercer, I suggest giving it a look. I'll never forget that fight. I was 16 years old in the summer of 1990 and it was one of the last fights I ever watched on regular network television that wasn't cable. My family and I were renting a summer house on a lake in Illinois, and the TV we had there was a piece of shit with poor reception. The fight kept getting interrupted with news reports of Iraq invading Kuwait. It was a tremendous fight with both men's faces swollen to the size of basketballs when it was over. I think Gil Clancy was at ringside if I recall.

[Ezzard]

Moorer was beatable at HW. He was the more skilled for sure.

Just checked MM's record. He wasn't KO'd or KD'd as often as I recall. I seem to remember him as more brittle than perhaps he was.

[dempseyfire]

Much has been made of Cooper's inconsistency when contrasted to Galento's. But who was Cooper losing to during his peak period for as brief as that may have lasted? Evander Holyfield, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe? Galento would have lost to all those men.

I wouldn't count Galento out vs the weak chinned Moorer, who also could get goaded into a firefight. Galento didn't have great defense, skills, or conditioning (although I'd probably rank him in the 220s as having superior stamina to Cooper) but he was as rough and dirty as they come, had quick hands/surprising athleticism, and one of the hardest left hooks probably in the history of the division. It was a fight changing punch like Frazier's or Dempsey's were.

[Tomasino]

Much has been made of Cooper's inconsistency when contrasted to Galento's. But who was Cooper losing to during his peak period for as brief as that may have lasted? Evander Holyfield, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe? Galento would have lost to all those men.

I wouldn't count Galento out vs the weak chinned Moorer, who also could get goaded into a firefight. Galento didn't have great defense, skills, or conditioning (although I'd probably rank him in the 220s as having superior stamina to Cooper) but he was as rough and dirty as they come, had quick hands/surprising athleticism, and one of the hardest left hooks probably in the history of the division. It was a fight changing punch like Frazier's or Dempsey's were.

He was tough to fight the men he did in the condition he was in. I'd love him to be fighting today. A unique character.

[Ambling Alp II]

This maybe the weakest Fantasy Fight we have ever had. Interesting nevertheless.

Both guys were fun guys to watch who had several huge weaknesses. It is interesting that both are similar in that they are best known for hurting an opponent in a fight that they lost. Galento got a lot of mileage out of the knockdown of Louis. His career is not impressive at all. His toughness is overrated as well. Watch the Max Baer fight on Youtube. He was just hanging on; he was obviously scared to death of Baer.
Cooper could show a lot of heart in one fight and quit like a dog in another.

Had they fought each other, almost anything could have happened. It may have been one of those fights where each guy got knocked down multiple times.

[drunkenpiper36]

Had they fought each other, almost anything could have happened. It may have been one of those fights where each guy got knocked down multiple times.

No doubt about it. In fact Ironically, I could see it as potentially being more entertaining than a lot of matchups we can think of, involving ATG fighters, even though these guys weren't.

[BoxBuzz]

the best fighters facing one another does not always make for a great fight.


Some pretty good fighters facing one another have made for some terrific fights....e.g. Ward Vs Gatti

But some of the most entertaining fights have been put on by those with less skills. The more skills the less chance of those "loose cannon" moments that are some of the most memorable.

Weak as these guys are being portrayed to be, I'm not sure a fight between these guys would be "weak". lol.

[Ambling Alp II]

How evenly matched the two fighters is important. Usually, two evenly matched fighters regardless of skill level will give you an interesting fight; though certainly not always.
Occasionally, the best fighter is much better than the 2nd best fighter and their fight might not be exciting.
Of course some guys are fun to watch when they are fighting a vastly inferior opponent and some are not.

[The Great John L]

His career is not impressive at all.

Wins over Nova, Feldman, Mann, Haynes and Ettore plus a host of other tough club fighters during a tough era is more impressive than most top HWs of the past 3 decades.

A limited guy yes, but his resume is actually pretty good.

[drunkenpiper36]

His career is not impressive at all.

Wins over Nova, Feldman, Mann, Haynes and Ettore plus a host of other tough club fighters during a tough era is more impressive than most top HWs of the past 3 decades.

A limited guy yes, but his resume is actually pretty good.

Galento should have been disqualified against Nova.. Feldman had only won 3 of his last 13 fights and Ettore 3 of his last 6 ( albeit he was fighting top opposition ). Mann was a good win, but he had also taken a hellacious beating form Louis just three months earlier.

[The Great John L]

His career is not impressive at all.

Wins over Nova, Feldman, Mann, Haynes and Ettore plus a host of other tough club fighters during a tough era is more impressive than most top HWs of the past 3 decades.

A limited guy yes, but his resume is actually pretty good.

Galento should have been disqualified against Nova.. Feldman had only won 3 of his last 13 fights and Ettore 3 of his last 6 ( albeit he was fighting top opposition ). Mann was a good win, but he had also taken a hellacious beating form Louis just three months earlier.

All good fighters, and you need to look at the rest of the resume also. You can go over anyones resume and poke holes, but the reality is that Galento had a solid resume during one of the strongest periods of HW talent. If his resume isn't impressive then it's hard to be impressed with anyone besides the Klitschkos, Lewis and Holyfield and over the past 20 years.

[drunkenpiper36]

[quote="The Great John L"][/quote]

Galento was a good fighter with some good scalps. I'll agree with that. I was just directly addressing the specific names you mentioned and pointing out that some of those fights needed to be elaborated on. The Nova fight for example was terrible from what I've read. Tony was allowed to thumb Lou in the eye all night long.

[Ambling Alp II]

His career is not impressive at all.

Wins over Nova, Feldman, Mann, Haynes and Ettore plus a host of other tough club fighters during a tough era is more impressive than most top HWs of the past 3 decades.

A limited guy yes, but his resume is actually pretty good.

I think you are being pretty charitable to Galento. Nova was probably his best win and even that was controversial.
Last 3 decades? Well, the the last dozen years or so has sucked, but before that it was pretty good. No way Galento would have been the top 10 for long from 1984-2000.