BoxRec

RAPID1 wrote:Granberry your observations and remarks are sound.
Don't expect the same out of Sweet Scientist and it appears the same goes for Collins2000.. If it isn't... Ali or Leonard.... it's no one.

I don't recall ever showing a bias on these forums toward Ali or Leonard, but then I'm not "Sweet Scientist".

Granberry, I'm not for a second going to argue that Gerry Cooney fought - er, um, appeared in the ring with - a big batch of well prepared fighters. Cooney's handlers, on one hand, handled him very well in maneuvering him into the Holmes fight, making him a mainstream star and a very rich man while subjecting him to minimal physical risk. On the other hand they did him an extreme disservice to his development as a fighter by not putting him in against the kind of quality opponents who'd build his confidence, and by putting all of that "America's Fighter" B.S. on his shoulders. That said, I stand by my original agreement with Joe Kurtz' post.

As far as any "sympathy" I have, it's for any man or woman brave enough to box.

To add to the list of heavies: Mac Foster, Ingemar Johansson, Johnny Boudreaux, Buster Mathis Sr., Marty Monroe, Pinklon Thomas, Francesco Damiani, and Gary Mason.

Cooney is a good example of a man whose entire career it would seem was based solely on the build up and the fight with Holmes.

Once that happened, he became lost and his status of white challenger obsolete.

In-activity and no real managerial plan after that fight saw him 'challenge' Spinks and lose and then come out to play with Foreman for some $.

Mac Foster is another good example of a guy who seemed to abandom his goals, or who was abandoned by his 'people' once he lost and he became mortal.

What I find in the fight world, is that once some one losses, so many people stand up and say " I told you so" and not enough say "Where should he (we) go from here ".

Kym

felix trinidad
lloyd honeyghan
michael nunn

Mike Tyson.

He was never the same fighter after Douglas exposed him.

Yes he won titles again, but when you return after a 4 year ring hiatus & Frank Bruno & Bruce Seldon are the champs, then that puts that into perspective!

[quote="Syntax Error"]Mike Tyson.

He was never the same fighter after Douglas exposed him.

Yes he won titles again, but when you return after a 4 year ring hiatus & Frank Bruno & Bruce Seldon are the champs, then that puts that into perspective![/quote]

I can not understand why some people persist in thinking that the Douglas fight "exposed" Tyson. Tyson had been going down hill for a long time before Douglas due to lack of proper training and outside of the ring factors. Douglas didn't face the Iron Mike Tyson just a faded Mike Tyson and this had been obvious for some time prior to Douglas. However, Douglas should still be given credit for fighting the best fight of his career.

TigerMoth wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Mike Tyson.

He was never the same fighter after Douglas exposed him.

Yes he won titles again, but when you return after a 4 year ring hiatus & Frank Bruno & Bruce Seldon are the champs, then that puts that into perspective!

I can not understand why some people persist in thinking that the Douglas fight "exposed" Tyson. Tyson had been going down hill for a long time before Douglas due to lack of proper training and outside of the ring factors. Douglas didn't face the Iron Mike Tyson just a faded Mike Tyson and this had been obvious for some time prior to Douglas. However, Douglas should still be given credit for fighting the best fight of his career.

You're right, Tyson was going downhill before the Douglas bout, but I still maintain that he was 'exposed' by Douglas.

Contrast the way Razor Ruddock fought Tyson, to the way that Douglas fought Tyson.

Razor had the courage & heart to live with Tyson & could have beaten him had he used his brain, but he employed the wrong tactics; he stood toe-to-toe & traded single heavy shots, which cost him.

Douglas on the other hand; he used jabs & uppercuts & boxed Tyson, therefore exposing him & laying down the blueprint for beating him.

Yes, it was not the 1986 Tyson, but it was Tyson, undisputed HW champ of the world, that nobody had ever beaten as a pro & Douglas could only beat who was put in front of him on that night.

It was a damn fine achievement, considering that NOBODY gave Douglas a prayer & he should be given credit, because had he been battered, the way everybody expected him to be, no-one would have even mentioned Tyson's outside distractions etc.

Don King was the agent in the destruction of Tyson.

King polluted and destroyed everything he came in contact with.

granberry wrote:Don King was the agent in the destruction of Tyson.

King polluted and destroyed everything he came in contact with.

And that includes one of the dearest treasures boxing fans had in the modern era: Ring Magazine

Broncano wrote:

granberry wrote:Don King was the agent in the destruction of Tyson.

King polluted and destroyed everything he came in contact with.

And that includes one of the dearest treasures boxing fans had in the modern era: Ring Magazine

Bert Sugar, Herbert Goldman, Steve Farhood, and Nigel Collins were eager helpers in that destruction and degradation of what was once the Bible of Boxing.

.

Broncano wrote:

granberry wrote:Don King was the agent in the destruction of Tyson.

King polluted and destroyed everything he came in contact with.

And that includes one of the dearest treasures boxing fans had in the modern era: Ring Magazine

You're right on the mark about Ring Magazine. When Nat Fleischer was the editor,he had some great writers working for him(Sam Taub--Up and Down Old Broadway,and Dan Daniel) It was more than reporting the fights--it was a history lesson of boxing. Those guys went back to the turn of the century. And as a added bonus I enjoyed reading the Wrestling section in the back. This is when wrestling had characters like Killer Kowalski and Lou Thesz,not these roid freaks of today.

Mac Foster would be just about a perfect example; 24-0 wth 24 ko's before running into Jerry Quarry at Jerry's very best. A .500 fighter after that.

[quote="Syntax Error"][quote="TigerMoth"][quote="Syntax Error"]Mike Tyson.

Douglas on the other hand; he used jabs & uppercuts & boxed Tyson, therefore exposing him & laying down the blueprint for beating him.

It was a damn fine achievement

The point is that the "blueprint" didn't exist until Tyson had already gone down hill. Had the same Douglas tried to fight the same fight against Iron Mike Tyson and not the faded Tyson, he would have been destroyed.

Still, I agree it was a damn fine achievement for Douglas.

granberry wrote:

Broncano wrote:

granberry wrote:Don King was the agent in the destruction of Tyson.

King polluted and destroyed everything he came in contact with.

And that includes one of the dearest treasures boxing fans had in the modern era: Ring Magazine

Bert Sugar, Herbert Goldman, Steve Farhood, and Nigel Collins were eager helpers in that destruction and degradation of what was once the Bible of Boxing.

.

I'm surprised you forgot Nat Loubet.

He did the real damage by getting The Ring mixed up in Don King's rigged U.S. tournament.

Collins2000 wrote:

granberry wrote:

Broncano wrote: And that includes one of the dearest treasures boxing fans had in the modern era: Ring Magazine

Bert Sugar, Herbert Goldman, Steve Farhood, and Nigel Collins were eager helpers in that destruction and degradation of what was once the Bible of Boxing.

.

I'm surprised you forgot Nat Loubet.

He did the real damage by getting The Ring mixed up in Don King's rigged U.S. tournament.

Oh, for sure.

I mean, wasn't Loubet the one who actually got the whole thing rolling by letting it be known that THE RING's ratings & THE RING RECORD BOOK's accuracy were for sale to whomever was willing to line his pockets?
I mean, had he had some integrity & had even a small percentage of the respect for the sport that his father in law had, then the whole US Championships fiasco would have likely never have happened. Oh, I'm sure that King would have still brought the series to ABC & the tourney would have still occurred. But, had Loubet not been a greedy SOB & had he made Al Braverman & his cronies bring all legit fighters into it rather than a mix of real talent & stiffs with puffed up records ( like the notorious Biff Cline ) then the tourney may have actually gone off without a hitch.
And who knows how boxing history would have been altered had it reached it's conclusion without the scandal?

granberry wrote:

RAPID1 wrote:First of all Spinks wasn't a true heavyweight. As much as I liked
and evryone liked Gerry Cooney, he was a one dimensional fighter with
one punch. I would agree also that Holmes most likely exposed this
weakness and the fight took it's toll on him.

Cooney was never a trained athlete.

He always had a soft midsection.

I knew two fighters who had what amounted to fakes with him.

Cooney lost to anyone who hit him back.

And he wasn't a great puncher, as his "fight" with Young showed.

Young stood directly in front of Cooney and let Cooney hit him both to the head and body.

Cooney was unable to shake Young.

Losing to the pathetic Michael Spinks shows Cooney clearly for what he was.

Spinks was a fraud as a heavyweight, as Tyson showed in 91 seconds.

Those 91 seconds include the 10-count.

Cooney's "trainer" Victor Valle was totally incompetent.

spinks while not a top 10 heavyweight was not a fraud tyson was awesome that night and it helped him not being a 'true' heavyweight i couldnt see many people that would of beat tyson on that night he was deadly

John Mugabi was the first to spring to mind.

Mugabi fought Duane Thomas for the WBC 154 title after losing to Hagler. From memory the fight was about even until Mugabi caught a horrendous thumb and he couldn't continue. With massive punchers like Mugabi it's more a confidence thing, after they lose once (which means there are people out there that can stand up to their power) they often start to lose regularly

granberry wrote:

RAPID1 wrote:F
And he wasn't a great puncher, as his "fight" with Young showed.

Young stood directly in front of Cooney and let Cooney hit him both to the head and body.

Cooney was unable to shake Young.

Not only did Cooney shake Young but he almost ripped half his face off.

Young's face was absolute mess when the fight was stopped.

To suggest that Young was paied off to stand there and allow his face to be mutilated is just silly

Syntax Error wrote:

TigerMoth wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Mike Tyson.

He was never the same fighter after Douglas exposed him.

Yes he won titles again, but when you return after a 4 year ring hiatus & Frank Bruno & Bruce Seldon are the champs, then that puts that into perspective!

I can not understand why some people persist in thinking that the Douglas fight "exposed" Tyson. Tyson had been going down hill for a long time before Douglas due to lack of proper training and outside of the ring factors. Douglas didn't face the Iron Mike Tyson just a faded Mike Tyson and this had been obvious for some time prior to Douglas. However, Douglas should still be given credit for fighting the best fight of his career.

You're right, Tyson was going downhill before the Douglas bout, but I still maintain that he was 'exposed' by Douglas.

Contrast the way Razor Ruddock fought Tyson, to the way that Douglas fought Tyson.

Razor had the courage & heart to live with Tyson & could have beaten him had he used his brain, but he employed the wrong tactics; he stood toe-to-toe & traded single heavy shots, which cost him.

Douglas on the other hand; he used jabs & uppercuts & boxed Tyson, therefore exposing him & laying down the blueprint for beating him.

Yes, it was not the 1986 Tyson, but it was Tyson, undisputed HW champ of the world, that nobody had ever beaten as a pro & Douglas could only beat who was put in front of him on that night.

It was a damn fine achievement, considering that NOBODY gave Douglas a prayer & he should be given credit, because had he been battered, the way everybody expected him to be, no-one would have even mentioned Tyson's outside distractions etc.

Exactly, nobody really mentions his distractions when talking about the likes of Tony Tubbs and his other opponents around that time.

Fernando Vargas
David Reid
Del Flanagan
Donald Curry

Of more recent times --- & of bigger names --- Felix Trinidad is probably the most extreme case. His career completely fell apart after crashing against Hopkins.

I'm really surpised no one's mentioned ROY JONES (Tarver)

Spinks did not want to fight HWs. He beat the old Holmes who just wasn't quick enough to pull the trigger. When Holmes did land and hurt Spinks he could not follow up or sustain an attack long enough to stop him.

Spinks knew he'd lose to the first real HW who was properly prepared.

Spinks withdrew from the HW tournament because he did not want to ruin his big pay day when he fought Tyson. Tyson was his big pay cheque and he knew it. Spinks never fought again because there was no future for him in the division. He was smart enough to realise this.

Tantum wrote:I'm really surpised no one's mentioned ROY JONES (Tarver)

Well, the topic is referring to fighters who never recovered from their first loss. Jones had lost before Tarver.

He's not a 'boxer of the past' quite yet, but Dominic Guinn surely fits in here.