Printable View
Both men are considered vitali and holmes best win, how would they match up with each other?
Sanders 6ft4 inch Southpaw with a record of 42-4:
http://www.peoples.ru/sport/boxer/sanders/sanders_1.jpg
Cooney 6ft6inch orthodox with a 31-3 record:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ey_gerry44.jpg
Interesting matchup....I think it obviously ends in a KO, but I'm not certain who wins. Both fighters could be chinny. I guess I will take Cooney as pre Holmes Cooney was just a massive power puncher and a very solid fighter and Corrie Sanders never seemed to have his full heart in boxing which is a shame because he had tons of potential.
I'll pick Sanders, Gerry had a great left hook but no defense. Sanders was better overall, in my opinion.
Cooney knocks out Sanders with his left hook. THE END.
Gotta go Sanders I spose. Guy had some pretty fast hands and solid awkward power getting in and out. In top form I think they'd be at two different speeds entirely.
Damn I had no idea Cooney was 6'6" until now ! :o
Always thought he was about 6'2" or so.
Anyway its tough to say as I haven't seen that many of either guy's fights. Spicoli is correct in saying Sanders was faster, and he was probably more durable as well.
awww god I really don't know, I think Cooney as long as it's the Cooney who fought Kenny Norton. Quick KO if he lets thaf left hook go quickly, I think if Gerry was not so akward that left could have been the hardest punch in boxing.
Gerry Cooney he beat better fighters like Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton, and was more durable i think. Corrie Sanders was talented but he wasn't dedicated, so i'll give it to Gerry Cooney via knockout in a see-saw battle like the Rahman-Sanders fight.
Sanders was actually good enough to win The Big Fight at least once, and beat a live quality opponent. Plus, his southpaw stance and quick straight left could be murderous against Cooney's lack of real defense. Im going with Sanders. He was more skilled, faster, and better on defense. Cooney might have hit a bit harder (doubt it though!) but neither is likely to survive the others bombs, In such a case I'll go with the guy who likely to land his best first. That is Sanders.
Sanders won a big fight against Wlad (Cooney never beat a fighter of that caliber who was in their prime or close to it!) a more meaningful win than Cooney's best wins. On the other hand, Cooney never lost to any mediocre fighters, whereas Sanders did but by that logic i.e wlad (who has lost to a lesser fighter) would lose also! So that is not a good argument...
However, nobody really walks through a motivated/in shape Sanders (yes he had an upset loss to tubbs but u have to look at a fighters career as a whole!) Vitali never walked through Sanders, and Sanders hurt Vitali who has a WAY better chin than Cooney. Sanders, vitali, rahman etc had some of the hardest nights of there lives vs sanders....
Vitali who is better than Cooney hit Sanders with everything in round 5 and 8 and never floored him.
It was stamina for Sanders. I mean come on, look at the Rahman fight, would you really say it was to do with his chin?
Plus he stood up to Vitali for 8 rounds before he was stopped on his feet and never went down once, he was 38!
Would Sanders get dropped and stopped by Spinks? Would Sanders get dropped in the 2nd round by Holmes?
Sanders showed a solid chin v Vitali, he showed more durability in that fight than Cooney showed in his entire career!
Cooney was probably rushed into a fight to soon with holmes, both he & sanders have question marks concerning 'what if's' around them! Had cooney not spiralled into drink and drugs!! Had sanders dedicated himself to the sport more! etc....
But the thing is Corrie Sanders was never fully dedicated to boxing so he was never really in top boxing shape. He beat Wlad at a time when Wlad was putting himself in vulnerable situations due to the style taught by Fritz Sdunek (quality trainer though). Wlad gave up his height & reach and at that moment in his career he was a little stagnant as he was attempting to get a fight with Lennox Lewis but had to settle for lesser fighters and he couldn't keep up his hunger to beat guys who he thought were beneath him.
Gerry Cooney was a heck of a fighter, he was mentally ruined by Larry Holmes who would have toyed with Sanders. The fight vs Holmes was huge and Cooney suffered depression after it and fought alcoholism as well. The point I'm trying to make is at his best Gerry Cooney was a ferocious fighter who did challenge Larry Holmes meanwhile Corrie Sanders was a guy who boxed so he could afford to keep playing golf.....Sanders was talented but he's not special because he didn't train and dedicate himself to the sport.
If the Wladimir Klitschko that's fighting right now, fought the A#1 best version of Corrie Sanders....Wlad would dominate him easily. Wlad lost to Sanders because of mistakes Wlad made, not because Sanders was in amazing shape or determined to upset the apple cart.
:horseshit::vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Well if u have seen say Cooney v Holmes or Cooney v Norton , or Cooney v Spinks .Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Did you not think the 6'2 Cooney was about 3-4 inches tallers than them , making Homes under 6 feet ? ;D
For the record i go for Sanders via 2 round KO.
Cooney was a one trick pony, Holmes made him look a plodding donkey and beat him easy, Sanders
would have Ko Gerry in a few rounds. ;)
I have seen Cooney vs. Holmes a few times as well as Cooney vs. Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlWell if u have seen say Cooney v Holmes or Cooney v Norton , or Cooney v Spinks .Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Did you not think the 6'2 Cooney was about 3-4 inches tallers than them , making Homes under 6 feet ? ;D
For the record i go for Sanders via 2 round KO.
I did not notice a glaring difference in height and after some reserach into his height, Cooney has been listed from 6'4" to 6'7" with 6'6" seeming to be the most common billed height.
He also is not a fighter to stand straight up when boxing so his height never appeared to be that great in my estimation as say the Klitschko brothers who fight quite tall.
He appeared roughly the same height as Holmes or Foreman, both of whom are 6'3".
:lickish:
He knew you were watching and was fighting short to fool you. Teddy has explained this many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkI have seen Cooney vs. Holmes a few times as well as Cooney vs. Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlWell if u have seen say Cooney v Holmes or Cooney v Norton , or Cooney v Spinks .Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Did you not think the 6'2 Cooney was about 3-4 inches tallers than them , making Homes under 6 feet ? ;D
For the record i go for Sanders via 2 round KO.
I did not notice a glaring difference in height and after some reserach into his height, Cooney has been listed from 6'4" to 6'7" with 6'6" seeming to be the most common billed height.
He also is not a fighter to stand straight up when boxing so his height never appeared to be that great in my estimation as say the Klitschko brothers who fight quite tall.
He appeared roughly the same height as Holmes or Foreman, both of whom are 6'3".
:lickish:
http://static2.imagecollect.com/prev...13d62c16c9a944Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkI have seen Cooney vs. Holmes a few times as well as Cooney vs. Foreman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlWell if u have seen say Cooney v Holmes or Cooney v Norton , or Cooney v Spinks .Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Did you not think the 6'2 Cooney was about 3-4 inches tallers than them , making Homes under 6 feet ? ;D
For the record i go for Sanders via 2 round KO.
I did not notice a glaring difference in height and after some reserach into his height, Cooney has been listed from 6'4" to 6'7" with 6'6" seeming to be the most common billed height.
He also is not a fighter to stand straight up when boxing so his height never appeared to be that great in my estimation as say the Klitschko brothers who fight quite tall.
He appeared roughly the same height as Holmes or Foreman, both of whom are 6'3".
:lickish: