Re: Top 10 Heavyweights of the 1980's?

"Loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:51:52 -0800, "Charles Beauchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> However, based on those two victories a lot of people here, including
> >> I dare say you, consider him to be one of the premier heavyweights of
> >> the '70s.
> >>
> >
> >Your memory is goofy.  After the fight in Zaire Foreman remained hailed
> >generally as the top contender for Ali's title.  The biggest question in
the
> >sport for about 3 years was when would Foreman get a rematch.  It was the
> >loss to Jimmy Young that eliminated him from title contention.  No one
was
> >calling Foreman a shot fighter for losing to Ali.
>
> Not "for" losing to Ali, but after losing to Ali. It has been done
> constantly. In fact, I think that I am the only person in the history
> of BoxRec to point out that the quality of Foreman's opposition
> ->rose<- after the Ali fight significantly compared to what it was
> pre-Fraizer in response to people who claimed that he was "never the
> same" after Ali.
>
> After Ali, Foreman was the same, but his opposition got a lot better.
> The Young loss was not a reflection of Foreman continuing his descent
> into whatever so much as an exploitation of the fact that Foreman was
> a one dimensional fighter who would always have problems against
> quality heavyweights who chose not to stand in the center of the ring
> and swap punches with him.
>

OK...whatever you are trying to say now seems to be in a context different
from the message which I responded to.  My point...Foreman was not shot
after the Ali fight and was THE major challenger on the planet for 3 more
years waiting a rematch which never came....(which is good for Big George
btw).

>
> >> >> Point is that there is more than how many fights a guy won versus
how
> >> >> many he lost that goes into determining where they belong in a
> >> >> historical perspective.
> >>
> >> >Well, I've said that - certainly by implication in my first post,
> >> >explicitly in my second post, so I'll acknowledge that here for the
> >> >third time.
> >>
> >> So then what is your beef with Cooney if that is all you have to knock
> >> him on?
> >>
> >
> >I think his contention is that you are basing your evaluation of Cooney
as
> >one of the top 10 HW of the 1980's on your perception fo his ability
(which
> >seemed considerable IMO) then it is on his accomplishments in the actual
> >ring (which were not that much).
> >
> >I will point out that the perrenial position that you take regarding
Evander
> >Holyfield (you generally knock his level of competition) kind of refutes
> >your strange evaluation of Cooney.
>
> Not at all. I regard Holyfield as one of the best of the 90s, just not
> as good as Lennox Lewis. And from an all time perspective I do not
> consider either Holyfield or Cooney all time greats. I would place
> Holyfield in the lower half of the top 20 of all time-on a par with
> Ken Norton (certainly not in the top 5 that I have seen him placed by
> some) and Cooney somewhere in the top 35 along with Earnie Shavers.
>

OK I apologize for my misunderstanding of your dozens of Holyfield only
fought old stiffs flavored posts in replies to my dozens of messages to the
contrary over the last 2 years.  Somehow I missed your point in all of those
messages slamming Evander's level of competition...that in fact Evander was
an all time top 20 HW.  Frankly I think I have always made it clear that
Lennox overall is a greater HW all time...


> One of the things about Cooney though, that makes him stand out is
> similar to the same quality in Foreman. It is not who he beat, or how
> many victories he had so much as the style in which he beat them.
>

Oh please.  By that statement I expect you to be in line in a few days
praising Joe Mesi as the next great HW.


> >Lyle was not a top contender at all when
> >he fought Cooney.
>
> Yeah, he was. Not number 1 or 2, but in the top 10 having gone 10-2
> since fighting Foreman.
>

Only in the sense that anyone can buy an alphabelt ranking.  He was not a
top contender when he fought Cooney.  He was regarded going in as a name
opponent who was done as a world title challenger.


> > He was known to be over the hill and was strictly an
> >opponent.  Same went for Norton who at the time of the fight with Cooney
was
> >regarded as a name opponent with little chance to win...still the one
minue
> >blowout was a minor surprise.
>
> Pretty much the same. Norton was always a name fighter who was in the
> top 10 when he faced Cooney.
>

Norton was a done fighter when he fought Cooney.  Going into the fight it
was commonly expected that Cooney would blow him away...he did.


> >In the early 1980's one of the biggest questions in the sport was...what
the
> >Hell is Cooney going to do next? after he was defeated by Holmes.
>
> I remember that. And it would have been interesting to see what he
> would have done had he not taken the money and run.
>

That's the real big dig.  The guy just couldn't keep his fists healthy
enough to fight with any regularity.  I do see a number of guys that spent
time at the top of the rankings that a well conditioned Cooney in the early
1980's would likely have dismantled...but he didn't get it on with any of
them.  Cooney was an excellent talent who didn't have excellent
accomplishments.

v/r Beau