Gerry Cooney(Underrated or overated)
jalexa9898
ne...@millions.com
<jalex...@aol.com> wrote:
>Which do you think?
Great power, no defense!
DCI
5016
> Which do you think?
Overrated. And easy to assess. He lost to all the good fighters he
fought and beat the poor ones. There are no complexities on his
record, such as one finds with many fighters who beat A and lost to B
even though A was the greater boxer.
The worst fighter he lost to was Spinks or old Foreman, and the best
fighter he beat was probably a shot Norton coming off a win, draw and
loss from Tex Cobb, Le Doux and Shavers. So he is somewhat worse than
Spinks and old Foreman as a heavyweight, and a little better than an
old Norton. However, one hears people rate him much higher than this,
claiming that only Holmes could have beaten him, could have been a
great, etc etc.
Loki
wrote:
He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
trying to earn some quick pay days.
Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.
He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
delivered on his potential.
5016
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 13, 5:25 pm, jalexa9898 <jalexa9...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Which do you think?
>
> >Overrated. And easy to assess. He lost to all the good fighters he
> >fought and beat the poor ones. There are no complexities on his
> >record, such as one finds with many fighters who beat A and lost to B
> >even though A was the greater boxer.
>
> >The worst fighter he lost to was Spinks or old Foreman, and the best
> >fighter he beat was probably a shot Norton coming off a win, draw and
> >loss from Tex Cobb, Le Doux and Shavers. So he is somewhat worse than
> >Spinks and old Foreman as a heavyweight, and a little better than an
> >old Norton. However, one hears people rate him much higher than this,
> >claiming that only Holmes could have beaten him, could have been a
> >great, etc etc.
>
> He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
> until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
> issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
> probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
> trying to earn some quick pay days.
>
> Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
> sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.
He was 31 against Spinks, not 40 as Ali was against Berbick. He never
beat a fighter as good as Spinks in the early part of his career so
there is no reason to suppose that he would have done so.
Walter Mitty
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwg...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 13, 5:25�pm, jalexa9898 <jalexa9...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Which do you think?
>>
>>Overrated. And easy to assess. He lost to all the good fighters he
>>fought and beat the poor ones. There are no complexities on his
>>record, such as one finds with many fighters who beat A and lost to B
>>even though A was the greater boxer.
>>
>>The worst fighter he lost to was Spinks or old Foreman, and the best
>>fighter he beat was probably a shot Norton coming off a win, draw and
>>loss from Tex Cobb, Le Doux and Shavers. So he is somewhat worse than
>>Spinks and old Foreman as a heavyweight, and a little better than an
>>old Norton. However, one hears people rate him much higher than this,
>>claiming that only Holmes could have beaten him, could have been a
>>great, etc etc.
>
> He had tremendous potential and never lived up to it. He was protected
So he probably never had the potential. Just the hype.
5016 : good post.
> until he faced Holmes and then after that dealt with some cocaine
> issues and fought only sporadically, losing to fighters he would have
> probably beaten had he faced them on his way up instead of when he was
> trying to earn some quick pay days.
>
> Judging him based on the Spinks and Foreman fights makes about as much
> sense as evaluating Ali's career on the Berbick fight.
>
> He could have been better, he had the tools to be better, but he never
> delivered on his potential.
Or he might not have been and was just over hyped by people wanting a
white HW Champ. His record states categorically that he was totally
over hyped. I agree with 5016.
The Man From Stone Mountain Georgia
> Which do you think?
Overrated at the time he fought Holmes, underrated now in that he's
thought of as this overrated dude who was supposed to beat Holmes, but
didn't really come close.
I think he would mop the floor with the current crop of heavyweights,
both klits included.
STRATEGY
Walter Mitty
Are you on the cat nip again?
He would not get close to either Klit.
He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.
He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.
Ruddell
(in article <hb3em1$j2p$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> Are you on the cat nip again?
>
> He would not get close to either Klit.
>
> He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
> record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
> then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.
>
> He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
> duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
> his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
> a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
> washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.
I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
for his money that night and so did Gerry...
--
Cheers!
Dennis
Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Walter Mitty
No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
and was totally over hyped.
Turban Joe Balasootoe
> Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:35 -0700 (PDT), 5016 <huwgar...@my-deja.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"His record states categorically.." Huh or what? What am I, nutst?
Turban Joe Balasootoe
This is the most objective summary of Irish Gerry Cooney's
situation.
Walter Mitty
Possibly not nuts. But just read his record.
It supports the view that he was overhyped IMO.
Walter Mitty
Except it's not. It's full of "could of" "should of" : both of which are
guess work. His record tells the story of a competent fighter who got a
crack at the title because he KO'd a past it "legend" and because he was
white. Always distasteful hen colour comes into it, but there we go.
Loki
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 9:52�pm, Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> wrote:
He had also fought three fights totaling 7 rounds against tomato cans
in the 5 years between Holmes and Spinks. He was no where near the top
of his game. He has no one to blame but himself for his decline, but
that does not alter the fact that he did have amazing potential and
never lived up to it.
He had amazing power and had the potential to be another Foreman, who
was great against a certain type of opponent and mediocre against
anyone else.
Loki
wrote:
How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.
Walter Mitty
A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title
Loki
wrote:
Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?
Ruddell
(in article <76nad5940jl0k2s0f...@4ax.com>):
> Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
> so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
> game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?
Lets not forget that Foreman lost to Ali when George was at the top of his
game and Ali was supposed to be finished/washed up. Cooney held his own yet
lost to Larry which really isn't something to be ashamed of. I still think
that Gerry could have done better but he didn't so that's the history of the
story...
Walter Mitty
No.
> so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
> game who Cooney at the top of his game would not have beaten?
See above.
Foreman was a one dimensional power house who scared everyone to death.
5016
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabo...@canada.com> writes:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
>
> >>>>> Are you on the cat nip again?
>
> >>>>> He would not get close to either Klit.
>
> >>>>> He was a totally and utterly overrated "White Man". Nothing in his
> >>>>> record suggests he had what it takes at the top. Was the top better
> >>>>> then? Sure. But we have two pretty dominant champs now.
>
> >>>>> He has one and only one name on his resume : that of Norton. Whom he
> >>>>> duly retired. But lets be real : Norton was 38 and had won only 5 out of
> >>>>> his last 10 and Cooney was 25 and "hot". Cooney's record up to then was
> >>>>> a classic "who the hell are they" read. In other words they used a
> >>>>> washed up ageing "has been" to launch Cooney into the ring with Holmes.
>
> >>>> I tend to agree with Strategy as Gerry was a good fighter. Sure, Larry beat
> >>>> him fair and square but it certainly wasn't a cakewalk for him. He worked
> >>>> for his money that night and so did Gerry...
>
> >>>No one has said he was not a good fighter. But he was never a contender
> >>>and was totally over hyped.
>
> >> How can you say he was never a contender? He was undefeated, and beat
> >> the snot out of everyone he faced prior to Holmes.
>
> >A contender for greatness. Clearly he was a "contender" for the title
>
> Would you consider George Foreman to be a contender for greatness? If
> so, why? Who do you think Foreman beat when he was at the top of his
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that a serious question? Frazier's top of the list. Then prime
Norton, and Ron Lyle when he wasn't 39. Maybe Chuvalo.
But we don't have to look at mutual opponents of Foreman and Cooney in
order to decide which of them is the greater: Foreman beat Cooney when
Foreman was 41 and Cooney 33. Foreman is clearly a far greater fighter
than Cooney.
I don't think that one can ever assume that a fighter is any better
than he has proved to be. To argue that Cooney was a potentially great
fighter when he never beat a good fighter is not much different to
arguing that you yourself could have been great if only you had tried
boxing. The burden of proof lay with Cooney, and he failed to meet it.
Walter Mitty
Loki
wrote:
As was Cooney.
The above is wrong though. In addition to Norton, Cooney also had KOs
over Jimmy Young and Ron Lyle.
Loki
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 1:09�am, Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> wrote:
And with their wade in styles, there is not a doubt in my mind that
Cooney would have taken all of them. Not that he was a better fighter,
it was a style thing.
>But we don't have to look at mutual opponents of Foreman and Cooney in
>order to decide which of them is the greater: Foreman beat Cooney when
>Foreman was 41 and Cooney 33. Foreman is clearly a far greater fighter
>than Cooney.
When they fought, Foreman was active. He had faced 5 opponents and
fought 27 rounds in the prior year. Cooney hadn't stepped into the
ring for almost three years. Additionally, Cooney had a cocaine
problem which, while his own fault, still took from him most of the
skills that he had when he was on his way up.
By the way, the same Jimmy Young who beat Foreman was KOd by Cooney.
I am not, by the way saying that Cooney was better than Foreman. I am
saying that the two were comparable.
>I don't think that one can ever assume that a fighter is any better
>than he has proved to be. To argue that Cooney was a potentially great
>fighter when he never beat a good fighter is not much different to
>arguing that you yourself could have been great if only you had tried
>boxing. The burden of proof lay with Cooney, and he failed to meet it.
He destroyed Norton, Young, Lyle, and everyone else they put in front
of him until he faced Holmes, arguably one of the three greatest
heavyweights in history while he was at the top of his game.
ne...@millions.com
Steve, unfortunately, Cooney's work in the encounter with Larry Homes
was more of a target practice for Holmes. He demonstrated clearly,
that he was incapable of adjusting his attack/coutering against
Holmes. But more than that, his defeat resulted in an unhealthy
emotional recovery from the defeat. That stuff is painful to the soul!
Just an opinion from the old man.
DCI
ne...@millions.com
In the matter of George Foreman, all I remember is those sledge hammer
lefts and rights. The sounds of deep, thunderous body shots, his
little noticed short, lightening bold left hooks that came from
differing angles. He really didn't box so much as he destroyed his
opponents.
Just a passing thought.
DCI
ne...@millions.com
SkippyPB
I remember seeing that Cooney/Holmes fight. Cooney never moved his
feet, never jabbed enough to keep Holmes off of him and if not for his
strong chin, would have been kissing the canvas numerous times. There
was a lot of hype leading up to that fight but I never thought Cooney
was that good.
Regards,
--
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"If white wine goes with fish, do white grapes go with sushi?"
-- George Carlin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Ruddell
(in article <gi0cd59pi2aoghe37...@4ax.com>):
> I remember seeing that Cooney/Holmes fight. Cooney never moved his
> feet, never jabbed enough to keep Holmes off of him and if not for his
> strong chin, would have been kissing the canvas numerous times. There
> was a lot of hype leading up to that fight but I never thought Cooney
> was that good.
>
> Regards,
Well, fair enough. Holmes didn't have the cakewalk that was expected as
Cooney was one tough cookie and he didn't want to quit when the fight was
called. I mean, he was finished but he didn't want to quit so he had a lot
of heart and soul in the ring. I wonder what he thinks of it now...
ne...@millions.com
Dennis, protestations are ever preceded by a looming defeat. It adds
to the effort not to be seen as a loser. Gerry Cooney was not a loser,
but it seems to have ruminated in his head for quite awhile.
The tough cookie might be true; however, Gerry Cooney was not prepared
well to fight the likes of Larry Holmes, a real tough cookie with one
of the longest and most accurate well-timed jabs ever.
Just an opinion.
Ruddell
(in article <9ogcd5d3d4t2prl7l...@4ax.com>):
Good opinion. Holmes's jab was probably one of the best in the business if
not thee best. I still want to go to his restaurant/bar just in hopes of
meeting him (and to try out the food of course). Someday and hopefully soon.
Maybe an rsb gathering would be in order?
Baldoni
> On Oct 13, 5:25ï¿œpm, jalexa9898 <jalexa9...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Which do you think?
>
> Overrated. And easy to assess. He lost to all the good fighters he
> fought and beat the poor ones. There are no complexities on his
> record, such as one finds with many fighters who beat A and lost to B
> even though A was the greater boxer.
>
> The worst fighter he lost to was Spinks or old Foreman, and the best
> fighter he beat was probably a shot Norton coming off a win, draw and
> loss from Tex Cobb, Le Doux and Shavers. So he is somewhat worse than
> Spinks and old Foreman as a heavyweight, and a little better than an
> old Norton. However, one hears people rate him much higher than this,
> claiming that only Holmes could have beaten him, could have been a
> great, etc etc.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Holmes say of Cooney "he's the
right colour" not long before they met in the ring ?
--
Count Baldoni
In hoc signo vinces
5016
> After serious thinking 5016 wrote :
>
"He has the complexion to get the connection" and "the great white
dope" are the ones I remember. Holmes had stuff a thousand times worse
said to him at the time, though not by Cooney.
Cooney was a good banger but had almost no defence. He held his hands
very low and followed punches with his head, literally sticking his
neck out. That's why every good fighter knocked him out.
Corrie Sanders Fan
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:09:24 -0700, Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:59:07 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Loki <cubby77...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:22:17 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:57:05 -0600, Walter Mitty wrote
F*** yeah. Foreman was a monster. A great one! So rare to see a
specimen like him. Just a pure boxing super-predator. The shark with
the biggest teeth. You said it. His job was not to fight but to
destroy opponents like rag dolls.
pablo
Oh, and I also think Larry Holmes was overrated. Predictably crafty.
Smart. But nowhere close to an all time great.
pablo
<strategy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Overrated at the time he fought Holmes, underrated now in that he's
> thought of as this overrated dude who was supposed to beat Holmes, but
> didn't really come close.
That actually is a very smart way to look at it.
pablo
> Are you on the cat nip again?
>
> He would not get close to either Klit.
They said that about Sanders and he mopped the floor with WK, old and
over the hill as he was supposed to be. I would not write off Cooney -
one thing he did have was one punch power, more so than the K's have.
Vanman
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Is that a serious question? Frazier's top of the list. Then prime
>>Norton, and Ron Lyle when he wasn't 39. Maybe Chuvalo.
>
> And with their wade in styles, there is not a doubt in my mind that
> Cooney would have taken all of them. Not that he was a better fighter,
> it was a style thing.
>
>>But we don't have to look at mutual opponents of Foreman and Cooney in
>>order to decide which of them is the greater: Foreman beat Cooney when
>>Foreman was 41 and Cooney 33. Foreman is clearly a far greater fighter
>>than Cooney.
>
> When they fought, Foreman was active. He had faced 5 opponents and
> fought 27 rounds in the prior year. Cooney hadn't stepped into the
> ring for almost three years. Additionally, Cooney had a cocaine
> problem which, while his own fault, still took from him most of the
> skills that he had when he was on his way up.
>
> By the way, the same Jimmy Young who beat Foreman was KOd by Cooney.
>
Jimmy Young was in his prime in 1975 and 1976 when he beat Lyle twice, lost
a close fight to Ali as
well as Norton. I have the Young defeat of Foreman on dvd and when i
watched the fight i was pretty
surprised how one sided it was, far more than I expected. Young is still
underrated today. Good fighter is a damn
tough era.
Young had declined signifantly by the time he fought Cooney in 1980. He had
already lost to the underwhelming
Ossie Ocasio twice and to Michael Dokes. Additionally the Cooney/Young
fight was stopped in the
4th round due to cuts (though even if not i think Cooney would have won). \
Cooney was marketed brilliantly, had a great left hook and heart. Was
matched against long faded name fighters while
and then sent straight to Holmes. There was alot of fighters he could have
been matched against who were young at the time
but for whatever reason they were avoided.
> I am not, by the way saying that Cooney was better than Foreman. I am
> saying that the two were comparable.
>
>>I don't think that one can ever assume that a fighter is any better
>>than he has proved to be. To argue that Cooney was a potentially great
>>fighter when he never beat a good fighter is not much different to
>>arguing that you yourself could have been great if only you had tried
>>boxing. The burden of proof lay with Cooney, and he failed to meet it.
I really would have liked to have seen Cooney fight either Pinklon Thomas or
Tim Witherspoon
in the early 80's, would have been a good guage of just how good he really
was.
> He destroyed Norton, Young, Lyle, and everyone else they put in front
> of him until he faced Holmes, arguably one of the three greatest
> heavyweights in history while he was at the top of his game.
I agree with you on Holmes, what a long reign against an era that was better
than most remember.
The early 80's heavyweights can slagged alot but there was alot of talent
there that Holmes had to deal with.
Sure it was not as tough as the early 70's or the early to mid 90's but it
had a better quality of top ten heavy's
than Tyson had to deal with. Also I watched both Holmes vs Michael Spinks
fights and i thought Larry won both.
Was he fading by that point? Definitely. You can see Holmes ability start
to decline circa 1984.
Loki
wrote:
Yes he had, which was what I was waiting for someone to point out.
Cooney was criticized for losing to Foreman, even though Foreman was
much older. At the time they fought, Cooney had been pretty much
inactive with a cocaine problem for 2 1/2 years prior to facing a very
active Foreman.
As such, the Foreman fight no more represented a prime Cooney than the
Jimmy Young who stepped into the ring with Cooney was Young at his
best. And, by the way, had Young been at the top of his game, I think
he would have owned Cooney pretty much the same way he owned Foreman.
Vanman
"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3kqfd51uii79ud876...@4ax.com...
prime Cooney.
*ernie
Cooney was the 'Great White Hype', beating up a bunch of has beens and
never was's. Probably his best fight was the Holmes fight, low-blows
and all. Holmes would never be on anyone's list of 'greatest ever',
for sure, but he would have been remembered in a better light if he
hadn't re-acted like a bitch after the Spinks fights.
Ernie K.
Loki
Holmes would be in the top 5, if not higher on the "greatest list" of
anyone who knows anything about boxing.
He was champion for 7 years, defended the title more than anyone else
save Joe Louis, had one of the best jabs in heavyweight history, and
could take the best shots of some of the hardest hitters in history.
I rank him as number three of all time behind only Ali and Louis, and
am not sure that he shouldn't be higher.
Ryan Wissow
Cooney fought in a very strong era of heavyweights.
if he were fighting in a later era, he'd of won a belt.
RYAN
*ernie
In no particular order:
1) Sonny Liston
2) Muhammed Ali
3) Joe Frazier
4) Ken Norton
5) George Foreman
6) Mike Tyson
Each of these fighters in his prime could beat Larry Holmes in his prime. I
wouldn't be so stupid as to include fighters I never saw and could only go
by reputation and film clips, so I ommitted names like Joe Louis and Rocky
Marciano. It's nice to have a real oldtimer like yourself posting to the
group who saw these old greats and can share firsthand knowledge of these
boxing icons.
--
ernie k.
already...@hotmail.com
Corrie Sanders Fan
There is no comparison. Sanders was a better talent. Fast hands,
crushing left, and his southpaw stance would've given Cooney
problems.
A well motivated Sanders beats Cooney 8 times out of 10.
7 times by KO in my book.
Sanders achieved more even while being past his prime. Imagine had he
been managed better.
"The short hard left by Sanders...there is nothing like it in boxing"
--Larry Merchant
ne...@millions.com
Who you calling old? ;)
DCI
Loki
<already...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:olcid5l0ik1k8dvb6...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:41:40 -0700 (PDT), "*ernie"
>> <already...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Cooney was the 'Great White Hype', beating up a bunch of has beens and
>>>never was's. Probably his best fight was the Holmes fight, low-blows
>>>and all. Holmes would never be on anyone's list of 'greatest ever',
>>>for sure, but he would have been remembered in a better light if he
>>>hadn't re-acted like a bitch after the Spinks fights.
>>
>> Holmes would be in the top 5, if not higher on the "greatest list" of
>> anyone who knows anything about boxing.
>>
>> He was champion for 7 years, defended the title more than anyone else
>> save Joe Louis, had one of the best jabs in heavyweight history, and
>> could take the best shots of some of the hardest hitters in history.
>>
>> I rank him as number three of all time behind only Ali and Louis, and
>> am not sure that he shouldn't be higher.
>
>
>In no particular order:
>
>1) Sonny Liston
>2) Muhammed Ali
>3) Joe Frazier
>4) Ken Norton
Ken Norton, in his prime, lost to Larry Holmes while Holmes was still
on his way up.
So much for your list.
Return to the children's table.
ne...@millions.com
And the Old Pappa Bear Liston would've been hung there on Larry Holmes
beautiful jab. Liston would have cried for help, "Get me outta here."
DCI
Ruddell
(in article <bf5ld5dtp92cvlsu9...@4ax.com>):
>
> And the Old Pappa Bear Liston would've been hung there on Larry Holmes
> beautiful jab. Liston would have cried for help, "Get me outta here."
I think the only modern day fighter who would have beaten Holmes would have
been Lennox and even he would had a tough time with him. Larry was a machine
by all means...
*ernie
<ne...@millions.com> wrote in message
news:f2mkd5pl94av06178...@4ax.com...
My figuring is he must be at least 80. That would at least put him in the
line for the glue factory. Still, I always enjoy reading about the 'good old
days'
--
ernie k.
already...@hotmail.com
Ruddell
(in article <f2mkd5pl94av06178...@4ax.com>):
Don't worry DC, you're still a spring chicken ;-)
ne...@millions.com
Dennis, the "spring" has sprung!
DCI
ne...@millions.com
Ernie, glue factory?! What in hell do think is holding me together? :)
DCI
*ernie
<ne...@millions.com> wrote in message
news:65nmd5t8h5fgt2kdc...@4ax.com...
Sorry, no insult to you intended. It's a pleasure to meet and correspond
with a gentleman. I have no doubt that you still have a lot of miles left
and much to offer.
--
ernie k.
already...@hotmail.com
ne...@millions.com
<already...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I appreciate the kind words. As to the miles, that's getting bit
tough. But what the hell, I knew that going in. I think I did.
Hell, let's get back to babbling on about boxing, OK? We have world-
wide participants, and those folks add a very good and valuable
dimension to the discussion, etc.
Take good care of yourself.
DCI
thelord...@gmail.com
> "Loki" <cubby77...@aol.com> wrote in message
He beat Norton when Norton was in his prime. You fail. Personally I
have Holmes at number three behind Ali and Louis. There is no way I
would put anybody above him other than those two.
Dan L
would have just been another fighter.