Holyfield while still durable was going down against men like John Ruiz and James Toney, which is clear evidence of decline.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2021, 15:23No doubt he was past his prime. But it still certainly doesn't bode well that he lost decisively to Cooney and Shavers at that stage in his career.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 14:45It is absurd that the Cooney fight even gets mentioned. Some people just don't understand the sport.
Even with Shavers, he was 35 years old and facing the hardest puncher in the history of the sport. Not exactly damning evidence against him.
Watch the fights with Ledoux and Cobb, which were between Shavers and Conney. Watch his fights between 1973-1978. There is no comparison.
Many guys are retired by this time. Almost without exception, the rest are far past their best.
Ali I, Ali II, Ali III. Quarry. Bobick. Young. Holmes. More than enough evidence.
Frankly there are plenty of past prime heavyweights I would pick to beat Cooney and Shavers some well past the age of 37.
I don't see Cooney or Shavers scoring quick kayo wins over the 2002 Holyfield who was nearly 40 years old and with far more brutal fights to his credit than Norton had.
It's telling that you have to pick the handful of logic -defying anomalies like Holyfield, Ali and Foreman--three of the best chins ever--to argue your inconceivably stupid idea that boxers' punch resistance doesn't start to go in the mid-30s.