I agree. Like I said, Morrison did not have a glass chin. He was KOd 3 times, but never with just 1 punch: - Mercer hit him with a few hard shots in the 4th round, and then finished a tired Morrison in the 5th while landing multiple bombs, basically unanswered shots, especially the last ones; - Bent hit him with even more punches, if I remember correctly, he knocked Morrison down a few times before he could finish him. - Lewis is an ATG superheavyweight with tremendous punching power. He dominated Morrison and knocked him down twice in the 6th, at which point the ref stopped the fight. So to say he has a glass chin is not true at all. I agree about stamina, but I feel like Morrison takes out Marciano long before that comes into play. As for mental durability, I feel Morrison's main problems were drug and alcohol use, which hindered his training and proper preparations.
This is all quite subjective. You have no way of knowing how Marciano would do against a puncher like Morrison, if Marciano had the tools to bother Morrison, or if Morrison would be favored to beat everyone on Marciano's record. That last remark in particular is so moronic. I don't know anyone else who thinks Morrison would beat Walcott, Charles, and Moore. Maybe there are people who think that. But don't misrepresent your opinion to make it sound like many hold to that belief when probably few do.
If you take size alone as a merit, and don't care how bad the opponent was as a professional, then you might as well throw in guys like Big Bill Wilson into the argument. I could accept an argument for Mercer, but Bentt and Purity? When it comes to men like that, you are basically arguing that size is the only variable that matters, and that however bad a fighter is, losing to him can be excused if he weighs more than 220lbs. Yes the fighters that Marciano fought were smaller than Morrison, but they were faster than Morrison, they were more skillful than Morison, and some of them were simply better than Morison. To argue that a fighter of the caliber of Morison, is going to steamroll an undefeated ATG in one round, simply because he is over 220lbs and can punch, is putting an almost infantile faith in size and power.
His power would give him a chance against men from that era, but his stamina and other issues, would also see him picking up losses.
This is true for any hypothetical matchup. In Classic Boxing they don't, but IRL boxers hold very different opinions. Why should I favor Marciano against Morrison? Morrison would handily beat old Moore, Walcott, Charles and Louis. If you don't agree then there is no further point in discussing the topic.
I have to question that. Lewis was a dangerous puncher for sure, and so was Mercer. However there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Bentt was a dangerous puncher, other than the fact that he stopped Morrison. Nothing. When you look at the rest of Bentt's record, it is hard to conclude that he was a more dangerous puncher than anybody who hit Marciano. When you then combine that with the way he stopped Morison, your confidence in Morison's chin has to be very severely dented.
No, it's not "an almost infantile faith in size and power", it's what I think after seeing RM on video. He is slow, lacks technique, is clumsy, and he fought weak competition. Morrison is much quicker than Charles, Walcott, Moore, etc. As I've mentioned, Morrison isn't a great fighter, but he doesn't have to be to beat RM and his opposition. This isn't a size issue, except in this instance the 40 pound bigger man is much quicker, stronger, and better then RM. I wouldn't favor RM over Ron Stander or people of that caliber. Morrison is not top caliber, but he is much better than RM. We scored the RM - JJW for Fight of the Week and it looked like both were in slow motion. Morrison, while not great is much better than that.
If you were any good at judging the outcome of fights, from what fighters look like on film, you wouldn't be working for a living. If you think that the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history looks crap on film, then perhaps it says more about your ability to evaluate what you are looking at? When you are trying to big up a fighter who got destroyed by Michael Bentt, you are not in a strong position to criticize Marciano's opposition. Of course it is a straight up size issue in your eyes. You are defending Morrison for his loss to Bennt and his draw against Purity. It is obvious that to you it doesn't matter how bad a fighter is, as long as he weighs more than 220lb. It is more excusable in your eyes to lose to a 220lb Kellogg's Pop Tart, than to struggle with one of the greatest 190lb fighters that ever lived. There is the caricature of the modern fight fan who doesn't appreciate any variable apart from size, but that is essentially what you are.
Another point, if Morrison was born the same year as Marciano would not be on steroids and would be smaller and probably less powerful (maybe faster, maybe not). If Marciano was born same year as Morrison and we roided him up like Tommy, gonna be a bigger badder Rocky in there. Just a couple thoughts.
I agree. It cuts both ways. I have yet to see otherwise. This merits a poll. I am not necessarily saying that Morrison wouldn't beat those guys. However, I don't think most of the forum guys would agree with you.
This one puzzles me a little. I can understand the reasoning for people who pick modern guys as being arguably more evolved, better trained, and so on than Marciano et al, but Stander was not that far away from Rocky's era. His prime a lot closer to Rocky's time than it was to ours. And he was only a glorified journeyman or fringe contender in the early/mid 70s.
Ray Mercer had fat rolls at 225 when he beat Tommy. The man was a fit 6'1" 210 lbs at 28 years of age. He's not a giant. He's a 50s sized Heavy with more flab.
The fat rolls didn't deture him in any way because from what i can remember he weighed almost 240 pounds against Lennox Lewis and performed excellently
