Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Who composed this murderer's row of "real hw who knew how to move and use their size" that Morrison beat. Literally every notable name on his record who he beat was past their prime. Tillis, Thomas, Williams, Foreman, Ruddock every single one of them. The one who was closest to the glory days was Foreman, a guy who was in his 40s. Do you really think Joe Louis would take a look at the coked out, washed up shells most of these former contenders were when Morrison fought them and be bedazzled by their footwork and movement?

I think Louis looks better on film than Morrison does. He's much more thoughtful and less wild in throwing his punches, his offensive output is much more varied and less reliant on big single shots, he's much more composed with better balance and coordination, and his combinations are smoother. Morrison fighting in a stronger era of heavyweights is irrelevant because he never did anything to prove he could beat or even be competitive with the best of the 90s heavies. He did however, prove that he could lose to some mediocre or inconsistent ones. Since you're so hung up on the guys who Louis lost to, you should remind yourself that the guys Morrison lost to, with the exception of Lewis, were way worse.

 

your thoughts mean nothing tom moved better fact and louis would have to move more so that outdated quote of waiting wouldnt work he needs to move to beat tom

and no tom being in a way better era means everything beating somebody that's a big name has nothing to do with how he deals with other opponents in general which he never would stuggle with those trash that Louis stuggled with

all quotes you used are flawed and joe only did great cause of people standing in front of him

if you seen jersey match with Joe showed how outdated joe was sense Jersey moved like he could have been in 70s

so no joe wasnt that great a mover no matter what your thoughts are he was slow stiff and basic

it doesn't matter who tom last to he never would lose to the people joe lost to you have the comparison to make to how joe wins tom doesnt need it sense he fought way better movers

you have nobody to compare to except jersey which I said moved way to good for joe logic says there he loses to tom who was more polished then jersey

 

I’m not one to pile on, in fact I try to avoid it BUT this is excruciating to read.

You’re right. It appears some things are outdated and completely overrated - like good grammar, spelling and coherency.

You’ve already been picked up on calling people trolls - for the mere fact they disagree with you. Lose it.

It’s an attempt to insult and in itself shows you have little in the way of rational, fact based, counter arguments.


Acid drop. You don’t know a lot about boxing. You claim Foreman’s chin wasn’t all that in the 70s when it actually was. You “think” Foreman “grew” a better beard to cover your “man” Tommy’s failure in not being able to even secure a KD against a much older George.


You don’t understand Louis’ economical approach which often had Joe performing close to the level of his opposition but almost always seeing Joe doing enough to ultimately flatten them without question.


Louis was only KO’d twice, once on the way up after heavy punishment over the best part of 12 rds. The other time was when Joe was old and well past prime. Inadmissible. If Joe was underperformed in any fight he made sure he did so much better the 2nd time around, including flattening Schmeling in just 1 rd and KO’ing Jersey Joe Walcott.


Do you understand that while Conn gave Louis some issue with movement, Conn also represented a relatively smaller target at the same time? It’s not unusual for such smaller, more nimble guys to give some trouble to their bigger opposition- but Louis caught up, and even more quickly and emphatically so the second time around.


Morrison didn’t move at all like Conn and he would represent a bigger and easier target for Joe to nail with max. leverage and put him out. Joe would be licking his licks over the prospect of another big lug to poleaxe though, aside from weight, Joe would be dropping next to nothing in terms of height and reach.


How many times was Morrison KO’d, and in how many rds each and in total? Finally did Tommy avenge any of his defeats?


You’re trying to gun for flaws in Joe’s game as you “see” them but ignoring all of Morrison’s far more pronounced and fatal flaws.


The truth is you’re making so much more out of Morrison than he actually was.


There’s no mass hysteria or sheep herd mentality re Louis’ obvious abilities. It’s simply a consensus of opinion among people who clearly think for themselves.


Joe was a beautiful technician, employing subtle but effective defensive measures, aided by very fast hands with formidable power in each mitt, as agreed by people who actually understand and appreciate what they see.


Joe’s skills are not at all outdated. They are in fact time transcendent. Referring to Joe’s time as the BW era is indicative that your address is often superficial, irrelevant and looking to blindly draw a prejudiced line between old and new without due analysis of the actual vision.


Btw, I’ll give you a start on one of the questions I posed. Morrison was KO’d/stopped 3 times, over a total of less than 12 rds. - it took the same amount of rds to see an acceptably viable Joe KO’d ONCE, a loss that took him less than 1 rd to avenge.

No sentimentality or nostalgia here. Joe was and would still be, very much the real deal.

Now please try not to reply with “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

 

being crazy is a bad thing and lying is a bad thing to do with me sense im right sense it is no video of joe moving like people I said I wont say much else after this unless you got video to proof im wrong

and I call people trolls cause that what it is by saying something that's not true or wouldnt happen its fact joe would lose and was way to outdated shown by jersey

and like I keep saying I dont believe in talking the way i talk as wrong or any way a person wants to talk right or wrong it's all opinion so no my grammer is not bad to me it's bad for people who brainwashed into thinking it's a right and wrong way to talk so that means

why do you crazy people keep saying that like im hurt by it im not hurt over a choice of talking so why keep trying to use it as a insult

If you dont like me insulting people stop trolling and saying crazy stuff and tell the others to stop it I dont say the stuff I see it

 

No, it's not a matter of "opinion". Your grammar is flat out bad. Knowing how to actually write and use basic punctuation is not "brainwashing", it's called "education". There is a right and wrong way to write, believe it or not.

Source: someone who literally has a ****ing English degree.

 

look at the trolls who think it's a so called right and wrong way to talk bad even though people across the world dont all talk the same which means no it's no right or wrong way to talk or do they think the same brainwashed idiots

 

An opinion expressed re the complexion/outcome of a fantasy bout that of course didn’t happen and will never happen is NOT fact and that IS a fact you cannot logically disagree with.

@Entaowed, I believe, afforded you the exact definition of a TROLL. Your continued, reckless application of that term/label to anyone who merely does not hold the same opinion as you is completely inappropriate and inflammatory.

 

the fact comes from the video of the opponents faced and movement and skill level of opponents which I can see for the people I know that would win not opinion

entaowed doesnt matter I told that dude he doesn't have to talk to me but he still tries said the same quote you said how I talk so called wrong Im not offended by a choice of talking like I told him and you

none of you crazy people words matter to me I only like logic and realism

no way to fit the title of troll or any other insult to me cause I dont think like you people which are brainwashed and stuck on a certain way to talk I dont fit in that way of thinking

 

You're the biggest troll here and you know it. You're also about as dumb as a loaf of toast, nobody listens to you.

 

What do you do if you encounter somebody who claims that Joe Louis winning is a "fact", and says he only cares about video, not words?

Do you just take turns shouting accusations of delusion at each other, hoping to win with attrition?

I just don't see how a perspective that you're the only person who understands the film, and documents are irrelevant, can even productively engage with other perspectives.

 

well cross their not important cause the way louis is talked of he never showed in real life only on the internet which is why video only matters for his debates

 

Suppose somebody said:

"Only videos matter! Joe Louis is better on video than anyone else! All your talk about Morrison isn't from real life. Morrison was terrible! Louis was awesome! Louis destroys Morrison! These are all facts."

How would you persuade that person they were wrong?

 

He would still talk out his ass because otherwise he'd have even less of a life than he already has.

He's like that sad clown who'll tries the same joke over and over and can't understand why no one ever laughs, or has any respect for him.

 

well they do say that which is a lie sense joe never was that great I know its is cause he never shown that or he would had never stuggled with the people he stuggled against which was trash

did you forget you said days ago that you dont see the men I named from 70s losing to louis era that is no lie its fact they wouldnt

saying those legends would do good in louis era means tom would do sense his era had even better movement then 70s

 

Well, a couple things.

First off, I don't think I said they all go undefeated in Louis's era. I said Ali would, and Foreman *might*. Frazier wouldn't. Patterson wouldn't either.

And Louis also went undefeated in Louis's era. So I don't see how that proves Louis's inferiority.

Secondly, we are getting off my main point, which is that I didn't ask how you would respond to ME. I asked how you would persuade someone who only cares about video and says Louis crushes Morrison.

So let's go back to that for a moment.

Okay, so you believe people DO say "Only videos matter! Louis crushes Morrison!"

Great. So you have some real life people to persuade.

How do you persuade them? I don't think your current tactic of calling them liars will work.

What if they just respond back:

"Calling Louis's opponents trash is a lie! Morrison's opponents were trash! All the 90s fighters were trash, because they all struggled with each other! Louis beats all of them. Conn, Schmeling, Farr, Walcott, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, Max Baer, and Tony Galento all crush Morrison, and Lennox Lewis, too! It's a fact."

How do you persuade them they are wrong? It won't work just to say they're lying. And they are looking at the same film you are.