Talk:Ken Norton vs. Gerry Cooney - Revision history

Rowdytimothy: Talk:Fight:25997 moved to Talk:Ken Norton vs. Gerry Cooney

2008-02-10T19:40:34Z

Talk:Fight:25997 moved to Talk:Ken Norton vs. Gerry Cooney

← Older revision

Revision as of 19:40, 10 February 2008

Big City at 00:59, 12 May 2007

2007-05-12T00:59:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 12 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold (and my analysis is that Norton was one of the best). Although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, I believe he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold (and my analysis is that Norton was one of the best). Although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, I believe he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it probably would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 21:53, 2 December 2006

2006-12-02T21:53:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 2 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold (and in my ~~opinion~~ Norton was one of the best). ~~My analysis is that although~~ Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold (and my analysis is that Norton was one of the best). Although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, I believe he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 21:39, 2 December 2006

2006-12-02T21:39:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 2 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold (and in my opinion Norton was one of the best). My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 01:51, 29 November 2006

2006-11-29T01:51:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 29 November 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	~~Ken Norton is one of the greats.~~ Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the ~~best heavyweight boxers of all time~~.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when Holmes was early in his peak. Ken Norton is one of the greats.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 04:55, 26 November 2006

2006-11-26T04:55:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 26 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the ~~hardest~~ punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the best ever punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 14:26, 25 November 2006

2006-11-25T14:26:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 25 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the hardest punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the hardest punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

	In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. ~~This~~ is a close match-up that either boxer could win.		In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. I conclude that this is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 14:20, 25 November 2006

2006-11-25T14:20:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 25 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the hardest ~~hitters~~ in history~~-the #1 ranked contender going into this fight~~, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although ~~Ken~~ always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab. If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win. In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that ~~this would be~~ a close match-up that either boxer could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when former world champion Ken Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the hardest punchers in the history of boxing, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Norton always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab (instead of slugging it out with Cooney). If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

			In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that Norton could have beat Cooney. This is a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 13:54, 25 November 2006

2006-11-25T13:54:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 25 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Ken Norton is one of the greats.~~ Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, ~~it should be noted~~ that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters in history-the #1 ranked contender going into this fight, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Ken always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab. If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.		Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, I want to note that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters in history-the #1 ranked contender going into this fight, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Ken always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab. If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win. In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that this would be a close match-up that either boxer could win.

	~~In a~~ Norton~~-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis~~ is ~~that this would be a close match-up that either boxer could win~~. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Ken Norton is one of the greats. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Big City at 13:50, 25 November 2006

2006-11-25T13:50:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 25 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ken Norton is one of the greats. Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, it should be noted that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters in history-the #1 ranked contender going into this fight, and even some of the best have been caught cold. In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that this would be a close match-up that either boxer could win. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)		Ken Norton is one of the greats. Be aware that this fight was in 1981, when Norton was well past his prime. Considering that Norton lost to Cooney by TKO in round one, it should be noted that Cooney was one of the hardest hitters in history-the #1 ranked contender going into this fight, and even some of the best have been caught cold. My analysis is that although Ken always had a puncher's chance with his powerful overhand right, he could have stayed away from Cooney's power by using his excellent left jab. If Norton had used this scheme, I conceive that it would have been a close fight. I think the fight would have gone to a decision and Norton could have won the fight. Cooney is still the probable winner in this scenario, but Norton could win.

			In a Norton-Cooney match-up with both in their primes, my analysis is that this would be a close match-up that either boxer could win. Muhammed Ali is generally considered the greatest and Norton is one of the few to beat Ali. Moreover, Larry Holmes is oftentimes considered in the top five and was the second longest reigning champion in history behind Joe Louis. Norton late in his prime arguably beat Holmes when he was early in his peak. Norton is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time.----[[User:Big City\|Big City]] 23:00, 16 October 2006 (CDT)