BoxRec

INGEMAR JOHANSSON

Pro Record: 26-2-0-17

Height: 6'0"

Prime Weight: 196-198

Reach: 73"

Best wins: Floyd Patterson, Eddie Machen, and whoever you think was the best of the Euro fighters he beat.

Losses: Floyd Patterson twice

GERRY COONEY

Pro Record: 28-3-0-24

Height: Has been reported as being 6'5", 6'6" & 6'7". Let's just say 6'6"

Prime Weight: 225

Reach: 81"

Best wins: Ken Norton, Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, Phillip Brown, Eddie Gregg. The last two are subjective.

Losses: Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks and George Foreman

THOUGHTS -I see this as a potentially decent fight between two men who could both crack and box when they needed to. Johansson arguably has the better scalps in Patterson and Machen, while Cooney looked pretty devastating against the middle of the road to halfway decent opposition he beat. Both resumes are pretty thin in the quality department and neither man had very many fights. Ingo was a tad more mobile, but Gerry was a pretty aggressive starter, had far greater size, and arguably more power. Johansson could punch, but a lot of his wins came against smaller men, many of whom were commonwealth level fighters. Ingo's right hand was lethal and Cooney's left uppercut was deadly. Johansson probably gets the nod in the stamina department, given that Cooney had only been beyond 8 rounds once, while Ingo did it around 5 times.

I am leaning towards Cooney . For one thing, his size and power would be a huge factor against a much smaller opponent who was stopped early twice by Floyd Patterson and wasn't very accustomed to dealing with bigger men. While neither guy had great chins, Cooney at least took a sustained beating from a prime Holmes for 13 rounds. He was stopped quite a bit earlier by Spinks and Foreman, but only after more or less being a retired fighter who no longer was a mainstream player in the sport, yet still facing two world class opponents. Ingo didn't face very many punchers either. Gerry's reach, power and early round tenacity might be a problem for Ingo.. Could be a competitive contest for the brief duration that it lasts, but I'm picking the Gentleman to end it by round five.

Johansson by early KO.

My next thread will be Gerry Cooney vs Bigfoot Martin. Want me to just go ahead and post your response for you?

Saadoffthedeck - " Bigfoot Martin KO 1 "

If my threads disinterest you, Saad, then don't visit them......

drunkenpiper36 wrote:If my threads disinterest you, Saad, then don't visit them......

Maybe he thinks they are peaceful?


I think I'd go with Cooney.....never really believed in Ingy.

I don't mind the threads, he seems to get awfully upset that we have differing opinions on Cooney. That bores me. This isn't like the Tucker fight, Gerry has a chance here. I just think Ingo was more powerful and would land first. Once Gerry gets hurt, he loses.

No emotions here pal. But you're tendency to follow up on everything I post seems to prove the contrary. You're emoticons and repetitive rhetoric is what's tedious. But if you don't like Cooney that's fine by me.

I don't see any real concrete basis for claiming that Johansson had more fire power. His opponents on the whole were smaller men and just as unproven if not more so in the durability department than Cooney's, yet he still stopped less opponents. Eddie Machen was the only exception of a hard to stop fighter who Johansson put away, but one guy doesn't make a very convincing case. As for Ingo landing first and making it all she wrote, I disagree. Gerry's chin wasn't exceptionally sturdy, but he's not going to drop from just one punch out of Johansson. He was just as fast of a starter and had the reach.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:No emotions here pal. But you're tendency to follow up on everything I post seems to prove the contrary. You're emoticons and repetitive rhetoric is what's tedious. But if you don't like Cooney that's fine by me.

I don't see any real concrete basis for claiming that Johansson had more fire power. His opponents on the whole were smaller men and just as unproven if not more so in the durability department than Cooney's, yet he still stopped less opponents. Eddie Machen was the only exception of a hard to stop fighter who Johansson put away, but one guy doesn't make a very convincing case. As for Ingo landing first and making it all she wrote, I disagree. Gerry's chin wasn't exceptionally sturdy, but he's not going to drop from just one punch out of Johansson. He was just as fast of a starter and had the reach.

I responded to your thread, you made a silly claim that I have some bias against Cooney and I gave you the

FYI, I'm not emoticons.

Concrete basis? It's called an opinion and that is mine. I never said Cooney would drop from one punch, I said once he's hurt he loses. That's a fact from his career.

BoxBuzz wrote:Maybe he thinks they are peaceful?


I think I'd go with Cooney.....never really believed in Ingy.

No wonder. People who know anything about him call him Ingo . . .

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said once he's hurt he loses. That's a fact from his career.

Nah. Holmes dropped him in the second round of their fight. Cooney got up, was able to win a few rounds and lasted until thirteenth. He basically fought evenly with Spinks until the fifth round when his inactivity and lack of conditioning caught up with him. Those were two ATG's either at or near prime. I don't even think the Foreman fight should be factored into the equation.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said once he's hurt he loses. That's a fact from his career.

Nah. Holmes dropped him in the second round of their fight. Cooney got up, was able to win a few rounds and lasted until thirteenth. He basically fought evenly with Spinks until the fifth round when his inactivity and lack of conditioning caught up with him. Those were two ATG's either at or near prime. I don't even think the Foreman fight should be factored into the equation.

If you don't factor those into the Cooney equation, you are taking about an undefeated fighter.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said once he's hurt he loses. That's a fact from his career.

Nah. Holmes dropped him in the second round of their fight. Cooney got up, was able to win a few rounds and lasted until thirteenth. He basically fought evenly with Spinks until the fifth round when his inactivity and lack of conditioning caught up with him. Those were two ATG's either at or near prime. I don't even think the Foreman fight should be factored into the equation.

He beat Holmes? I missed that.

I am not disregarding that he lost those fights. But I don't think they should be weighed too heavily when judging him at his best. All three of his losses came under non ideal circumstances

Against Holmes - Cooney had only seen 54 seconds of boxing action in a 20 month period.

Against Spinks - Cooney had only seen 86 seconds of boxing action in a 2.5 year period and showed up a career high 238 lbs.

Against Foreman - Cooney hadn't fought in 2.5 years and hadn't won a fight in 4.

In all three instances he was facing world class opposition including a top five all time great in his prime. A reigning heavyweight champion who was at least close to prime. And a hall of fame legend who had put together 19 strait wins in Cooney's absence and would go on to recapturing the heavyweight title.. Cooney was probably at his best in 1980 before inactivity and the party life got to him. Speculative on my part of course, but the best version of Gerry certainly wasn't the one who fought Foreman or Spinks.

Since you've misinterpreted the statement twice, be it from my vagueness or your lust to argue Cooney with me, I'll clarify. I never saw Gerry Cooney win a fight that he was hurt in. The same can't be said for Ingo.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I said once he's hurt he loses. That's a fact from his career.

Nah. Holmes dropped him in the second round of their fight. Cooney got up, was able to win a few rounds and lasted until thirteenth. He basically fought evenly with Spinks until the fifth round when his inactivity and lack of conditioning caught up with him. Those were two ATG's either at or near prime. I don't even think the Foreman fight should be factored into the equation.

He beat Holmes? I missed that.

That's not what I said and you know it wasn't. It was countering your comment about him being totally "finished once he was hurt." My answer basically cleared that up.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I am not disregarding that he lost those fights. But I don't think they should be weighed too heavily when judging him at his best. All three of his losses came under non ideal circumstances

Against Holmes - Cooney had only seen 54 seconds of boxing action in a 20 month period.

Against Spinks - Cooney had only seen 86 seconds of boxing action in a 2.5 year period and showed up a career high 238 lbs.

Against Foreman - Cooney hadn't fought in 2.5 years and hadn't won a fight in 4.

In all three instances he was facing world class opposition including a top five all time great in his prime. A reigning heavyweight champion who was at least close to prime. And a hall of fame legend who had put together 19 strait wins in Cooney's absence and would go on to recapturing the heavyweight title.. Cooney was probably at his best in 1980 before inactivity and the party life got to him. Speculative on my part of course, but the best version of Gerry certainly wasn't the one who fought Foreman or Spinks.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
Nah. Holmes dropped him in the second round of their fight. Cooney got up, was able to win a few rounds and lasted until thirteenth. He basically fought evenly with Spinks until the fifth round when his inactivity and lack of conditioning caught up with him. Those were two ATG's either at or near prime. I don't even think the Foreman fight should be factored into the equation.

He beat Holmes? I missed that.

That's not what I said and you it wasn't. It was countering your comment about him being totally "finished once he was hurt." My answer basically cleared that up.

LOL... coming from a guy who will make any and every excuse for Hearns and Saad losing fights.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

LOL... coming from a guy who will make any and every excuse for Hearns and Saad losing fights.

I don't do excuses anyway, go ahead and cite one.

I'm not going to go digging for exact quotes. But seemed pretty defensive with Alp about Saad being past it against Braxton. And when it comes to Leonard vs Hearns, you like the " Hearns had problems making the weight" excuse.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I'm not going to go digging for exact quotes. But seemed pretty defensive with Alp about Saad being past it against Braxton. And when it comes to Leonard vs Hearns, you like the " Hearns had problems making the weight" excuse.

Saad was obviously past his best days, even though Dwight would have always been a tough style. I've never in my life said that Hearns had problems making weight against Leonard. Or that he was over trained. Nice try my upset little booger.

LOL.. Yes you did.