Re: Top 10 Heavyweights of the 1980's?

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:56:10 GMT, Robert Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>Loki wrote:
>
>> In another post, you dismissed Cooney's victories over Lyle and Norton
>> saying that they were old and shot. However, unlike Cooney at the time
>> he faced Spinks, they were active and winning fights. Furthermore,
>> their glory days were not nearly as distant a memory as those of
>> Cooney were when he faced Spinks.
>
>
>I'm still waiting for you to repeat your claim that Holmes was more far 
>gone against Spinks than Norton, Lyle, and Young were against Cooney.  I 
>couldn't believe it when you said it the first time.  No matter how hard 
>I rubbed my eyes, it was still there on the screen.

I later said I was wrong regarding the first Spinks Holmes fight.
Weren't you paying attention? However Cooney was more gone against
Spinks than Norton, Lyle and Young were against Cooney in that he had
fought only 7 rounds in the prior 5 years and only someone who had not
actually seen the fight could believe that Spinks won the rematch with
Holmes.

>As for them being "active and winning fights..."
>
>Norton had won just three of his most recent six, and had taken three 
>and a half years to fight those six fights.  Cooney-Norton was six 
>months after Norton's *split-decision* win over Tex Cobb, which was 
>fifteen months after his draw with Scott LeDoux (who by then had a very 
>healthy 25-7-3 record).  He'd already been KOed in one by Shavers and 
>had hit the deck twice against LeDoux.  He was three years removed from 
>his brief world title reign.

He was still a contender according to Ring Magazine and closer to his
glory days than Cooney was when he faced Spinks.

>By the time Lyle fought Cooney in 1980, he was just 9-5 going back to 
>'75 and had recently been KOed in two by a nobody.

4 of those losses were to Ali, Foreman and Young (twice). There is no
shame in losing to the cream of the crop. Furthermore, the loss to
Ball was his only loss in his previous 8 fights. And again, he was in
the top 10 according to Ring Magazine.

>Cooney's "glory years" were probably 1980-81.  The Spinks fight was six 
>years later.  That's longer than the span for Norton, Lyle, and Young, 
>but not dramatically so.

Point is, it was as I said a longer span.
>
>Look, nobody minds if you try to prop up Gerry Cooney by rattling off 
>his wins.  Just...use just a little bit of perspective when you do, 
>okay?  You accuse me (despite my efforts to the contrary) of relying too 
>heavily on numbers; aren't you relying a little too heavily on 
>name-recognition?

I don't think so. We disagree. Let it be.


Loki