Re: Top 10 Heavyweights of the 1980's?

"Loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:12:44 -0800, "Charles Beauchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:50:57 -0800, "Charles Beauchamp"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:46:25 -0800, "Charles Beauchamp"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"VanCanSte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> Holmes or Tyson at #1?  And who would be in third?
> >> >> >> VAN
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1. Holmes
> >> >> >2. Tyson
> >> >> >3. Witherspoon
> >> >> >4. Carl the Troof Williams
> >> >> >5. Michael Dokes
> >> >> >6. Pinklon Thomas
> >> >> >7. Trevor Berbick
> >> >> >8. James Bonecrusher Smith
> >> >> >9. Mike Weaver
> >> >> >10.  And Dammit Box Muhammad MICHAEL SPINKS AND THAT'S THE WAY IT
> >IS!!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you forget Cooney, or intentionally omit him? I ask because he
is
> >> >> easily in the top 5, possibly number 3 on my list for the same
period.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Loki
> >> >
> >> >Michael Spinks beat Cooney.  Michael Spinks beat Holmes twice.  I'm
not
> >> >dropping him to add Cooney.  So there.
> >>
> >> All of them were well beyond their best days when they faced Spinks,
> >> well beyond where Norton, Young, and Lyle were when Cooney destroyed
> >> them. And the second Holmes fight was as legitimate a decision as the
> >> first Lewis Holyfield fight.
> >>
> >
> >You are actually entirely wrong.
> >
> >Norton and Lyle retired after fighting Cooney and were known as was Young
to
> >be entirely shot going INTO their fights with Cooney.
>
> How much of the retirement was due to how badly they were beaten? A
> lot of fighters also retired after fighting Marciano.
>

Probably a little...but the point being....you were intimating that Norton
and Lyle were good opponents when at the time they both fought Cooney they
were already considered name opponents who had no real shot at winning.

> >Holmes was the reigning World Champion when Spinks beat him....and it was
> >regarded as one of the greatest upsets in boxing history at the time it
> >happened.  Two Mike Tyson losses have since kind of pushed that to the
> >background but it was a world stunner when it happened.
>
> The first Holmes fight was a bad example. He was the champion,
> although his best days were clearly behind him. And Holmes only fought
> Tyson once.
>

Not sure what you mean by the Homes Tyson comment..oh...dude...you
idiot...two Mike Tyson losses (Douglas and Holyfield) were massive upsets
that have caused most fight fans to forget how big a deal it was when Spinks
beat Holmes.

> >The 2nd fight like it or not went Spinks' way in similar fashion as well.
>
> Are you saying that you think that Spinks legitimately won the second
> fight?
>

I am saying that he won the fight by decision which is the official decision
and I further don't think it was the outrageous decision that revisionist
history seems to suggest.  Is there really a point to this question?

> >The Spinks win over Cooney also happened in the same decade and at the
> >time...Cooney was regarded incorrectly as a serious contender even though
he
> >really hadn't done anything to deserve it...and in any case...Spinks took
> >him apart.  I do note that you want to call Cooney one of the top 5 HW of
> >the 1980's..yet a man that thrashed him in 1987 who was the reigning
World
> >Champion (something Cooney never was) does not rate the top 10?
>
> The Cooney who fought Spinks was not the same fighter who fought
> Norton, or even prime Holmes 5 years earlier any more than the Holmes
> who fought Tyson was the same guy who fought Smith 5 years earlier, or
> the Ali who fought Holmes was the same guy who beat Fraizer 5 years
> earlier.
>
> As for Spinks, as a heavyweight he beat a semi retired Cooney and an
> old Holmes. He also got clobbered by Tyson (in a fight in which I
> admit to betting heavily on Spinks) and benefited from one of the
> worst calls in heavyweight history in the Holmes rematch.
>

Which means Spinks was 4-1 against Heavyweights including 3 successful World
Title defenses before getting nuked by Tyson.  Hard to rate him behind a guy
he beat who never actually scored a win over a significant contender in his
entire career...1980's or otherwise.  And dood I DO think Cooney was an
excellent heavyweight...something of an enigma though.

v/r Beau


>
> Loki