robert phillips

Then put him in your Top 3 or 5 or 10 of the '70s, or of 1979, if you
want. But when we talk about the top fighters of a decade (like the
'80s) we should only base that on their performances in that decade, not
in any year or decade before or after it. You can't apply anything
forward or backward. We can't say that Lennox Lewis's performances in
the '90s and the fact that he turned pro in '89 makes him one of the
best heavies of the '80s, and we can't say that Holyfield has been one
of the best heavies of this decade (the '00s) just because he was highly
ranked in the beginning of this decade and accomplished a lot in the
'90s. What Lewis did in the '90s means nothing for his ranking in the
'80s, and what Holyfield did in the '90s means nothing for his ranking
in this decade. And what Cooney accomplished prior to 1980 means
nothing for his ranking in the '80s.


Please. The best guy Lyle fought of those seven was likely - who, Scott
LeDoux, at 25-6-3, who'd been a .500 fighter for the three years prior
to their fight and went 8-6-1 after it? or was it Joe Bugner at 52-7-1
who had fought twice in the previous two years (losing one of them to
Ali)? Lyle retired following the Cooney fight, and wouldn't fight again for 15 years.


If this was 1981, you're darn right it would be impressive that Cooney
beat those guys back to back to back and we could call him one of the
best fighters of the new decade. However, this isn't 1981; it's 2003
and we now know how washed up those guys were when Cooney beat them, so
we can also put those wins into a greater perspective that is now far
less favourable than to Cooney that it appeared to be in 1981.

Well, I disagree with the first part (basing it on what he did) most
vehemently, but I'll pass on the second part (basing it on what he was
capable of doing), because it's only speculation that neither of us can
prove or disprove. However, it would be appropriate of you to
acknowledge from the get-go that you're basing your ranking of Cooney
based "even more" on speculation than on his actual performances.

Well, I've said that - certainly by implication in my first post,
********ly in my second post, so I'll acknowledge that here for the
third time.


Pie