Cooney vs. Mercer

[billeau2]

And yet that doesn't change the fact that Cooney had more obstacles to his success. And Liston himself lost his passion for the sport when he was defeated.

Cooney does look more dangerous than Liston, and proved himself more than Liston did. Liston can only claim two things: 1) a championship belt; 2) more time committed to the sport before running into his boogeyman.



LOL, who did Williams beat!? What performance can you cite that proves he was anything more than a hype job? Certainly nothing that matches even Bruno's losing efforts to Tyson and Witherspoon (great Heavyweights). Williams was KO'd by a Light HEavyweight, for God's sake.

As for Young, well, I guess you know better than the writers for RING Magazine who watched him ring-side? They named him Comeback Fighter of the YEar. I dunno whose record you're referencing, but check the page header: it's not Youngs.

He beat Foreman and Ali. He had his off nights, but that clearly wasn't the case against Cooney (he simply ran into a MUCH better man). And he rattled off a series of wins, rebounding from that loss. So he wasn't washed up when Cooney fought him. And again, much better than anyone Liston beat. Definitely better than MAchen.

Holmes at his zenith was also far, far superior to the Cassius Clay that Liston fought.

Trying to dismiss the disparity in competition is as blatant a denial of facts, and plea for opinion, as anything I can think of.

While I appreciate your opinion I do not have the time to deconstruct all these qualitative assertions you come up with. "Hype Job", calling one guy "washed up". Calling witherspoon great (and i like Witherspoon don't get me wrong).

Don't take this wrong but you don't seem able to distinguish opinions from facts, and assume things about how fighters compare that make little sense to me.

[Rusty Tromboni]

While I appreciate your opinion I do not have the time to deconstruct all these qualitative assertions you come up with. "Hype Job", calling one guy "washed up". Calling witherspoon great (and i like Witherspoon don't get me wrong).

Don't take this wrong but you don't seem able to distinguish opinions from facts, and assume things about how fighters compare that make little sense to me.

Is it that, or is it that the facts are overwhelming?

I don't mean to put you in an awkward position. But I think I have illustrated many times how fable has no room in serious discussion.

I don't mind people buying into the myth. Boxing is entertainment, and the myth enhances that experience. But when having a serious discussion, it needs to be set aside.

My arguments are based on fighters' records and footage. I really don't know what else you could possibly want.... except an excuse to believe what you want to believe.

[billeau2]

Is it that, or is it that the facts are overwhelming?

I don't mean to put you in an awkward position. But I think I have illustrated many times how fable has no room in serious discussion.

I don't mind people buying into the myth. Boxing is entertainment, and the myth enhances that experience. But when having a serious discussion, it needs to be set aside.

My arguments are based on fighters' records and footage. I really don't know what else you could possibly want.... except an excuse to believe what you want to believe.

If you do not see how you make assumptions then you will not see how you make assumptions. Its all good to me, I am not here to change anybody.