BoxRec

Mr E wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I thought the first fight was decisively for Spinks. The second one was an odd situation. I think it was pretty easy to score, first 8 rds Holmes and the last seven for Spinks on my card with the ninth being close. Yet, it's still tough for me to call a fight a robbery that I scored 8-7 even though I can't see any reason to give one of the first 8 rds to Spinks.

I saw those fights pretty much the same way you did.

yup, me too

1. Ali
2. Foreman
3. Tyson
4. Frazier (yes the 1971 version is that good imo)
5. Holmes
6. Lewis (the more rounded experienced 2000's version)
7. Norton
8. Ruddock
9. Jimmy Young (special talent was robbed time and time again)
10.Gerry Cooney (Forget his post 1982 career- His mind wasnt in it after that)


Yes I know I havent included Bowe He is bunched with other very good guys like Quarry,Shavers,Lyle in the 11-15 slots.I make James Toney around 15 but if he had moved up in weight much younger and not wasted so many years like he did in the late 90's early 2000's he could have cracked the lower top 10 in my opinion based on what he had

When he retires Holyfield will remove Cooney from my list....Holyfield will go in at 5.
Vitali when he retires will be somewhere in the lower end of the 15-20 bracket.

double post

Cooney has no wins of note, are you really that impressed with his loss to Holmes?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Cooney has no wins of note, are you really that impressed with his loss to Holmes?

i would call brutal kayoes of norton , lyle, and young notable wins. The fact those three names appear on the top ten lists of many members here is evidence of that.

If people throw the argument well lyle was old, maybe but he had been winning before meeting cooney and started boxing very late. Norton was still very tough and mixing in decent company, and young would go on a streak beating prospect after prospect with padded records for a few years after cooney crushed him.

Cooney did better than many people think against a great and primed holmes. If he hadnt lost so many points for low blows the fight was close on the cards. Sadly due to his letting people down as the last true great white hope, and his own subsequent lethargy and poor performances thereafter cooney is still underrated.

Those guys were all well past their prime. You can't discount Cooney's losses post 1982 and count the wins over those old men as anything significant.

The versions of Norton, Lyle & Young that Gerry fought wouldn't belong in a top 50. Norton was still dangerous? He had barely survived Scott LeDoux. He and Lyle were completely washed up.

Gerry didn't "crush" Young anyway, it was stopped on cuts.

Cooney's best win was George Chaplin, and it was a solid one. He did ok against Holmes, never threatened to win but he took his drubbing like a man.

1. Ali
2. Foreman
3. Holmes
4. Frazier
5. Lewis
6. Tyson
7. Bowe
8. Norton
9. Young
10. Quarry

I would have had Holyfield at #5.
Frazier was hard to rate because he he had some good wins in 1968-1970 that don't count. Still the win over Ali, the great performance he had in the 3rd Ali fight, and wins over Quarry,Ellis, and Bugner have to rate him pretty high.

I put Quarry at #10, but I can why other people are picking other guys.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Those guys were all well past their prime. You can't discount Cooney's losses post 1982 and count the wins over those old men as anything significant.

The versions of Norton, Lyle & Young that Gerry fought wouldn't belong in a top 50. Norton was still dangerous? He had barely survived Scott LeDoux. He and Lyle were completely washed up.

Gerry didn't "crush" Young anyway, it was stopped on cuts.

Cooney's best win was George Chaplin, and it was a solid one. He did ok against Holmes, never threatened to win but he took his drubbing like a man.

well we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.i cant agree with your disparaging of norton, lyle and young. Norton was no more or less shot when he met cooney as he was when he met holmes. So in that sense by your logic holmes three biggest wins were over a shot norton who "wouldnt make any ones top 50" and a cooney who had "no notable wins" and a parkinsons ravaged ali. Yet you still rate holmes.

If cooney is to be overly criticised for fighting slightly over the hill or shot guys as his best wins than the same can be said of quite a few guys like lewis and holyfield to name two.

Its my view cooney crushed young by reducing the slick elusive boxer to a bloody messyou disagree fine thats your right. Lets just leave it at that and let others enjoy this thread

mugabi wrote:Norton was no more or less shot when he met cooney as he was when he met holmes.

Of course he was, 3 years had past in which he had suffered a brutal ko at the hands of Shavers, barley survived against LeDoux and struggled to a draw against Cobb. After the LeDoux fight he retired and was out for more than a year before resuming his career at the tender age of 37. How can you say he was the same against Cooney as he had been against Holmes?

And just for the record, Norton was a couple of years past his prime even when he fought Holmes.

As for Cooney, I don't think he deserves the ridicule often heaped upon him but in no way was he among the 10 best heavy weights since 1970. When your best fight is a loss you really don't qualify for many 'best of' lists.

mugabi wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Those guys were all well past their prime. You can't discount Cooney's losses post 1982 and count the wins over those old men as anything significant.

The versions of Norton, Lyle & Young that Gerry fought wouldn't belong in a top 50. Norton was still dangerous? He had barely survived Scott LeDoux. He and Lyle were completely washed up.

Gerry didn't "crush" Young anyway, it was stopped on cuts.

Cooney's best win was George Chaplin, and it was a solid one. He did ok against Holmes, never threatened to win but he took his drubbing like a man.

well we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.i cant agree with your disparaging of norton, lyle and young. Norton was no more or less shot when he met cooney as he was when he met holmes. So in that sense by your logic holmes three biggest wins were over a shot norton who "wouldnt make any ones top 50" and a cooney who had "no notable wins" and a parkinsons ravaged ali. Yet you still rate holmes.

If cooney is to be overly criticised for fighting slightly over the hill or shot guys as his best wins than the same can be said of quite a few guys like lewis and holyfield to name two.

Its my view cooney crushed young by reducing the slick elusive boxer to a bloody messyou disagree fine thats your right. Lets just leave it at that and let others enjoy this thread

He was the same against Cooney as he was against Holmes? You can't possibly believe that. No slightly about it, Norton and Lyle were totally shot. Sorry, a statement like that is too out there to agree to disagree on. That's just plain wrong.

Young wasn't as far gone as the other guys, so even though it's pushing it. I'll concede that. Chaplin would still be his best win and you think that is worthy of the Top 10 in the last 40 years? Really?

Serious question, do you rate camacho's wins over leonard & Duran?

Heres a serious question for you. If Tyson Fury were to hop on a plane to america, go to Muhammed Ali's house, hide in the bushes, jump out at a unsuspecting Ali and punch him to the floor in a unprovoked attack would you than rate Fury over Ali as a all time HW great?......

That's not even funny, why is it so difficult for you to answer a question? Not that you have to, just most people that submit a list are not opposed to defending their choices. And stating that Norton wasn't shot is just silly, that's much funnier than this attempt at a joke.

This isn't the first time I've seen you rate a win over a shot former great highly. My question was valid. I'm just trying to see where you draw the line. If Norton & Lyle weren't shot, what is?

Whatever, I'll just take it that you were that impressed by Cooney against Holmes to rate him greater than all but 9 Heavyweights in the last four decades. Because he definitely had no major wins.

here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

I don't think you have much to complain about here. You stated that Norton was the same against Cooney as he had been against Holmes. That is certainly an opinion many would question and as far as I can see that is all Saad did.

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

I didn't insult you at all. You consider disagreeing with you an argument and you really should look in the mirror. Look who is trying to start one again. Hmmm, who was my last "argument" with? Yup it was you. By all means, put me on ignore.

There is nothing to agree to disagree with, you're 100% wrong about Norton. You can let it go at anytime. Nobody is dragging you into anything. Feel free to take your ball and go home.

As for being obsessed, I just asked how Cooney made your top 10 and you obviously don't have any justification so you're going to resort to your typical tactics of trying to start an internet playground battle. Bravo, part of ignoring someone is not reading their posts big guy. You still struggle with that concept.

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

It's just that you're so damn wrong --- it's an almost exquisite lack of ability to understand the sport. It makes for an inviting target.

Forgive Saad, myself & company --- your posts are like a rolling ball to a kitten. Pursuit is an impulsion which is difficult to ignore.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

It's just that you're so damn wrong --- it's an almost exquisite lack of ability to understand the sport. It makes for an inviting target.

Forgive Saad, myself & company --- your posts are like a rolling ball to a kitten. Pursuit is an impulsion which is difficult to ignore.

mugabi, if you haven't figured out yet, irene is all-knowing. we are all so lucky to have him on these boards.

my 10 for what its worth. just considering a fighter's wins after 1969.

1. Holmes
2. Foreman
3. Lewis
4. Ali
5. Frazier
6. Tyson
7. Bowe
8. Norton
9. Moorer
10. Witherspoon

this list was hard to make. you could argue almost any decent heavy during this time for the #10 slot, but only if it's ok with irene.

"mugabi, if you haven't figured out yet, irene is all-knowing. we are all so lucky to have him on these boards.

my 10 for what its worth. just considering a fighter's wins after 1969.

1. Holmes
2. Foreman
3. Lewis
4. Ali
5. Frazier
6. Tyson
7. Bowe
8. Norton
9. Moorer
10. Witherspoon

this list was hard to make. you could argue almost any decent heavy during this time for the #10 slot, but only if it's ok with irene." - BJerm

Now there's a can of worms

I shall do my list but find it amazing that Ike Ibeabuchi is in no list. Crazy.

Lennox Lewis No.1 easy.

Not too sure on order but Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Norton, Frazier, Lewis, would be in there as certs. I'd make half a case for Quarry but he'd maybe just miss out

hhaehre wrote:

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

I don't think you have much to complain about here. You stated that Norton was the same against Cooney as he had been against Holmes. That is certainly an opinion many would question and as far as I can see that is all Saad did.

A differing of opinion is fine with me. But these guys dont disagree in a civilised manner , where one tried to convince the other through debate,or accept an opinion other than theirs,they just spout insults and launch vendettas.Many a time Urineiee preaches more about spelling and grammar from his great bastion of convict education Australia than he actually does boxing and Saad is a guy who argued for 20 pages that george foreman was a poor infighter!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote:here we go again
dude your constantly getting in arguments on a daily basis with those whose opinions your cant respect without retorting to insults.I had put you on "ignore" and asked you to do the same with me, yet you seem to have an obsession with my posts! Why are you so insulted i didnt answer your "question". Ask me a garbage question and I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Agree to disagree and live with it

It's just that you're so damn wrong --- it's an almost exquisite lack of ability to understand the sport. It makes for an inviting target.

Forgive Saad, myself & company --- your posts are like a rolling ball to a kitten. Pursuit is an impulsion which is difficult to ignore.

The problem with Urineiee and Saad is I have exposed their lack of boxing knowledge so many times that now like two dogs licking their wounds (well if you must use animal analogies!),eager to nitpick me they say nothing to the guy who just said lennox lewis is number 1!!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Go back to his epic war with LeDoux as he gets blasted around the ring in the final round and holds on for dear life. Perhaps there you will see more than a slight decline from the man that faced Ali.

Even though Norton was closer to being knocked out vs. LeDoux than he was aginst Cobb I feel he looked more shot in the Cobb fight. Against Cobb he could no longer dictate the pace and he spent a lot of time on the ropes, clearly bothered by the light punching Cobb. A far cry from the man who walked Holmes down and punished Larry late in the fight 3 years earlier.

hhaehre wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Go back to his epic war with LeDoux as he gets blasted around the ring in the final round and holds on for dear life. Perhaps there you will see more than a slight decline from the man that faced Ali.

Even though Norton was closer to being knocked out vs. LeDoux than he was aginst Cobb I feel he looked more shot in the Cobb fight. Against Cobb he could no longer dictate the pace and he spent a lot of time on the ropes, clearly bothered by the light punching Cobb. A far cry from the man who walked Holmes down and punished Larry late in the fight 3 years earlier.

Absolutely, that fight came after LeDoux though. Everyone knew he was shot going into it.

Edit: At least he managed to beat Cobb. Though the decision was questionable.

There is a difference between a boxer lacking motivation for a battle, not training properly, taking a fight at short notice,being rusty, being mentally distracted and being actually physically shot. A boxer isn't allowed to have a bad day over the age of 30 he will immediately be called "shot".