Gerry Cooney - an analysis

[ChrisPontius]

It's rather hard to judge him, because he had a few short, spectacular, devastating knockouts, then a losing effort against the champion Larry Holmes, and seemed to be never the same after that.

Boxing ability: He lacks here. He totally neglected his jab in the Holmes fight and was only looking for that one big shot to end things. Stupid strategy. He had the size and talent to have a good jab and could've used to to create openings as well as winning same rounds. I think this is one of his biggest weaknesses.

Power: No question here, he has devastating power. Seemed to be mostly the left hook, although i think it was a right hand that made Norton do his usual freezing move.

Chin: I think his chin is a lot weaker than given credit for. His first fight when he really caught some shots against a relatively light-hitting Holmes, he was down already by the first right hand and stunned a few other times. It should be noted that his chin wasn't the reason he lost that fight, though. But Spinks also blew him out relatively easy, who is no big hitter at heavyweight either.

I think being focused, preparation, confidence and motivated are all important factors here: and Cooney lacks all of them. More than half of the knockouts occur because a fighter is mentally beaten, not knocked out. Cooney was one of those, which brings me to the next point.

Mentality: Cooney had low self-esteem and this derailed his career. He did fought brave against Holmes but at the same time, he resorted to fouling when things weren't going his way.

Stamina: Again, he has only gone once past 8 rounds so it's hard to judge here. He wasn't overly active past the 10th but the amount of punches he took also took a lot out of him.



I think he was the Michael Grant of the 80's. While he could be dangerous, he was quite limited, safely managed and way over-hyped.

[Mendoza]

It's rather hard to judge him, because he had a few short, spectacular, devastating knockouts, then a losing effort against the champion Larry Holmes, and seemed to be never the same after that.

Boxing ability: He lacks here. He totally neglected his jab in the Holmes fight and was only looking for that one big shot to end things. Stupid strategy. He had the size and talent to have a good jab and could've used to to create openings as well as winning same rounds. I think this is one of his biggest weaknesses.

Power: No question here, he has devastating power. Seemed to be mostly the left hook, although i think it was a right hand that made Norton do his usual freezing move.

Chin: I think his chin is a lot weaker than given credit for. His first fight when he really caught some shots against a relatively light-hitting Holmes, he was down already by the first right hand and stunned a few other times. It should be noted that his chin wasn't the reason he lost that fight, though. But Spinks also blew him out relatively easy, who is no big hitter at heavyweight either.

I think being focused, preparation, confidence and motivated are all important factors here: and Cooney lacks all of them. More than half of the knockouts occur because a fighter is mentally beaten, not knocked out. Cooney was one of those, which brings me to the next point.

Mentality: Cooney had low self-esteem and this derailed his career. He did fought brave against Holmes but at the same time, he resorted to fouling when things weren't going his way.

Stamina: Again, he has only gone once past 8 rounds so it's hard to judge here. He wasn't overly active past the 10th but the amount of punches he took also took a lot out of him.



I think he was the Michael Grant of the 80's. While he could be dangerous, he was quite limited, safely managed and way over-hyped.

Cooney was much better than Grant. What gets lost in the Cooney discussion was he was a top amateur heavyweight. He won the New York golden gloves at heavyweight, and beat some top international competition. Cooney wasn’t just another up and coming knock out artists, he had a solid amateur background before he turned professional.

As a fighter, Cooney was a huge man, capable of unloading bombs to the head or the body. While he was carefully managed to make money, his handlers and trainer did him a disservice.

It is a manager job to know his fighter in and out of the ring. Conney was managed by man named Rapport, who had zero sense for boxing. In hindsight Rapport should have selected more durable journeyman un the way up for Cooney. This way Cooney could have had a chance to learn more in the ring. His trainer Victor Valle ( Spelling ), failed to develop Conney’s right. Prior to the Holmes fight, Conney injured his shoulder and had to postpone the match. Cooney put up a game effort vs Holmes. He just wasn’t ready to meet a man in Holmes class. Cooney’s stamina was untested, having never gone past ten. He made it to round 13 vs Holmes, and likely won 5 rounds or so along the way.

The Holmes loss was crushing for Cooney. His management should have lined up some easy fights for Cooney after the TKO loss, but instead they let him sit ideally. The skills Cooney had developed to the point of the Holmes fight were dulled by alcoholism and in-activity.

If Cooney had been managed and trained by a good boxing team, I am more than sure he would have had a better career.

[Luigi1985]

IMO Grant was a good example, don´t forget Michael was also pretty good, you sound like he was a bum. Cooney had some skills, especially for a man of his size, power of course, no discussion here, but his stamina wasn´t also that good, his chin was at the best mediocre, so IMO he wasn´t that special...

[mike4819]

I think Cooney was one of the most mismanaged fighters of recent times. The "wacko twins" were only interested in getting the "white hope" title shot with 0 in the lost column. Cooney was a good 18 months or 2 years away from a realistic title shot even at that he didn't do too badly. Interesting, I've heard that he was a natural lefthander but switched over. Wonder if that made him more awkward.

[Zakman]

IMO Grant was a good example, don´t forget Michael was also pretty good, you sound like he was a bum. Cooney had some skills, especially for a man of his size, power of course, no discussion here, but his stamina wasn´t also that good, his chin was at the best mediocre, so IMO he wasn´t that special...

Grant was not that good at all, and was way over-hyped. If I'm not miistaken, he's one of these guys who took up boxing real late and didn't have much of an amateur career. As was said, Cooney was a top amateur, and a much better fighter than Grant. All Grant had was size. As soon as he faced decent fighters, he began to have problems. At least Cooney destroyed decent, if faded, fighters like Lyle and Norton. And his performance against Holmes is FAR better than Grant's against Lewis. There's no comparision between these two fighters. Cooney was MUCH better.

[Duodenum]

First of all, I wonder if Mike Jones and Dennis Rappoport should be in the IBHOF for the snowjob they pulled on the public, nailing down that huge payoff for Cooney without him having the resume to justify it.

Holmes made the observation that Gerry's jaw was fine, but that if he was hit on the temple, "He wobbles like a duck." (That he was so readily able to pinpoint that weakness of Cooney's so quickly was one of the details which gave away the realization that Larry was carrying him.)

I'm completely satisfied that Gerry's low blows were accidental. He banked everything on his hook downstairs. There is a clip (probably floating around on youtube) which shows Cooney doubling up on his jab. What he needed to do was deploy his jab continually (and his jab was a legitimate power weapon), as his double jab was his most effective legal manuever of the match. He was never particularly good with his right to the head, but he dug it very well into the body.

For Holmes, Cooney needed to take a page out of Ingo's guide to dethroning Patterson. Ingo messed Floyd up with an unexpected jab, and diversionary hooks, and it was out of that confusion that he was able to set up his "Hammer of Thor."

Gerry should have been doubling or even tripling up on his jab continually, following it with rights digging into the chest. He ought to have held way back on the left hook to the labonza, triggering it ONLY if a clear opening presented itself. Against Larry, he continually tried forcing it in, and he just didn't have the speed to carry it off. With his reach, his slow but hard jab might have posed some problems for Holmes.

Jimmy Young was a good experience for him. He needed light hitting opponents who were tough enough to extend him the distance, but not beat him on the scorecards. Some good candidiates might have been Leroy Jones, George Chaplin (before Holmes, not two years later), perhaps Ocasio, or even Eddie "The Animal" Lopez in a ten round return go. He desperately needed to know that he could handle a ten or twelve round distance for necessary confidence going in against Holmes. (I think Cobb would have walked through everything Gerry had, which would have messed him up mentally, so it's just as well they didn't meet.) Cooney admitted after Holmes that he had substantial doubts about whether he could handle the championship distance, so if he'd been extended he would have performed with far greater
self-assurance.

Could Gerry have ever beaten Holmes? No, but he might have been able to parlay a good performance against Larry into a potentially successful WBA HW title shot, as that was a merry-go-round while Larry steadily defended his belt.

[ChrisPontius]

And his performance against Holmes is FAR better than Grant's against Lewis. There's no comparision between these two fighters. Cooney was MUCH better.

Was it really, though?

Holmes was never the fighter that would blow you out of there. Holmes boxed a careful fight behind the jab; even after the early knockdown he did nothing.
It's been quite a while since i've seen it but i can't remember Cooney winning more than a few of the 13 rounds. He put on a good showing but Holmes was clearly the better man. The only succes he had was landing two hard left hooks at the end of the 4th.


Grant, against Lewis, decided to go for broke early which is a stupid thing against one of the hardest punchers ever, but then again, it was his only chance of winning the fight. Grant landed a hard right hand early but it was a one-sided slaughter from there on. If Holmes had Lewis' power and agression, perhaps Holmes-Cooney would've only lasted a few rounds, too. He already had him down after all.


Cooney has wins over Lyle and Norton who were both at the end of their careers, but Grant has a win over Golota. Golota at that point completely destroyed Bowe twice while getting himself disqualified and was blown out by Lewis in one. A better win than two spent forces, one of which always lost to punchesr. Simply put, Golota was a top10 ranked contender, Lyle and Norton weren't.

[jackiebrown]

and lets be real though... the golota grant fight was more golota distructing then it was grant having a great night ... i wouldnt call getting beating from ring post to ring post for several rounds then having the nutcase opponet quit a better win then a prospect going in there and destroying two faded heavyweights

[mr. magoo]

Cooney has wins over Lyle and Norton who were both at the end of their careers, but Grant has a win over Golota. Golota at that point completely destroyed Bowe twice while getting himself disqualified and was blown out by Lewis in one. A better win than two spent forces, one of which always lost to punchesr. Simply put, Golota was a top10 ranked contender, Lyle and Norton weren't.


I don't think that too many heavyweights could have done to Lyle, Norton and Young what Gerry did to them in 1980-81. What's more is that he had additional wins against John Denis, Eddie Lopez and a few other tough Journeyman/fringes that weren't all that bad. I don't know much about Grant, but from the looks of it, his record isn't any less padded than Cooney's. What's more, Grant lost in one round to Jameel Mccline, who was hardly the calibur of Michael Spinks or George Foreman, and neither was Dominick Guinn for that Matter. I also disagree with your claim that Grant getting blasted out in two rounds by Lewis was a better performance for Grant than Cooney losing in 13 rounds to a prime Holmes. It takes a lot more for a fighter to gut it out for 13 rounds in a championship fight, then for a guy to get his ass handed to him in a mere 2.

[buddynabuick]

great thread. great insight by all

[Zakman]

Cooney has wins over Lyle and Norton who were both at the end of their careers, but Grant has a win over Golota. Golota at that point completely destroyed Bowe twice while getting himself disqualified and was blown out by Lewis in one. A better win than two spent forces, one of which always lost to punchesr. Simply put, Golota was a top10 ranked contender, Lyle and Norton weren't.

Well, having lived through both eras I can tell you that Cooney was definitely a better fighter than Michael Grant, who I called pretty early as a guy who was not at all the "champ in waiting" that the boxing press was hyping him as. His win over Golota was FAR more a case of Golota completely self-desructing, as he often did, in a fight he was well on his way to winning - than it was a demonstration of Grant's superiority. Golota beat himself far more than Grant did in that fight.

The way I see it is this - the issue with Grant is that he was over-hyped,, and really not that good. The issue with Cooney is that he was very poorly managed, and consequently when thrown in the deep water with Holmes he was overwhelmed, and it ruined him, imo. I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney. But Cooney's managers took the quick route to the easy money.

[mcvey]

First of all, I wonder if Mike Jones and Dennis Rappoport should be in the IBHOF for the snowjob they pulled on the public, nailing down that huge payoff for Cooney without him having the resume to justify it.

Holmes made the observation that Gerry's jaw was fine, but that if he was hit on the temple, "He wobbles like a duck." (That he was so readily able to pinpoint that weakness of Cooney's so quickly was one of the details which gave away the realization that Larry was carrying him.)

I'm completely satisfied that Gerry's low blows were accidental. He banked everything on his hook downstairs. There is a clip (probably floating around on youtube) which shows Cooney doubling up on his jab. What he needed to do was deploy his jab continually (and his jab was a legitimate power weapon), as his double jab was his most effective legal manuever of the match. He was never particularly good with his right to the head, but he dug it very well into the body.

For Holmes, Cooney needed to take a page out of Ingo's guide to dethroning Patterson. Ingo messed Floyd up with an unexpected jab, and diversionary hooks, and it was out of that confusion that he was able to set up his "Hammer of Thor."

Gerry should have been doubling or even tripling up on his jab continually, following it with rights digging into the chest. He ought to have held way back on the left hook to the labonza, triggering it ONLY if a clear opening presented itself. Against Larry, he continually tried forcing it in, and he just didn't have the speed to carry it off. With his reach, his slow but hard jab might have posed some problems for Holmes.

Jimmy Young was a good experience for him. He needed light hitting opponents who were tough enough to extend him the distance, but not beat him on the scorecards. Some good candidiates might have been Leroy Jones, George Chaplin (before Holmes, not two years later), perhaps Ocasio, or even Eddie "The Animal" Lopez in a ten round return go. He desperately needed to know that he could handle a ten or twelve round distance for necessary confidence going in against Holmes. (I think Cobb would have walked through everything Gerry had, which would have messed him up mentally, so it's just as well they didn't meet.) Cooney admitted after Holmes that he had substantial doubts about whether he could handle the championship distance, so if he'd been extended he would have performed with far greater
self-assurance.

Could Gerry have ever beaten Holmes? No, but he might have been able to parlay a good performance against Larry into a potentially successful WBA HW title shot, as that was a merry-go-round while Larry steadily defended his belt.
Good post,Cooney lacked confidence ,some wins over durable light hitters that took him into deeper water than the "usual suspects and "way over the hill gang" would have groomed him better ,his head movement was next to nonexistant,and he looked in trouble any time a shot to the head landed ,but he fought a game fight against Holmes ,he just wasnt ready for it,I thinkVallee coddled him too much ,Rappa port might be whacko ,but Mike Smith,his other manager was a good guy,and did a good job with Billy Costello,imo.

[mr. magoo]

I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney.


I agreed with most of what you said in the rest of your post, but I'm not so sure Weaver would have been the path of least resistance for Cooney either. It's like you already said. Cooney was terribly managed, very inexperienced and had not been tested in the heat of battle. By 1981, Mike Weaver was a proven warrior by all accounts. He had nearly beaten Holmes and had Wins over guys like Tate, Coetzee and a few others. I think they're may have been a reason why Rappaport went for the money with the Holmes fight and forgot about Weaver. Had Gerry fought Hercules, he might have lost in bad fashion destroying any chance of fighting Holmes, and losing a fortune in the process. That said, I will agree however that Cooney should have faced some better trialhoarses and middle of the road challengers.

[ChrisPontius]

Well, having lived through both eras I can tell you that Cooney was definitely a better fighter than Michael Grant, who I called pretty early as a guy who was not at all the "champ in waiting" that the boxing press was hyping him as. His win over Golota was FAR more a case of Golota completely self-desructing, as he often did, in a fight he was well on his way to winning - than it was a demonstration of Grant's superiority. Golota beat himself far more than Grant did in that fight.

The way I see it is this - the issue with Grant is that he was over-hyped,, and really not that good. The issue with Cooney is that he was very poorly managed, and consequently when thrown in the deep water with Holmes he was overwhelmed, and it ruined him, imo. I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney. But Cooney's managers took the quick route to the easy money.

Cooney was hyped every bit as much as Grant was.

About Golota "self-destructing", that's one way to put it. Another one is that Grant lost the earlier rounds but came on from round 8 and constistently starting to land hard right hands. In the 10th he knocked Golota down with one, who had seen enough and didn't respond when the referee asked him if he wanted to continue.

Again, Golota was top10 ranked contender, none of Cooney's beaten opponents were.


I don't think that too many heavyweights could have done to Lyle, Norton and Young what Gerry did to them in 1980-81. What's more is that he had additional wins against John Denis, Eddie Lopez and a few other tough Journeyman/fringes that weren't all that bad. I don't know much about Grant, but from the looks of it, his record isn't any less padded than Cooney's. What's more, Grant lost in one round to Jameel Mccline, who was hardly the calibur of Michael Spinks or George Foreman, and neither was Dominick Guinn for that Matter. I also disagree with your claim that Grant getting blasted out in two rounds by Lewis was a better performance for Grant than Cooney losing in 13 rounds to a prime Holmes. It takes a lot more for a fighter to gut it out for 13 rounds in a championship fight, then for a guy to get his ass handed to him in a mere 2.

Well, a guy called "Lynn Ball" knocked Lyle out in 2 rounds before Cooney did, Young lost to basically everyone post-79 and Norton got iced by Shavers who is pretty limited himself.

So, your statement that "not many other people could have done that to them" is incorrect.

I don't know if you've seen the fight, but Grant broke his ankle against McCline and quit because of that. I thought the fight was later changed to a NC after going to court,but maybe i'm confused with Kirk Johnson.


As for Foreman and Spinks, they are big names on paper, but Spinks was a pretty average heavyweight (every single of Tysons opponents gave him a better fight than Spinks did and he should've lost the second one with Holmes), and Foreman in his comeback never stopped anyone of note early,so that should tell you something. I don't really hold that loss against Cooney though, as he'd been coked up for years and was basically a big name to hype Foreman up.

[Muchmoore]

Cooney was a good fighter but nothing too special. He could get you out of there with his left hook and he was agressive, but his chin was average and he didn't have confidence. Cooney is in Mike Weavers league and had he stayed focused would of had similar careers.

[mr. magoo]

Well, a guy called "Lynn Ball" knocked Lyle out in 2 rounds before Cooney did, Young lost to basically everyone post-79 and Norton got iced by Shavers who is pretty limited himself.

So, your statement that "not many other people could have done that to them" is incorrect.



That's right. I said MOST people. Do you consider one of the hardest punchers of all time as passing for most people?


I don't know if you've seen the fight, but Grant broke his ankle against McCline and quit because of that. I thought the fight was later changed to a NC after going to court,but maybe i'm confused with Kirk Johnson.


I did not see the fight, but boxrec has it listed as a first round KO.

As for Foreman and Spinks, they are big names on paper, but Spinks was a pretty average heavyweight (every single of Tysons opponents gave him a better fight than Spinks did and he should've lost the second one with Holmes), and Foreman in his comeback never stopped anyone of note early,so that should tell you something.

Fair enough, but they were still better than MCline and Guinn.


I don't really hold that loss against Cooney though, as he'd been coked up for years and was basically a big name to hype Foreman up.



Agreed.

[Bummy Davis]

It's rather hard to judge him, because he had a few short, spectacular, devastating knockouts, then a losing effort against the champion Larry Holmes, and seemed to be never the same after that.

Boxing ability: He lacks here. He totally neglected his jab in the Holmes fight and was only looking for that one big shot to end things. Stupid strategy. He had the size and talent to have a good jab and could've used to to create openings as well as winning same rounds. I think this is one of his biggest weaknesses.

Power: No question here, he has devastating power. Seemed to be mostly the left hook, although i think it was a right hand that made Norton do his usual freezing move.

Chin: I think his chin is a lot weaker than given credit for. His first fight when he really caught some shots against a relatively light-hitting Holmes, he was down already by the first right hand and stunned a few other times. It should be noted that his chin wasn't the reason he lost that fight, though. But Spinks also blew him out relatively easy, who is no big hitter at heavyweight either.

I think being focused, preparation, confidence and motivated are all important factors here: and Cooney lacks all of them. More than half of the knockouts occur because a fighter is mentally beaten, not knocked out. Cooney was one of those, which brings me to the next point.

Mentality: Cooney had low self-esteem and this derailed his career. He did fought brave against Holmes but at the same time, he resorted to fouling when things weren't going his way.

Stamina: Again, he has only gone once past 8 rounds so it's hard to judge here. He wasn't overly active past the 10th but the amount of punches he took also took a lot out of him.



I think he was the Michael Grant of the 80's. While he could be dangerous, he was quite limited, safely managed and way over-hyped.


I think most of what you say is true, but I think Cooneys had a frail body, his legs wobbled and were shakey, I dont know if it was his chin,Cooney was too nice of a guy for this business, dont get me wrong,he had a great left hook and could hurt you but most of his right hands were awkward slaps, I watched Gerry as a middleweight, (he went 5=0 all KO's) N,Y, Middleweight golden gloves)I believe he was a southpaw and they switched him but he had trouble as a lightheavyweight(frail legs) and he got stopped for the N.Y. Golden Gloves by Eddie Davis. I think Cooney could have been a better fighter if he fought more before his title shot and gotten some rounds in(to gain confidence). He had great power in the hook but had some major weaknesses and he and his brothers struggled with substance abuse

[Sonny's jab]

I did not see the fight, but boxrec has it listed as a first round KO.





McCline KO1 Grant was a legitimate KO.

Grant's busted ankle was the result of McCline knocking him down with a solid punch, a KO punch. Grant didn't twist it, McCline did that to him.

[JohnThomas1]

Well, a guy called "Lynn Ball" knocked Lyle out in 2 rounds before Cooney did

Hey, that's the guy Dokes knocked out in well under a round when he was considered a featherfisted puncher. I didn't realise he beat Lyle actually.

[JohnThomas1]

I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney.

That's rubbish. Cooney never ever beat a fighter as good as Weaver at this time (Young and Norton were mere shells, tho Young a little less), the man beat Coetzee and Tate who both did a lot more in boxing than Cooney ever did. Weaver and his power have every chance of putting Cooney to sleep, and he was probably a better boxer to boot. Weaver is definitely a better fighter than Cooney. Cooney had the potential but he sure never got there.

[Bummy Davis]

That's rubbish. Cooney never ever beat a fighter as good as Weaver at this time (Young and Norton were mere shells, tho Young a little less), the man beat Coetzee and Tate who both did a lot more in boxing than Cooney ever did. Weaver and his power have every chance of putting Cooney to sleep, and he was probably a better boxer to boot. Weaver is definitely a better fighter than Cooney. Cooney had the potential but he sure never got there.

Weaver was the harder puncher of the Champs but he was there to be hit, Cooney may or may not have had a better chance but he would have landed his left hook on Mike, that may have been the better route but after watching Foreman/Cooney Spinks/Cooney who knows

[JohnThomas1]

Weaver was the harder puncher of the Champs but he was there to be hit, Cooney may or may not have had a better chance but he would have landed his left hook on Mike, that may have been the better route but after watching Foreman/Cooney Spinks/Cooney who knows

The man said, and i quote

Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney.

This statement is rubbish as i said. Utter speculation concerning a man that never beat as dangerous a fighter as Weaver, and in turn Weaver had beaten and would beat fighters i would consider better than Cooney. Weaver gave Holmes hell, Cooney gave him a 13 round spar and sore balls.

[Duodenum]

That's rubbish. Cooney never ever beat a fighter as good as Weaver at this time (Young and Norton were mere shells, tho Young a little less), the man beat Coetzee and Tate who both did a lot more in boxing than Cooney ever did. Weaver and his power have every chance of putting Cooney to sleep, and he was probably a better boxer to boot. Weaver is definitely a better fighter than Cooney. Cooney had the potential but he sure never got there.And as long as you've brought that up, let's also point out that Hercules starched a once beaten Carl Williams in two, dropped Quick Tillis from the unbeaten ranks, gave Dokes 15 rounds of hell in their rematch, and produced too many other good performances against opposition far better than any which Cooney ever defeated. Comparing Cooney to Hercules is an absurd analogy.

Mike got the better of Bert Cooper, once beaten Bernado Mercado, the resourceful Stan Ward twice, shut out Scott LeDoux over twelve rounds in LeDoux's Minnesota, took Donovan Ruddock the 12 round distance, and came off the deck to take Bonecrusher Smith a full 12 rounds in their rematch. Cooney would not have blown out a well prepared Weaver in one round.

[Luigi1985]

Well, having lived through both eras I can tell you that Cooney was definitely a better fighter than Michael Grant, who I called pretty early as a guy who was not at all the "champ in waiting" that the boxing press was hyping him as. His win over Golota was FAR more a case of Golota completely self-desructing, as he often did, in a fight he was well on his way to winning - than it was a demonstration of Grant's superiority. Golota beat himself far more than Grant did in that fight.

The way I see it is this - the issue with Grant is that he was over-hyped,, and really not that good. The issue with Cooney is that he was very poorly managed, and consequently when thrown in the deep water with Holmes he was overwhelmed, and it ruined him, imo. I remember thinking in the early 80s "take a fight with Weaver, get a title, THEN fight Holmes." Weaver would have been a relatively easy route to a title for Cooney. But Cooney's managers took the quick route to the easy money.


I agree that Cooney was better, he´s legacy-wise better and probably head-to-head, but I meant that a comparisoon between him and Grant isn´t that bad...

[JohnThomas1]

And as long as you've brought that up, let's also point out that Hercules starched a once beaten Carl Williams in two, dropped Quick Tillis from the unbeaten ranks, gave Dokes 15 rounds of hell in their rematch, and produced too many other good performances against opposition far better than any which Cooney ever defeated. Comparing Cooney to Hercules is an absurd analogy.

Mike got the better of Bert Cooper, once beaten Bernado Mercado, the resourceful Stan Ward twice, shut out Scott LeDoux over twelve rounds in LeDoux's Minnesota, took Donovan Ruddock the 12 round distance, and came off the deck to take Bonecrusher Smith a full 12 rounds in their rematch. Cooney would not have blown out a well prepared Weaver in one round.

Good stuff!!

[Sonny's jab]

Cooney was a ridiculous hype job.
I have to give Jones and Rappaport credit for masterful marketing and entrepreneurship.

[Holmes' Jab]

And as long as you've brought that up, let's also point out that Hercules starched a once beaten Carl Williams in two, dropped Quick Tillis from the unbeaten ranks, gave Dokes 15 rounds of hell in their rematch, and produced too many other good performances against opposition far better than any which Cooney ever defeated. Comparing Cooney to Hercules is an absurd analogy.

Mike got the better of Bert Cooper, once beaten Bernado Mercado, the resourceful Stan Ward twice, shut out Scott LeDoux over twelve rounds in LeDoux's Minnesota, took Donovan Ruddock the 12 round distance, and came off the deck to take Bonecrusher Smith a full 12 rounds in their rematch. Cooney would not have blown out a well prepared Weaver in one round.

Spot on post. Weaver would certainly not be a walk in the park for Cooney nor any other early 80's HW. I'd argue infact that at his best he was perhaps a better fighter than Cooney, certainly better than Grant. :good

[Duodenum]

Good stuff!!Thanks. As much as I enjoy our disagreements, it's always a pleasure to share the same side as well.

[Duodenum]

I think most of what you say is true, but I think Cooneys had a frail body, his legs wobbled and were shakey, I dont know if it was his chin,Cooney was too nice of a guy for this business, dont get me wrong,he had a great left hook and could hurt you but most of his right hands were awkward slaps, I watched Gerry as a middleweight, (he went 5=0 all KO's) N,Y, Middleweight golden gloves)I believe he was a southpaw and they switched him but he had trouble as a lightheavyweight(frail legs) and he got stopped for the N.Y. Golden Gloves by Eddie Davis. I think Cooney could have been a better fighter if he fought more before his title shot and gotten some rounds in(to gain confidence). He had great power in the hook but had some major weaknesses and he and his brothers struggled with substance abuseRemember the special "Valle Bag" which his trainer devised to help develop the muscles in his atrophic right arm? Ringside observers for his match with Holmes reported that Larry was muscling Gerry around in the clinches. It's been widely alleged that Cooney's physical strength was anemic, not at all representative of his size. Gerry might be fortunate that his blowout at Foreman's hands was only a boxing contest. If that was a wrestling bout, or in MMA, George might have broken him in half. Granted, the most skilled boxers are able to neutralize superior grappling strength in more physically powerful boxers, but Cooney didn't have a style conducive to that.

I've had my reservations about muscle isolation resistance training for boxers, but in the case of somebody like Cooney who's slow anyway, it might have been highly beneficial for him to undertake such a regimen, so he'd have the muscular strength to support his size and punch.

[JohnThomas1]

Thanks. As much as I enjoy our disagreements, it's always a pleasure to share the same side as well.

Ditto mate, ditto.

[JohnThomas1]

Spot on post. Weaver would certainly not be a walk in the park for Cooney nor any other early 80's HW. I'd argue infact that at his best he was perhaps a better fighter than Cooney, certainly better than Grant. :good

I reckon Weaver was definitely a better fighter than Cooney. I'd favour him slightly in a fight at their best. 8-5 odds. Weaver's defense gives Cooney a chance, but i'm not sure Gerry had as much heart as some. He was praised for going as far as he did with Holmes, but let us be honest, this was a very cautious and well measured Holmes, an easier description would be over respectful. He did however give himself least chance of losing. If not for Holmes respect for his power he would have finished him earlier in the round he dropped him IMO.

[mr. magoo]

I reckon Weaver was definitely a better fighter than Cooney. I'd favour him slightly in a fight at their best. 8-5 odds. Weaver's defense gives Cooney a chance, but i'm not sure Gerry had as much heart as some. He was praised for going as far as he did with Holmes, but let us be honest, this was a very cautious and well measured Holmes, an easier description would be over respectful. He did however give himself least chance of losing. If not for Holmes respect for his power he would have finished him earlier in the round he dropped him IMO.

If you saw, I responded to Zackman's post earlier in this thread. Weaver was already a proven warrior 10 times over by 1981. His efforts against a prime Holmes ( not the one who fought Cooney ), along with his wins over Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, Ledoux and a few others would have made him way too saavy for such an unseasoned Cooney. Gerry had never been beyond 8 rounds, while Mike had gone 15 on a few occasions. Also, Gerry never showed us that he could endure an onslaught from a great fighter with a good punch, while this was the hallmark of Hercules' career.

[JohnThomas1]

If you saw, I responded to Zackman's post earlier in this thread. Weaver was already a proven warrior 10 times over by 1981. His efforts against a prime Holmes ( not the one who fought Cooney ), along with his wins over Tate, Coetzee, Tillis, Ledoux and a few others would have made him way too saavy for such an unseasoned Cooney. Gerry had never been beyond 8 rounds, while Mike had gone 15 on a few occasions. Also, Gerry never showed us that he could endure an onslaught from a great fighter with a good punch, while this was the hallmark of Hercules' career.

Yup, Weaver time!

[Bill1234]

[quote=ChrisPontius] relatively light-hitting Holmesquote]

Larry wasn't light hitting. He had some pop in his right. Look at the uppercut he nailed Weaver with in their first. Or the 1 punch KO's over Curtis Sheperd (1996) and Mike Weaver (2000) both great 1 punch KO's.

[salsanchezfan]

One thing not mentioned yet was how short and crisp Cooney's hook was, particularly notable for such a big man. He didn't just rely on size and sheer power for that thing, he threw it really, really well.

Was he managed badly? I dunno, depends how you look at it. Maybe, just maybe, his wacky braintrust realized that he had a hell of a lot of limitations as a fighter and would never be a long-term fix for the heavyweight division. He'd never have beaten Holmes, and with respect to Johnthomas, I would favor him over Weaver. Weaver was a better fighter, but a pitifully slow starter, and Cooney was a house-a-fire for the first few stanzas. Horrible matchup for Weaver.

If the measure of management is to make your guy as much money as they can get (and it is) then I'd say his braintrust did just fine. In fact, they did a terrific job.

[JohnThomas1]

He'd never have beaten Holmes, and with respect to Johnthomas, I would favor him over Weaver. Weaver was a better fighter, but a pitifully slow starter, and Cooney was a house-a-fire for the first few stanzas. Horrible matchup for Weaver.


I have no problem with this Sal, but to fob off Weaver - Cooney as if it's a breeze and an easy title was ridiculous.

I do note your spot on premise that Weaver was a slow starter and that's why i give Cooney a chance. Surely even Weaver would realise he'd better come in warm and lathered tho. Unlike Dokes (who went outside his usual pattern in a great tactical move to jump on Weaver knowing he didn't warm up properly) Cooney's fast start would not be unexpected. Weaver came in lathered in Dokes II and after taking a couple rumbled right on back.

[Vantage_West]

he had skills but was all left hook a bit like trinidad in that if you stop his left hook he falls apart cooney had amazing power and speed for his size and was unfairly but as the great white hope...what a dickheaded thing to say. by then he was a hype job and was fighting anyone who could be beat.

his left hook was truly amazing but he was so damn stiff. also his left hook was learned while on a bag thats why he fires it so low. if you throw a punch at a bag you throw it low it's natural it gains power but he becmae a body puncher which is purely bizaar for a 6'6 man mountain.

[Sonny's jab]

I have no problem with this Sal, but to fob off Weaver - Cooney as if it's a breeze and an easy title was ridiculous.

I do note your spot on premise that Weaver was a slow starter and that's why i give Cooney a chance. Surely even Weaver would realise he'd better come in warm and lathered tho. Unlike Dokes (who went outside his usual pattern in a great tactical move to jump on Weaver knowing he didn't warm up properly) Cooney's fast start would not be unexpected. Weaver came in lathered in Dokes II and after taking a couple rumbled right on back.

Actually I thought Weaver started fast the first time against Dokes. It looked like they both wanted to slug from the opening bell. The result, rightly or wrongly, was a quick and controversial win for Dokes. But it doesn't look like an ambush on a slow starter, looks like both men were starting fast.
Just my opinion.

[Curtis Lowe]

I think most of what you say is true, but I think Cooneys had a frail body, his legs wobbled and were shakey, I dont know if it was his chin,Cooney was too nice of a guy for this business, dont get me wrong,he had a great left hook and could hurt you but most of his right hands were awkward slaps, I watched Gerry as a middleweight, (he went 5=0 all KO's) N,Y, Middleweight golden gloves)I believe he was a southpaw and they switched him but he had trouble as a lightheavyweight(frail legs) and he got stopped for the N.Y. Golden Gloves by Eddie Davis. I think Cooney could have been a better fighter if he fought more before his title shot and gotten some rounds in(to gain confidence). He had great power in the hook but had some major weaknesses and he and his brothers struggled with substance abuse


You said best, "Cooney was too nice a guy for this business". That an Valle did what I consider a poor job of training and developing him. I remember after the first round in the Holmes fight, Valle tells Cooney in the corner "don't get crazy with this guy". WTF. Getting crazy and going for broke was his best chance to win.

[JohnThomas1]

Actually I thought Weaver started fast the first time against Dokes. It looked like they both wanted to slug from the opening bell. The result, rightly or wrongly, was a quick and controversial win for Dokes. But it doesn't look like an ambush on a slow starter, looks like both men were starting fast.
Just my opinion.

Weaver was dry in the first fight with was common with him, in the second he was lathered as he should have been.Tho he tried to go with Dokes in the first he was cold and not as effective as he should have been.

[Titan1]

That the thing about Mike Weaver.There were several contenders around 81-82 who could've beaten him and at the same time, he could beat them.

[A-50]

Some Thoughts:

I believe Cooney should have fought Weaver for the WBA belt and THEN Holmes. I think Cooney could have beaten Weaver.

Rappaport and Jones cashed Cooney out, they were afraid he was going to lose to someone if he stepped up before fighting Holmes so they took the money.

Valle had a TERRIBLE gameplan for Cooney and Cooney has said in interviews that if he could do it all over again he would swarm Holmes and try to get him out of there in the first 6 rounds or so instead of pacing himself to go the distance.

I watched the fight recently and Cooney held a better account of himself than many give him credit for.

The bottom line is Cooney was poorly managed and had a second rate trainer that did not develop him correctly, but in my opinion Cooney would have never beaten Holmes but had he been better prepared the fight would have been much closer. I do not think Valle, Rappaport, and Jones had much confidence in Gerry they used him as a 'product' to make a ridicoulous amount of money at the time for a fighter as a challenger.

[A-50]

and another thing, after the fight was there ever a discussion of a rematch between them? I know Gerry pretty much dropped off the face of the earth after the fight.

[Sonny's jab]

Cooney was 99% hype, completely overrated, and still is to some extent.

He wasn't even deserving of a place in the top 5 heavyweights in the world, ever, even at his peak (1980-81), despite what the media thought (and that includes the boxing establishment).

He punched hard and he was white, that's it.

[janitor]

I think he was the Michael Grant of the 80's. While he could be dangerous, he was quite limited, safely managed and way over-hyped.

I would say that the crucial difference between Cooney and Grant is that in Cooneys case there was something to work with in the first place if he was managed properly.

A safely managed fighter is not necisarily a well managed fighter, often far from it. George Foremans managment sent him into a title fight never having gone past ten rounds. While it gave him an easy ride to the top it planted the seeds of his destruction when he was put in with a challenger who really made tested him hard over the distence. Cooney was similarly over protected and then thrown to the wolves without the necesary experience.

[ChrisPontius]

Cooney was 99% hype, completely overrated, and still is to some extent.

He wasn't even deserving of a place in the top 5 heavyweights in the world, ever, even at his peak (1980-81), despite what the media thought (and that includes the boxing establishment).

He punched hard and he was white, that's it.

So what do you think of the comparison with Grant?



By the way: I think fighters have been in the ring top5 before, when being undefeated and having fought a string of tomato cans and a few past their best, former contenders. George Foreman for instance. Now i don't agree with these rankings, but they have been there nonetheless.

[Sonny's jab]

So what do you think of the comparison with Grant?

Grant's accomplishments are probablly superior, he probably did more to earn a ranking. Of course he was never worthy of some of the hype (which never reached a fever pitch comparable to that surrounding Cooney anyway).



By the way: I think fighters have been in the ring top5 before, when being undefeated and having fought a string of tomato cans and a few past their best, former contenders. George Foreman for instance. Now i don't agree with these rankings, but they have been there nonetheless.


Well, I'm not against ranking guys like that. All results deserve recognition.
It depends on what's happening at the time.
In 1980 and 1981 there were at least 5 heavyweights who were doing enough to be ranked above Gerry Cooney.

[Titan1]

Grant's accomplishments are probablly superior, he probably did more to earn a ranking. Of course he was never worthy of some of the hype (which never reached a fever pitch comparable to that surrounding Cooney anyway).




Well, I'm not against ranking guys like that. All results deserve recognition.
It depends on what's happening at the time.
In 1980 and 1981 there were at least 5 heavyweights who were doing enough to be ranked above Gerry Cooney.

:good

[mustang sally]

Cooney was 99% hype, completely overrated, and still is to some extent.



So his amatuer success against top Soviet heavyweights is hype is well?

Or Eddie Futch going on record saying that Cooney had the talent and the punch to be the world champion? But what would he know....