Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Cooney and Holmes both had pulses at the time Spinks got them, though neither was as good as they'd been earlier. That version of Holmes was significantly better than Tommy Morrison ever was. Cooney was about where Morrison was later in his career.

Tyson, meanwhile, wasn't just a heavyweight with a "pulse and a punch." He was an exceptional heavyweight; one of the best heavyweight champions of all time.

 

Nice to see you can use BoxRec.

Now ask Swami BoxRec how Louis handled Marciano and Schmeling. Men much smaller than Morrison, who didn't hit half as hard.

OK, and you can use YouTube, too. How nice. Try to explain to me how the Bentt fight concerns my point.

We're talking about each man at his best.

 

Desperation isn't a good look for you. Cooney looked horrible against Spinks. I can't believe you'd even pretend he was anything of threat. His implosion following the loss to Holmes is very well documented. Hell, between his victory over Young (when he would have raped Spinks) and his fight with Holmes, Cooney fell off significantly. Cooney was about 10 years out from being a threat to the Hw division when he met Spinks.

Even when Holmes was at his best he couldn't stop guys like Norton, Shavers. He has a lot of TKOs on his record because he was an attrition fighter. He was wonderfully skilled, but not at all a puncher. I have never, ever, ever seen anyone say that he was. Maybe you have heard that he was a better puncher than Ali? That's true, but Larry was not a big puncher - none the less, a shop-worn Holmes stunned Spinks in the rematch w/ a right hand.

Tyson beat Spinks as easily as he did because he struck the fear of God in him. Again, another well documented and widely discussed fact. Tommy wasn't as skilled or disciplined as Tyson, but he had more one punch power. He was comparatively dangerous offensively against out-matched opposition.

No one says Hearns was better than Leonard, but compare their efforts against Duran and Leonard.

Spinks gets murked by Morrison.

 

Hahahahaa! Dude, what gym did you train at that taught you to Box like Louis and Schmeling!?!?!? What weight did you compete at!?!?

I see in MMA gyms more guys are adopting a historical Boxing approach, as it's effective in real combat. But Boxing is a sport with lots of rules. It's become more attenuated.

I see more of a semblance of Schmeling in McGovern than I do in anyone who has come since. McGovern was a fistic marvel; very underrated, but Boxing was in its infancy. Schmeling was similarly an incredible natural talent. But the dude was primitive by today's standards.

So please, tell us in which gym(s) were you taught to Box like Schmeling and Louis!


And as for constructing Strawman Arguments, at least make sure they make sense:
I never said it was Morrison's size that would cause Louis trouble, I said it was his athleticism. It's counter-intuitive that added size would add to mobility. I said the size would help Morrison offensively - which is supported by the Laws of Physics.

You haven't provided reference to a single fight which demonstrates Louis had the speed and footwork to stalk down the Morrison that evaded Foreman.

But again, a guy who struggled with the power (or lack there of) of natural Light Heavyweights probably doesn't have that luxury: Tommy would set in for the kill early.

 

So if I start a poll asking the community to vote on whether Carnera, a known fraud, is better or worse than Tommy Morrison, you'll advocate for his case?

 

Whom he lost to in the immediate rematch.

Holmes was done. He had lost to Witherspoon and Williams, he had been avoiding elite talent for years. Even in his prime he avoided Young and refused to give Norton a much deserved rematch.

Who were his best wins coked out Cooney and washed up journeyman Earnie Shavers?

Very skilled fighter, but never big puncher.

You really see Morrison at his best struggling with any of those guys?

You really see Morrison hitting the deck against Renaldo Snipes?

Holmes took Spinks because Spinks was supposed to be the easy path to matching Marciano's record. But we saw a case of Casey Goes to Bat.

After receiving a gift decision in the rematch w/ Holmes, Spinks fought some Ikea Salesman, and the zombie of Gerry Cooney.

HE WAS STRIPPED FOR REFUSING TO FIGHT TUCKER!

Yeah, he made the final bell. And that was a coked out Morrison.

He slept on Purrity like he had Bentt.

No one is arguing that he didn't have his demons or that he was the hallmark of consistency. Marvin Hager he was not.

But I guarantee you Purrity's punches had more mustard on them than Conn's or Braddocks or even Baer's.

Years later Purrity would also win a war of attrition with Wlad Klitchko who was bigger, immeasurably more skilled and hit even harder than Morrison.

Hell, the version of Purrity we see here with Morrison puts away Simon, Buddy baer and Godoy faster than Louis did!

 

Again, look at the poll, that pretty much tells the story around here.

 

You wrote that Louis would somehow struggle to land on Morrison, despite the fact they're the same size.

You used Morrison vs Foreman as evidence Morrison would be too elusive for Louis to land on.

Louis beat two very good movers in Conn and Walcott. He went 4-0 against them.

So logic dictates that you must think Morrison had better footwork than Conn and Walcott for your argument to make any sense at all. If you don't think Morrison had better footwork than them, your argument is silly.

That's how the debate went in a nut shell.

This is my take: Morrison absolutely did not have footwork as good as conn or Walcott. Being born a few decades later does not automatically mean he has better footwork, otherwise there'd be dozens of HW boxers who could move better than Ali. Even if the sport as a whole progresses linearly, that still would not prove Morrison had better footwork. You still have to look at each boxer on a case by case level.

The sole piece of evidence Morrison had decent footwork was when he fought a VERY slow and heavy 40 year old man. He did not move like that on a consistent basis. It doesn't remotely impressive me and does not look that great on film compared to Conn or Walcott. At 220 with very large muscles (built from PEDS), common sense also tells us that he was neither as fast as them, nor would he be able to make sudden movements or changes in angles. He also wouldn't have their stamina.

If outboxing a slow fat old man is enough to convince you Morrison had better footwork than conn and Walcott and would outbox Louis than this debate is a waste of time. It would mean you're obviously in a bizarre parallel universe where Morrison was anything more than a limited hard hitting trailer park boy with a thin resume who often got destroyed when he stepped up in class.

And for the record I didn't say that the gym I trained at taught me to fight like Louis and Schmeling. I certainly don't see anybody studying film of Morrison tho. But to answer your question I trained under Greg Wright who was a former NABF light heavy weight champion and I even sparred with him a few times. I also trained with Buster Douglas in the Thompson recreation center in Columbus oh. Next time I see either of them I'll be sure to ask them if they think Morrison would beat Joe Louis.

 

Maybe watch Conn and Walcott before comparing them to Morrison of the Foreman fight.

 

This is just a more eloquent version of moneytheman's claim that the people arguing with him secretly believe he's right. And just as unconvincing.

In contrast to the monkish Tommy Morrison...

Usually it's the old timers who have to lean upon "wouldas" and "couldas" to justify their guys' performances. Interesting to see a modernist version.

Morrison was hardly a menacing presence in the 90s division either. Again, you are not arguing for Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, or Mike Tyson versus Spinks here.

Of course he wasn't a big puncher, although he had enough pop to hurt people.

But Holmes was close to the best, if not the best, fighter in the world when Spinks beat him. Morrison never came close to beating an opponent of this description.

I thought part of your point was that the 80s-90s were death knell of LHWs campaigning successfully at heavyweight. In contrast to Louis's day. If you were only making the more limited claim that LHWs are more vulnerable to elite punchers, that's a lot less useful against Louis, since he KO'd the smaller guys just like everybody else.

Your analysis of Spinks/Tyson is probably accurate, and weakens your case against Louis. Spinks may well have lost because he was terrified. Conn wasn't terrified, and did better as a result.

It also weakens any direct comparison between Spinks/Tyson and a hypothetical Spinks/Morrison. Spinks definitely feared Tyson. Whether he would fear Cooney 2.0, who lost in his prime to Mercer (beaten by an elderly Spinks victim) and Bentt...well, Tommy's a bit less intimidating.

 

That's all you had to say. You honestly think Morison had better footwork than conn and Walcott.

Troll or idiot? Which category do I put you in?

 

Too bad all that you typed is undermined by the fact that we're talking about Tommy at his best, not his worst.

Yes or no, do you believe Spinks and Louis could sustain the beating that Mercer did? Be honest with yourself.

 

When did I say he had better footwork? Show me where I said that. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough through out this thread?

 

No he didn't. You can say you disagree with a decision but you can't change history whenever it's inconvenient for your argument.

Holmes was "done" and then proceeded to school Mercer after his losses to Spinks. The same Mercer who would go on to destroy your boy Morrison.

Morrison struggled with guys like Purrity, a washed up Ruddock, and hit the deck against a complete nobody like Bennt so I wouldn't be shocked at all if Morrison got dropped or even lost to Snipes. He wasn't very durable and he wasn't that good.

 

The 3 musketeers who keep campaigning for Morrison have spent more time talking about what he "could" and "would" do while trashing the resume of whatever opponents he's matched with instead of actually discussing the match. It's very telling.

When the resume is thin, this is a go to strategy. See legends like Samuel Peter or Ruddock who, in the absence of elite wins, have to get artificial hype that wasn't there even when they were active.