Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

To be fair to Morrison, he showed heart whenever he was getting knocked down or beaten up.
He just wasn't good. He could punch but he couldn't take it. He wouldn't have got far at all in Louis's era, when he would be more likely to be matched in some 50/50 fights on the way up, tested in some small club somewhere, instead of hyped into a TV attraction and appearing in movies before he even proved anything.

 

Put Morrison in a time machine and he knocks Louis out, gets rated as the greatest puncher ever and boxing fans start worshipping him.

 

Yet in real life he can't beat Michael Bentt.

Pure fantasy.

 

In real life Louis got knocked out by caveman Schmeling.

 

You're blind if you think Schmeling was a caveman.

 

You haven't boxed in your life if you think he wasn't.

 

Yes, the modus operandi is base level debating style.

Cart before the horse, blindly taking up and arguing for a position/conclusion without actually calculating it beforehand.

Take the boxer you’re arguing for, Morrison, the affirmative.

Allocate him “advanced” movement without actual and due analysis of same which equates to no evidence. He’s a 90s guy, so it simply must be. Cerebral stuff. Nuff said.

Don’t dive too hard into that argument, it’s so shallow you will likely break your neck.

Just keep mindlessly repeating “advanced movement” over and over, a mantra like suggestion you want to imbed while bypassing all critical thinking otherwise.

Check all losses (devastating) on Morrison’s resume. Reject them outright, declare them inadmissible, clearly Morrison was not at his best (that’s the default option when your affirmative fighter loses and loses badly).

Continue to stick with “advanced”movement “theory”, stoically ignoring the several KOs/Stoppages that somehow saw this “advanced” mover caught cold and put OUT.

Wax lyrical about how much bigger Morrison was only to realise he wasn’t. Research is overrated. Get a few factoids wrong, here and there, it doesn’t matter as long as you err on the side of the affirmative.

Finally, extrapolate and project for a career that Tommy NEVER actually had or promised to have in order to fill the gaping holes in his “real” career and the flaws irrefutably upheld in same.

Then take the boxer you’re arguing against, Louis, The Negative. Milk the living **** out of NOT just every loss ( as few as they were) but even include merely understated performances. Point out Joe’s alleged “fatal flaws” , the ones he apparently exercised even in the execution of numerous victories (read argument device as: oxyMORON, due emphasis on the MORON).

Say Joe’s chin is weaker by way of any hint of hurt, stagger or KD but ignore that Joe wasn’t so badly hurt for the most part and certainly not so hurt as to not be able to come back and win emphatically on most occasions (meanwhile Tommy’s brutal KO losses are stoically kept in a cupboard under lock and key).

Keep working it without shame. Either invent or exaggerate all of Joe’s other allegedly “fatal”’flaws that he somehow upheld in a long and outstanding career that was victorious in the main.

Last but not least, Show an UTTER lack of understanding and appreciation of what GOOD movement actually means. This doesn’t include movement for its own sake that STILL sees you get nailed and put OUT.

Rather, it includes movement that is efficient, specifically purposed and ACTUALLY effective (see Joe Louis). Also, most definitely ignore Joe’s other defence measures such as blocking, parrying and sliding head movement that allowed Joe to stay in the KILL ZONE relatively unscathed, exactly where he wanted to be and where he did his greatest work.

Yeah, invoke all of the above discussion strategies and you’ll still have a totally uninformed, unsupported, argument that attempts to allow any measure of superiority for Morrison over Louis.

 

It's cool you need to say all this to feel relevant. But you have missed the point, no one is saying Morrison had a great career, we are saying, at his best, he had the potential to beat Louis at his best.

The fact that Morrison's career, over all, was garbage and a disappointment is well known. Just like it's well known that Louis, while tremendously skilled, fought rubbish competition and regularly hit road-bumps.

But I welcome more of your rants. They're entertaining to say the least.

 

Nice how you are finally able to catch on. I was wondering what would happen whenI confronted you with a double-standard. If I could give you a sticker, I would. You deserve one for this.

So do you understand, now, that these discussions should concern fighters at their best? Have I made that point abundantly clear?

 

This is one of the main arguments against the whole Morrison advanced movement theory. He obviously wasn't all that great at being elusive with 3 brutal stoppage losses. The whole point of good footwork and movement is to avoid taking too much punishment.

It may look nice, but it obviously isn't very effective if you keep getting your ass kicked.

 

Calling Schmeling a caveman tells me all I need to know about you

 

By your reply I know a lot about you.

 

Cool, now we know a lot about each other

 

footwork is not the only thing that matters you simple thinking cause you said moved better which means upper or lower body his movement in either wasnt as good as tom so why did you lie and even if his footwork had been better his upperbody movement wasnt good it was basic like I said

agian doing that winning and losing quote when did you see me talk on who won or lost what does that have to do with a person's movement nothing its 2 separate things

both matches showed joe movement was outdated compared to him or did you ever think you saw joe moving as good as him is that the point your saying how joe won
no cause a person winning doesnt mean that their way of fighting changed cause people can see still

I still want the video you told me of

 

Unless driven by agenda or delusion, a bad result doesn’t necessarily constitute a fighter not at his best or so sufficiently removed from his best to preclude factoring.

A fighter sometimes loses simply because of the greater highlighting of his flaws by the opposition in question.

24 yo Morrison had tune up Bentt hurt early, if he’d gone on with the job, it would’ve been a Morrison victory to uphold. He simply got countered by a right hand and, for all intents and purposes, his night was abruptly over.

So much for his movement based “D” and superior chin against an opponent he was supposed to very easily beat. Very much admissible evidence against him notwithstanding lame attempts to preclude it.

And that loss as compared to a (1)37 yo come backing Joe Louis v Rocky, as if Marciano cancels out Bentt, thus a negotiating tool for the preclusion of both fights? Creative logic to say the least.

It’s simple. Marciano OUT. Bentt stays IN. Too bad for Tommy.