BoxRec

Norton fought Cobb six months before he fought Cooney, not two years.

Those rankings drunkenpiper36 linked to are Rings annual rankings. These annual rankings were meant to be a reflection of the previous year and not necessarily current standings.

Norton was ranked #9 going into the Cooney fight, while Cooney was #3, per The Ring's June 1981 issue, which had rankings as of April 15.

Going into the Jimmy Young fight, Cooney was ranked #5 while Young was ranked #12 (Ring, July 1980, ratings as of May 10.).

Lyle was not ranked in Ring's top 15 when he fought Cooney (no surprise). Dino Denis was not in Ring's top 10 (they didn't publish a top 15 at that point).

Eddie Gregg was unranked by Ring going into the Cooney fight (as was Cooney). Gregg had cracked Ring's top 15 around the time Cooney fought Brown and Chaplin. The KO over Gregg did not get Cooney back into the Ring's ratings.

Cooney was unranked by Ring when he fought Michael Spinks.

George Foreman was not yet ranked when he fought Cooney and his convincing victory still did not earn him a ranking by The Ring.

So, yeah, the only top 10 fighter, per The Ring, Cooney ever beat was Ken Norton. The only top 10 fighters he even fought were Norton, Holmes, and Spinks.

sweetsci wrote:Norton fought Cobb six months before he fought Cooney, not two years.

Those rankings drunkenpiper36 linked to are Rings annual rankings. These annual rankings were meant to be a reflection of the previous year and not necessarily current standings.

Norton was ranked #9 going into the Cooney fight, while Cooney was #3, per The Ring's June 1981 issue, which had rankings as of April 15.

Going into the Jimmy Young fight, Cooney was ranked #5 while Young was ranked #12 (Ring, July 1980, ratings as of May 10.).

Lyle was not ranked in Ring's top 15 when he fought Cooney (no surprise). Dino Denis was not in Ring's top 10 (they didn't publish a top 15 at that point).

Eddie Gregg was unranked by Ring going into the Cooney fight (as was Cooney). Gregg had cracked Ring's top 15 around the time Cooney fought Brown and Chaplin. The KO over Gregg did not get Cooney back into the Ring's ratings.

Cooney was unranked by Ring when he fought Michael Spinks.

George Foreman was not yet ranked when he fought Cooney and his convincing victory still did not earn him a ranking by The Ring.

So, yeah, the only top 10 fighter, per The Ring, Cooney ever beat was Ken Norton. The only top 10 fighters he even fought were Norton, Holmes, and Spinks.

According to the ring yes. But thanks for that info. So Norton was #9? Cool.

I was a HUGE Cooney fan back then (79 - 84) as a 12-13-14-15-16 year old kid and was thrilled to see his Ring ranking go so high (#2 behind Weaver from November 1980 to March of 82, when he fell behind Weaver and Dokes). But the quality of his opposition sure didn't merit it. I think that he would've easily beaten top 10 ranked guys like Marty Monroe, Bernardo Mercado, John Tate, and Leon Spinks. And I'd like to think that he'd beat Coetzee, Berbick, Tillis, Cobb, and Snipes, but we'll never know. He never really proved his ranking. I think his management was wise to steer clear of Weaver, Page, and Dokes to go for the big money against Holmes.

The intriguing thing about Gerry Cooney is that he only lost to all-time greats (I'm looking at Spinks overall, not just at heavyweight) and looked pretty impressive against everybody else. His record, or lack of one, really opens his merits as a fighter open to debate. He's like Ike Ibeabuchi in that sense.

BTW, I refer to Ring's ratings quite a bit here. I feel they're far less biased than organizational ratings (John Ort era excepted). I had loads of boxing magazines back then (World Boxing, KO, Boxing Illustrated) and, for better perspective, I wish I would've complied their ratings too, like i did with The Ring, before I got rid of them.

sweetsci wrote:I was a HUGE Cooney fan back then (79 - 84) as a 12-13-14-15-16 year old kid and was thrilled to see his Ring ranking go so high (#2 behind Weaver from November 1980 to March of 82, when he fell behind Weaver and Dokes). But the quality of his opposition sure didn't merit it. I think that he would've easily beaten top 10 ranked guys like Marty Monroe, Bernardo Mercado, John Tate, and Leon Spinks. And I'd like to think that he'd beat Coetzee, Berbick, Tillis, Cobb, and Snipes, but we'll never know. He never really proved his ranking. I think his management was wise to steer clear of Weaver, Page, and Dokes to go for the big money against Holmes.

The intriguing thing about Gerry Cooney is that he only lost to all-time greats (I'm looking at Spinks overall, not just at heavyweight) and looked pretty impressive against everybody else. His record, or lack of one, really opens his merits as a fighter open to debate. He's like Ike Ibeabuchi in that sense.

BTW, I refer to Ring's ratings quite a bit here. I feel they're far less biased than organizational ratings (John Ort era excepted). I had loads of boxing magazines back then (World Boxing, KO, Boxing Illustrated) and, for better perspective, I wish I would've complied their ratings too, like i did with The Ring, before I got rid of them.

I had a whole chest of ring and KO mags at one time, but when I moved out, I left the chest behind and Mom threw them out. But I didn't start collecting them until the late 80's. The only back issues I had was one from 1983 entitled "Michael Dokes, Tainted Champion?" and another one from 1986 featuring the Witherspoon-Tubbs fight. All the rest were from about 1988 to 1994. Now they're all in a land fill somewhere. Yeah I agree that Gerry left a lot of unanswered questions. I'm pretty sure he would have beaten Tillis, Cobb, Monroe, Spinks, and Tate. I'd favor him against Weaver, Snipes and Dokes, but unsure about Coetzee and Berbick. Of course Weaver was probably the best of that bunch, but Cooney had the size, power and fast starting abilities to get to him first, but we'll never know. There were times I went back and forth on my liking for ring ratings vs Alphabet ones. Sometimes I agreed with one while scoffing over the other.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Ring magazine had Norton Ranked #10 and the WBA had Gregg ranked #3 ( though probably not deserved. ) That's just off the top of my head. so yours is not exactly an accurate comment.

Gregg at #3. You're a funny guy.

The Great John L wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Ring magazine had Norton Ranked #10 and the WBA had Gregg ranked #3 ( though probably not deserved. ) That's just off the top of my head. so yours is not exactly an accurate comment.

Gregg at #3. You're a funny guy.

So what does that mean, you admit you were wrong?

Weaver pretty much stopped Tate the first time he hit him, he at least badly hurt him in the 12th. Up until then it was a Tate clinic. Johns was more skilled than Gerry.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Weaver pretty much stopped Tate the first time he hit him, he at least badly hurt him in the 12th. Up until then it was a Tate clinic. Johns was more skilled than Gerry.

Yawn...

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Weaver pretty much stopped Tate the first time he hit him, he at least badly hurt him in the 12th. Up until then it was a Tate clinic. Johns was more skilled than Gerry.

Yawn...

I recall reading Norton's autobiography, and how he rehashed the Cooney fight in his mind. For what its worth, he made it sound like he was offered to do the fight, and he wasn't overly interested in boxing after LeDoux and Cobb anyways. So, if that ever was an admission of someone coming in as a lamb led to slaughter, then I dont know what is.

HomicideHenry wrote:I recall reading Norton's autobiography, and how he rehashed the Cooney fight in his mind. For what its worth, he made it sound like he was offered to do the fight, and he wasn't overly interested in boxing after LeDoux and Cobb anyways. So, if that ever was an admission of someone coming in as a lamb led to slaughter, then I dont know what is.

It was just a last payday for a completely finished fighter. Cooney versus Ledoux and Cobb would have been good fights.

HomicideHenry wrote:I recall reading Norton's autobiography, and how he rehashed the Cooney fight in his mind. For what its worth, he made it sound like he was offered to do the fight, and he wasn't overly interested in boxing after LeDoux and Cobb anyways. So, if that ever was an admission of someone coming in as a lamb led to slaughter, then I dont know what is.

The Lyle and Norton wins were even less meaningful than McBrides stoppage of Tyson.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It was just a last payday for a completely finished fighter. Cooney versus Ledoux and Cobb would have been good fights.

Yes they would have been. I'd favor LeDoux over Cooney, but big Gerry would be my pick against Cobb.

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I recall reading Norton's autobiography, and how he rehashed the Cooney fight in his mind. For what its worth, he made it sound like he was offered to do the fight, and he wasn't overly interested in boxing after LeDoux and Cobb anyways. So, if that ever was an admission of someone coming in as a lamb led to slaughter, then I dont know what is.

The Lyle and Norton wins were even less meaningful than McBrides stoppage of Tyson.

I never said the Lyle, Young, Norton wins meant anything--- did you not read what I said? Norton more or less admitted he didnt even want to box anymore, and was admittedly washed up as a fighter when he fought Cooney--- was all about the money at that stage.

HomicideHenry wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:I recall reading Norton's autobiography, and how he rehashed the Cooney fight in his mind. For what its worth, he made it sound like he was offered to do the fight, and he wasn't overly interested in boxing after LeDoux and Cobb anyways. So, if that ever was an admission of someone coming in as a lamb led to slaughter, then I dont know what is.

The Lyle and Norton wins were even less meaningful than McBrides stoppage of Tyson.

I never said the Lyle, Young, Norton wins meant anything--- did you not read what I said? Norton more or less admitted he didnt even want to box anymore, and was admittedly washed up as a fighter when he fought Cooney--- was all about the money at that stage.

I was agreeing with you. I guess I needed to start the post with

Oh my mistake---- btw, I was one of the very few people who picked McBride to beat Tyson that night. I wish I could of actually laid down some dough on that one, I'd probably of been set for life. However, I will say Danny Williams's win over Tyson was less meaningful than say McBride's was, because Williams essentially fought a one-legged man.

I bet on McBride at +800 or so. Williams I bet everyone I was watching with at the end of the first round. Danny's win was much more impressive.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I bet on McBride at +800 or so. Williams I bet everyone I was watching with at the end of the first round. Danny's win was much more impressive.

I disagree, Tyson blew out his knee in between rounds--- it meant very little.

Then of course, Tyson rebounded and beat Clifford Ettienne, and everyone was convinced McBride had no business being in there--- and Tyson quit on his stool between the 7th and 8th rounds.

To me, Tyson was effectively done as a real serious threat to the title back when he fought Holyfield. I'd even argue, maybe even before that. He was living essentially off a persona of being "the baddest man on the planet" ever since he lost to James Buster Douglas. Late 90's-early 2000's, it was a carnival act, a man pretending to be something he once was--- he still had power, still had good hand speed--- but in essence it was all an act for our benefit. I mean, he went 7 rounds with BRIAN NIELSEN before facing Lennox Lewis. If that dont tell anyone anything, I dont know what would.

That's why I never really count Lewis's win over Tyson as meaning really anything. I'd put it in the same category as when Joe Louis fought Jack Sharkey, who was only Jack Sharkey in name anymore. An echo of the man he once was. As Tyson put it, after losing to McBride: "Man, my career was over in 1990 when I lost to Buster Douglas," and I think no truer words have ever been said out of the mouth of a fighter.

HomicideHenry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I bet on McBride at +800 or so. Williams I bet everyone I was watching with at the end of the first round. Danny's win was much more impressive.

I disagree

I know.

If you want to believe beating up a one legged man, is a better win then theres no point arguing with you on this...

HomicideHenry wrote:If you want to believe beating up a one legged man, is a better win then theres no point arguing with you on this...

Cool, I don't even think they're in the same ballpark.

HomicideHenry wrote:btw, I was one of the very few people who picked McBride to beat Tyson that night.

I certainly wasn't. I thought that Tyson would indeed "gut him like a fish" as he said he'd do before the fight.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
I had a whole chest of ring and KO mags at one time, but when I moved out, I left the chest behind and Mom threw them out.

Oh man, that sucks! Mine went out all over the world via eBay. I don't really miss them, but I wish I'd compiled their ratings.

sweetsci wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
I had a whole chest of ring and KO mags at one time, but when I moved out, I left the chest behind and Mom threw them out.

Oh man, that sucks! Mine went out all over the world via eBay. I don't really miss them, but I wish I'd compiled their ratings.

Yeah, to some degree I wish I still had them or did what you did and made money on them. But hey. Stuff happens.

I had a few thousand Rings, Ko's, Boxing Illustrated, World Boxing and SI's when I moved out and I ditched them too. If I still had them I'd flip through them here and there. I had every Ring from 1977 to at least 1990.