Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Very true, sir.

 

I see so by you saying you know they would beat those dudes in Louis era and himself means your admitting to the truth which I said louis wasnt as great the so called experts said who never could be wrong your said

I dont keep it in one area I show you people where your flawed at and you did it like always

by you saying you know the 70s would beat those dudes shows that you know advances was made and tom had more advances then people in 70s I dont have to debate this more with you

 

I'd be happy to answer. But my point remains.

If you're consistent, then you'll totally disregard what either of us say on this thread about hypothetical matchups.

But you're still paying attention to hypothetical matchups. That means that you realize that words sometimes matter as much as film.

So, my opinion:

No way does Patterson remain undefeated in Louis's era. He gets clipped eventually by a puncher, and can't get up again. Even 0-0 Rademacher put him on the canvas. The sheer volume of work that Patterson would have to do to equal Louis's run is extreme, and Patterson made a career of ducking people during his championship reign.

As to comparing Louis to the 70s guys, his technique is clearly better than Foreman's. I don't think this is even a debatable point.

 

we argee louis punch tech was great looked good and effective just missing modern advances in the way he used it

I'll agree that floyd gets beat if you give me a name who looks like they could

words do matter but your flipping my words agian

me saying words dont matter is specific to quotes only not in general words dont matter

 

Wait. What's the difference between "words" and "quotes"?

All words come from somebody. All words are quotes.

On Patterson: Dunno who would end up KOing him. But somebody would. The odds would eventually catch up with him, and somebody would get lucky.

I'd give Walcott, Schmeling, and some of the huge guys a better chance than most of the rest, but it honestly could be anybody.

 

thats not true all words are not quotes

quotes usually in boxing or any sports works as this saying something that's been said mutiple times and it is meant to be true like as if people dont have their own words they can say so they say a outdated quote

words in general are random words put together to break a point down or to make a point which you know is how I work I use my own sentences my own wording not some sentence said from another man cause no words matter to me from another man to use

which is why I stay with my own quotes that I will repeat

is floyd the only one you see losing to those dudes

 

We quote people who are experts.

That's the point in quoting people. The idea is to quote someone who knows more about what he's talking about than you do.

It doesn't make any sense to quote yourself.

Joe Louis made what, 25 defenses over close to a decade? No way Frazier lasts a decade with the title. Ali probably could. Foreman may or may not.

 

quotes from people are flawed which you know I have exposed mutiple times so no quotes from people are not good

and it does make sense to quote self cause it shows that a person can repeat a quote they said before in a conversation which a person can talk on more then some outdated words said online which we dont know if they are bias or lying or just can be outdated or flawed why should we take that over a real live person that we can talk to it makes no sense

do you think it's bad that I have my own free mind that I dont have to use others quotes

you forget im the one who told you to talk from your own words which you do use alot with me which I like

well yea louis held the title that long but that was cause the people he fought who else did that in real hw it never happened cause the skill level was more advanced which you know to

why would you think just cause a person being in the sport or knows the person directly that they can tell you more then what you see or think you dont think that's acting like your less then them they are people still not gods like I said earn wasnt

 

While I agree with you, I assume that Morrison will be at his best for every fight, that's why I said he beats them all.
You also have to take into consideration the fact that HIV ruined his body and career.

Perhaps he wasn't that consistent, but take into consideration that the elite opposition he faced in the 90s are lightyears better than the guys in Louis's era.
The elite guys from Louis's era would seem like poor amateurs to Morrison.

He beats both on the same night.

 

right buddy you left out Louis was undefeated for years why was that tell that jan troll why that was

I dont argee tom has to be at his best why would he need to be look at how those dudes fought

 

I don't understand.

So it's bad to quote other people, because they're biased or lying... But quoting yourself is fine? Are you immune from bias? If we just assume everybody we quote is lying, wouldn't that mean you are also lying?

That seems bizarre.

I don't think you are lying. I don't think Floyd Patterson is lying. Why should I dismiss Floyd Patterson as a liar, but believe you?

Because it's obvious. People who are actually involved in a thing usually DO understand it better.

That doesn't make them "gods." It makes them regular people who know more than you.

If you want to learn to read Greek, do you just stare really hard at a book written in Greek and hope you can magically understand it? No. You ask someone who knows Greek what it means. And they teach you Greek.

Same with boxing. If you want to understand it, you learn about it from someone who knows more than you.

 

I said the quotes could be lies bias outdated or flawed and it's no way to talk to that person to find out

so that's why quotes are bad and no it does seem god like when the quotes keep being repeated as if they cant be wrong when they are from regular people

I never said believe me you keep doing that these days keep saying you should believe me I never said that or implied it but me using a quote from myself you can talk to me to see if its flawed or a lie which like I said cant be done with these quotes that are repeated

so quotes from me you and everybody here matters sense we can talk directly to each other we can find out lies bias or flawed or outdated which is why that matters I know you understand this

 

That would make doing history impossible, though. Sometimes the person isn't around to confirm something anymore.

For example: Everybody who saw John L. Sullivan fight Paddy Ryan is now dead. They can't confirm or clarify anything. You can't talk to them anymore. Does that mean we can't trust their quotes about what happened in the fight?

Are you quoting books written by experts about Greek to debate against what I said?

If so, I think you just proved my point.

 

That is kind of taking away the hardest part, but OK.

I don't buy it.

Sure you could argue that he was unlucky to share an era with Lewis, or even that he was unlucky to share an era with Merca, but I am not buying the idea that Bentt or Purity would be anything special in another era.

That is quite a bold claim, given who he lost to.

 

no I mean specific certain type of quotes not just any quotes like this with had a debate of this earn was the hardest hitter

ali could beat anybody
ali was the best skilled ever
mike was the best ever

quotes like these is what I mean and others which are always said as fact they have mutiple different changes of the wording but still the same quotes like these are bad to me

quotes like these a man said he was in the ring with boxer or trainer with boxer I dont like these ether cause like I said they can be bias lying or outdated and you said the person might be dead or cant talk to most the time which then it's better to not use these quotes

now quotes here on this forum quotes that are from a person breaking down a fight is good cause its their own wording it's not anything that was said from a 80s or 90s article or some other way it was said from

no im not reading greek books it goes for any book people have different books on the same subject and it's not the same thoughts I dont read religion books but I have read other books when a kid and even though the same topic was different stuff to learn