BoxRec

bennie wrote:Cooper was a nasty, ruthless, dedicated fighter. I don't recall Enzo or David Haye making it to the Olympics. You name it, Henry did it as a fighter: two ABA titles, three Lonsdale Belts, decking arguably the greatest heavyweight who ever lives... Just a fight after Clay struggled with the quick, sneaky Cooper, he ripped the world heavyweight title from the dreaded Sonny Liston. Haye and Maccarinelli would have beaten Liston, too, I suppose.
Yes, Cooper had his off-nights but he doesn't deserve a (mostly) ignorant thread like this.

What an "ignorant" prick you are Bennie.

Last time I checked this was a "forum" and we discuss things on a forum.

I spoke with a bookie mate of mine yesterday and he said he would have Enzo odds-on.

And the is a strong argument that Coopers glory night against Clay was a fluke in the same way that Douglas got Tyson, Rahman vs Lewis and so on....

I'm intending on getting some of Brut Boy's fights. Any suggestions, apart from the obvious ones?

Emule wrote:

bennie wrote:Cooper was a nasty, ruthless, dedicated fighter. I don't recall Enzo or David Haye making it to the Olympics. You name it, Henry did it as a fighter: two ABA titles, three Lonsdale Belts, decking arguably the greatest heavyweight who ever lives... Just a fight after Clay struggled with the quick, sneaky Cooper, he ripped the world heavyweight title from the dreaded Sonny Liston. Haye and Maccarinelli would have beaten Liston, too, I suppose.
Yes, Cooper had his off-nights but he doesn't deserve a (mostly) ignorant thread like this.

What an "ignorant" prick you are Bennie.

Last time I checked this was a "forum" and we discuss things on a forum.

I spoke with a bookie mate of mine yesterday and he said he would have Enzo odds-on.

And the is a strong argument that Coopers glory night against Clay was a fluke in the same way that Douglas got Tyson, Rahman vs Lewis and so on....

don't worry. In one of Bennie's previews he failed to distinguish between the belts held by Haye and Maccarinelli. You could easily pull him up for that.

Nothing wrong with "what if" threads. Cooper is an old fave and Enzo is heading into a British superfight.

Autobarn wrote:

Emule wrote:

bennie wrote:Cooper was a nasty, ruthless, dedicated fighter. I don't recall Enzo or David Haye making it to the Olympics. You name it, Henry did it as a fighter: two ABA titles, three Lonsdale Belts, decking arguably the greatest heavyweight who ever lives... Just a fight after Clay struggled with the quick, sneaky Cooper, he ripped the world heavyweight title from the dreaded Sonny Liston. Haye and Maccarinelli would have beaten Liston, too, I suppose.
Yes, Cooper had his off-nights but he doesn't deserve a (mostly) ignorant thread like this.

What an "ignorant" prick you are Bennie.

Last time I checked this was a "forum" and we discuss things on a forum.

I spoke with a bookie mate of mine yesterday and he said he would have Enzo odds-on.

And the is a strong argument that Coopers glory night against Clay was a fluke in the same way that Douglas got Tyson, Rahman vs Lewis and so on....

don't worry. In one of Bennie's previews he failed to distinguish between the belts held by Haye and Maccarinelli. You could easily pull him up for that.

Nothing wrong with "what if" threads. Cooper is an old fave and Enzo is heading into a British superfight.

Agreed. Good thread.

Two further points:

Just because you have ABA titles and go to the Olympics, doesn't make you a good profressional boxer.

DeJesus floored Duran in his prime, but it doesn't make him a great or even a good fighter because of it.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: Just because you have ABA titles and go to the Olympics, doesn't make you a good profressional boxer.

DeJesus floored Duran in his prime, but it doesn't make him a great or even a good fighter because of it.

Of course DeJesus was a great fighter, you really think anyone less than a great fighter would be able to beat a prime Roberto Duran??
And also floor the rock chinned Panamanian, not once but TWICE, in two different fights, just to prove it wasn't a fluke the 1st time.

Enzo v Cooper is an interestig one, with Enzo possibly stepping up to full world class and given that Cooper would be a cruiserweight in today's era.

Enzo Macs collective of WBO fights are some of the worst since the days of Herbie Hide. Cooper mixed with heavys & would whack out Mac with the left hook.

MightyWarrior wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: Just because you have ABA titles and go to the Olympics, doesn't make you a good profressional boxer.

DeJesus floored Duran in his prime, but it doesn't make him a great or even a good fighter because of it.

Of course DeJesus was a great fighter, you really think anyone less than a great fighter would be able to beat a prime Roberto Duran??
And also floor the rock chinned Panamanian, not once but TWICE, in two different fights, just to prove it wasn't a fluke the 1st time.

In the second fight it's reported that Duran had food poising, so I think that depends on interpretation. However, I wasn't there so can't guarantee as Duran did speak a lot of cod.

Also, in the first fight I thought it was a dodgy decision watching it recently. As did Bert Sugar, who was in attendance at the fight.

However, I'm getting off subject. Cooper wasn't a great fighter, British people tend to look at him all misty eyed because he floored Clay and managed to market himself very well in the 70s.

Any fighter that gets KOd by people with a 14-8 and 34-9 record in their early 20s isn't a great fighter. He's a good domestic fighter that had one very good performance against a G.O.A.T.

overhand_right wrote:Enzo Macs collective of WBO fights are some of the worst since the days of Herbie Hide. Cooper mixed with heavys & would whack out Mac with the left hook.

FWarren could have made Cooper a world beater, espeially with a WBO cruiserweight title.

Down the new Wembley Way they have a few reminders of the old trail, given the sheer history, the sheer nostalgia. But were 'the good old days' really better? Well, in boxing, most definitely yes.
The sport has deteriorated in today's muddled, diluted scene and anyone who thinks otherwise is young, ignorant, stupid, or all three. Take the 12-round championship distance. Fighters were understandably patient in their approach to a 15-rounder and made sure they had a real grounding. Today? If they can do eight rounds, they can do 12; they don't need to stretch themselves. Today's world title situation also makes for incomplete fighters. Roy Jones went his whole peak handpicking opponents (even more so now as an old man) while Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe traded insults and never punches (in the pros) - the best fighters of the 90's. The best fighter of all time, Sugar Ray Robinson, took on Sammy Angott, Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic in his first year as a pro, and Jake LaMotta a total of six times.
Zivic, the dirtiest fighter of all time, was never disqualified in 230 career fights. Too clever.
Fighters of generations past would handle fighters today because they were more rounded, more tested, more complete, more skilful - they fought the best. OK, fighters today are bigger, stronger and probably quicker - but a few advances in speed and strength wouldn't save them. They haven't got the skill, you see, the 'moves', the competition.
Think about it. Would David Haye thrive in the era Henry Cooper fought in, an era rife with ferocious competition, one title per weight and eight weights? How long would Haye last with someone like Bob Foster, with someone like Joe Frazier (ouch)?
Great fighters of the past were truly great; nowadays, I'm not so sure.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: Just because you have ABA titles and go to the Olympics, doesn't make you a good profressional boxer.

DeJesus floored Duran in his prime, but it doesn't make him a great or even a good fighter because of it.

Of course DeJesus was a great fighter, you really think anyone less than a great fighter would be able to beat a prime Roberto Duran??
And also floor the rock chinned Panamanian, not once but TWICE, in two different fights, just to prove it wasn't a fluke the 1st time.

In the second fight it's reported that Duran had food poising, so I think that depends on interpretation. However, I wasn't there so can't guarantee as Duran did speak a lot of cod.

Also, in the first fight I thought it was a dodgy decision watching it recently. As did Bert Sugar, who was in attendance at the fight.

However, I'm getting off subject. Cooper wasn't a great fighter, British people tend to look at him all misty eyed because he floored Clay and managed to market himself very well in the 70s.

Any fighter that gets KOd by people with a 14-8 and 34-9 record in their early 20s isn't a great fighter. He's a good domestic fighter that had one very good performance against a G.O.A.T.

No one is calling Cooper a great fighter but the drivel that is being spouted on here by people who think Haye and Macca are a league above him easily shows plain ignorance, or no ability to assess a fighters skills and capabilities.

Your assessment of Coopers early losses are interesting, particularly when some of them were on cuts, and even more interesting when Maccarinelli was KNOCKED OUT (not TKO or CUTS) by 8-9-1 Lee Swaby. Whilst Carl Thompson had a record of 32-6 (not unlike the 34-9 of Joe Bygraves when he stopped Cooper) when he stopped Haye who was, yes in his early 20's.

KO Artist wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote: Of course DeJesus was a great fighter, you really think anyone less than a great fighter would be able to beat a prime Roberto Duran??
And also floor the rock chinned Panamanian, not once but TWICE, in two different fights, just to prove it wasn't a fluke the 1st time.

In the second fight it's reported that Duran had food poising, so I think that depends on interpretation. However, I wasn't there so can't guarantee as Duran did speak a lot of cod.

Also, in the first fight I thought it was a dodgy decision watching it recently. As did Bert Sugar, who was in attendance at the fight.

However, I'm getting off subject. Cooper wasn't a great fighter, British people tend to look at him all misty eyed because he floored Clay and managed to market himself very well in the 70s.

Any fighter that gets KOd by people with a 14-8 and 34-9 record in their early 20s isn't a great fighter. He's a good domestic fighter that had one very good performance against a G.O.A.T.

No one is calling Cooper a great fighter but the drivel that is being spouted on here by people who think Haye and Macca are a league above him easily shows plain ignorance, or no ability to assess a fighters skills and capabilities.

Your assessment of Coopers early losses are interesting, particularly when some of them were on cuts, and even more interesting when Maccarinelli was KNOCKED OUT (not TKO or CUTS) by 8-9-1 Lee Swaby. Whilst Carl Thompson had a record of 32-6 (not unlike the 34-9 of Joe Bygraves when he stopped Cooper) when he stopped Haye who was, yes in his early 20's.

I don't think we can use the Carl Thompson example, as he was a former World Champion.

Plus the losses were on cuts for Cooper. His first cuts loss was against Bates a while later.

The Swaby loss is inexcusable, mind.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

KO Artist wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: In the second fight it's reported that Duran had food poising, so I think that depends on interpretation. However, I wasn't there so can't guarantee as Duran did speak a lot of cod.

Also, in the first fight I thought it was a dodgy decision watching it recently. As did Bert Sugar, who was in attendance at the fight.

However, I'm getting off subject. Cooper wasn't a great fighter, British people tend to look at him all misty eyed because he floored Clay and managed to market himself very well in the 70s.

Any fighter that gets KOd by people with a 14-8 and 34-9 record in their early 20s isn't a great fighter. He's a good domestic fighter that had one very good performance against a G.O.A.T.

No one is calling Cooper a great fighter but the drivel that is being spouted on here by people who think Haye and Macca are a league above him easily shows plain ignorance, or no ability to assess a fighters skills and capabilities.

Your assessment of Coopers early losses are interesting, particularly when some of them were on cuts, and even more interesting when Maccarinelli was KNOCKED OUT (not TKO or CUTS) by 8-9-1 Lee Swaby. Whilst Carl Thompson had a record of 32-6 (not unlike the 34-9 of Joe Bygraves when he stopped Cooper) when he stopped Haye who was, yes in his early 20's.

I don't think we can use the Carl Thompson example, as he was a former World Champion.

Plus the losses were on cuts for Cooper. His first cuts loss was against Bates a while later.

The Swaby loss is inexcusable, mind.

I think some of what you say is what Bennie was alluding to what is wrong with Boxing today. Carl Thompson won a belt from an organisation called the WBO. These belts are trinkets used by promoters to package up and label events for TV companies to show to the general public.

Carl Thompson was not at any time the best Cruiserweight in the world. Decent fighter, yes, well conditioned, yes, good heart yes, terrific power yes, gallant warror, no doubt.

But lets not kid ourselves: what Carl Thompson acheived was no greater than winning the European title in Henry Coopers day. And when Haye fought Thompson, Carl was shopworn to say the least.

MightyWarrior wrote:We could find out soon, Enry would have no trouble at all getting a WBO rating, and I'm sure Frank would been keen to make this historic match at the Millenium, as Enzo's comeback fight after Haye.

Brilliant

Have to agree with much of what is said here.

The level of competition in Cooper's era was much higher, and to be a genuine contender the level of skill required was much greater than it is now.

Fighters served longer apprenticeships, and fought a hell of a lot more often than they do now, and as a result, their skill sets were much greater.

Cooper was beatable, but unbeaten fighters were a great rarity back then, and it was all seen as part of the learning process in coming back from adversity.

Some might not agree but I've always thought that losing one or two on the way up was not a bad thing. The bitterness of defeat can make someone mentally stronger and strive all the more for the sweetness of victory.

It also corrects mistakes, something which does not happen with ultra-cautious matchmaking in the modern era.

Amongst modern boxers, Mexicans champions to me exhibit a level of skill and execution not seen amonst many these days, why? They are matched hard early in their careers, and have to learn to defend themselves not just in fights, but in sparring too. Hence by the time they are at contender level, they have excellent all around skills and terrific mental toughness.

KO Artist wrote: Carl Thompson won a belt from an organisation called the WBO. These belts are trinkets used by promoters to package up and label events for TV companies to show to the general public.

Carl Thompson was not at any time the best Cruiserweight in the world. Decent fighter, yes, well conditioned, yes, good heart yes, terrific power yes, gallant warror, no doubt.

But lets not kid ourselves: what Carl Thompson acheived was no greater than winning the European title in Henry Coopers day. And when Haye fought Thompson, Carl was shopworn to say the least.

SPOT ON!!

Sooo many fighters are now referred to as 'world champs' right here on this board and in way too many news papers thanks to the influx of paper belts. Guys like Zora Folley and Eddie Machen must be spinning in their graves.

Mac is a paper champ. JCs defenses are not equivalent to Joe Louis. Graham Earl was not a former world champion. Most importantly, David Haye is THE legit undisputed champion.

Especially in this day and age when fighters often pick up vacant titles against unworthy challengers.

It's quite possible to get a world title without ever facing a genuine contender these days.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:It also corrects mistakes, something which does not happen with ultra-cautious matchmaking in the modern era.

Amongst modern boxers, Mexicans champions to me exhibit a level of skill and execution not seen amonst many these days, why? They are matched hard early in their careers, and have to learn to defend themselves not just in fights, but in sparring too. Hence by the time they are at contender level, they have excellent all around skills and terrific mental toughness.

I agree. Nobody wants to see their prospect banged up, but dropping a few 4 round decisions allows a fighter to focus (if they're made of the rigth stuff).

These paper belts have also taken away from real titles like British, EBU, Commonwealth. Think about some of the British title scraps down the years and they were something special. Think about Minter-Finnegan-Sibson etc... I remember being a kid and counting down the days to Prince Rodney v Chris Pyatt.

I hope Khan goes for a Lonsdale belt outright if he wins the British title.

KO Artist wrote:No way Enzo would have stopped Cooper, quite the reverse.

Cooper would have sparked him out. Henrys level of opposition was far far superior

For that matter Henry would have done Haye as well. Probably a late knockout. Henry had tremendous stamina. Cooper hit fcuking hard, and remember Haye and Macca are both Chinny.

Cooper was extremely strong for his size and was a very dirty fighter. He would have roughed Haye and Macca up.

Cooper is underrated if anything.


How much have you seen of Cooper, Captain Hook?

More than you have by the sound of it!

And the throwaway remarks about Haye and Macc being chinny are easy to band around.

Seriously though, I think they'd both beat Cooper. His level of opposition may have been pretty high but he was beaten by anyone decent - Erskine, Ali (x2), Patterson, Johanneson, Folley...etc

Macc and Haye are both champs and getting better with every fight. We revere guys like Cooper because he's in the past and a nice guy. From what I've seen he was ok, but limited...

bennie wrote:Down the new Wembley Way they have a few reminders of the old trail, given the sheer history, the sheer nostalgia. But were 'the good old days' really better? Well, in boxing, most definitely yes.
The sport has deteriorated in today's muddled, diluted scene and anyone who thinks otherwise is young, ignorant, stupid, or all three. Take the 12-round championship distance. Fighters were understandably patient in their approach to a 15-rounder and made sure they had a real grounding. Today? If they can do eight rounds, they can do 12; they don't need to stretch themselves. Today's world title situation also makes for incomplete fighters. Roy Jones went his whole peak handpicking opponents (even more so now as an old man) while Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe traded insults and never punches (in the pros) - the best fighters of the 90's. The best fighter of all time, Sugar Ray Robinson, took on Sammy Angott, Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic in his first year as a pro, and Jake LaMotta a total of six times.
Zivic, the dirtiest fighter of all time, was never disqualified in 230 career fights. Too clever.
Fighters of generations past would handle fighters today because they were more rounded, more tested, more complete, more skilful - they fought the best. OK, fighters today are bigger, stronger and probably quicker - but a few advances in speed and strength wouldn't save them. They haven't got the skill, you see, the 'moves', the competition.
Think about it. Would David Haye thrive in the era Henry Cooper fought in, an era rife with ferocious competition, one title per weight and eight weights? How long would Haye last with someone like Bob Foster, with someone like Joe Frazier (ouch)?
Great fighters of the past were truly great; nowadays, I'm not so sure.

Yes and everything in the past was better wasn't it....

Are you telling me Jones, De La Hoya, Whittaker, Lewis, Barrera, Marquez, Mayweather et al are not greats? They'd have mixed it at any level....at any time, in any era.

This thread was about Cooper and has turned into a battle between then and now. I agree with whatm uch has been sad, it was tougher and the quality in many cases ws better, there were less belts and fights were made...

But it wasn't all roses and a lot of guys now deserve more praise than they get...

That said, a lot of them get more praise than they should...

Someone mentioned Hide on here and that's a case in point. A lot of people portray him as the greatest thing since sliced bread when he's a maniac with a decent punch....and he IS chinny!

Been a good thread though IMO, some good points made...

Cooper was hewn from tougher rock than the one's Enzo throws. Enzo is a decent fella, but he's ponderous, can be caught and naturally only half a stone heavier than old Henry.

Henry would have been smiling at the thought of facing a 195lber having mixed with heavier men for much of his career.

Cooper had the power to shake Macca and the growl and heart to stick to the task under pressure. Of course, Cooper could be stopped early, but he beat some competent American's and was a long standing domestic king.

You have to say victories over chubby Marcel Dominguez and erratic Braithwaite hardly shake the wellies of Henry Cooper do they?