Holmes (Holyfield Fight) vs PRIME Morrison

Well, I always said Holmes avoided the best fighters of his era and never rematched a tough fight. Fighters like Pinklon Thomas, Gerrie Coetzee, Greg Page, Mike Dokes, John Tate, Weaver rematch, Witherspoon -Williams rematches were never given.

Holmes gave up a title not to fight Greg Page. It was the era of alphabet titles and Champions hid behind the titles. As far as left hook fighters Jerry Cooney was strictly a left hook fighter and a very good one (he had basically no right hand) - Holmes was dropped by the Right hand by Kevin Issac in his 7th pro fight. We know if a Shavers right hand dropped him hard and Renaldo Snipes as well and 19-8 record Mike Weaver rocked him with a right hand. The fighters he avoided were all decent right-hand punchers.

The funny thing was that Michael Spinks (who was the least dangerous) was light heavyweight champ and never fought as a heavyweight and he was thought to be an easy pick beat Holmes with right hands in their first fight (In Spinks 1st fight as a Heavyweight). Then Mike Tyson would could hit with both hands destroyed Holmes and it was the right hand that started that avalanche.

I think it's pretty obvious that the right hand was the Holmes kryptonite.

 

I'd say that Holmes' weakness here is that he's an old gent ...

 

And i'd say Morrison's weaknesses are he never stopped a top 10 rated Heavyweight nor does he have the skills or savvy to beat Holmes.

I mean this "old gent" did school a fighter in Mercer who made a highlight reel KO out of Morrison.

 

Are we doing triangle theory now? Holmes wouldn't survive a quarter of what Mercer survived before Tommy blew his wad. Mercer got lit up like a bonfire; Holmes has a good chin but nowhere near Mercer's. Holmes doesn't have a very heavy punch, unlike Mercer, with which to dent Morrison coming forward.

Let's recall:

This content is protected

Old Holmes would have lasted about as long as he did with Tyson.

 

You're saying I'm using a triangle theory and then you're using a ridiculous triangle theory suggesting Morrison would do what Tyson did.

When a prime Tyson is on different stratosphere to Morrison and has a game changing KO right hand where as Morrison doesn't.

As for Mercer he's a punchbag Holmes landed 70 percent of his punches on Mercer landing over 300 punches.

Holmes wouldn't need to take what Mercer did ? Because he's simply a better fighter and more skillful than Mercer ? even at age 42 as he actually showed in their fight ?

You didn't really need a big punch to trouble Morrison ?

A past it Carl Williams who's not noted as a big hitter had Morrison on the floor twice.

Was Michael Bentt a noted puncher ? He dismantled Morrison in 60 seconds.

 

Mercer has always been limited and has always been susceptible to a good boxer. He won on his chin and power, two things that Holmes does not have. Tyson beat the paste out of him because Tyson did not dick around trying to box Holmes which is a fool's errand. Morrison had the same idea as Tyson and would likely have achieved the same result.

 

It took Morrison 8 rounds to get rid of a past Carl Williams an outboxer with a suspect chin who also had Morrison on the floor 2 times.

Williams has comparisons to Holmes an outboxer with a good jab and a decent right hand but his durability and defence is nowhere near as good as Holmes.

If Morrison didn't rid of Williams early he certainly isn't getting rid of Holmes early.

And again the comparison to Tyson is silly Morrison is not even close to a prime Tyson's level. And as I said Morrison doesn't have a game changing KO right hand which you keep overlooking.

Holmes didn't have issues with left hooks it was right hand counters over his jab that caught him out as it did vs Tyson.

 

Speculation. Williams took Holmes the distance but couldn't go past 8 with Tommy. It wasn't that long before he fought TM that Williams took Witherspoon to the brink. Not prime, certainly, but he wasn't shot either.

Holmes was slower and less effective than he had been in his prime. That is what you should be looking at, not right hands or left hands.

 

Holmes fought Williams in 1985, Morrison fought Williams in 1993.

A past it Holmes fought a prime Williams.

A prime Morrison fought a past it Williams.

Williams is suspect to left hooks which is Morrison's best punch.

Holmes wasn't suspect to left hooks.

Pretty much all of your argument is speculation ?

Morrison never stopped a single top 10 Heavyweight yet you're saying he stops one of the most durable Heavyweights of all time is huge speculation.

 

Holmes was not even top 10 when he fought Holyfield. He was long past it.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1992

 

That's the end of the year rankings though in which Holmes had already lost to Holyfield.

I'm pretty sure Holmes was ranked in the top 10 after his win over Mercer and before his loss to Holyfield.

I know @MaccaveliMacc has a list of the rankings he's well clued up on where opponents were ranked at specific times.

Maybe he could confirm it.

 

Oh, is that how it works? X beats Y, Y beats Z so X beats Z. Thanks my man, I'll surely clean up with my boxing bets now I know it's that simple.

Peace and love man, Px

 

That's kind of my argument too. Mercer was never a great boxer and could be picked apart. That is not how Morrison chose to fight him. TM played into Mercer's strengths and paid for it. Strengths that Holmes did not have. The two fights don't have that much in common as a basis for comparing Morrison to Holmes.

 

Is this an attempt at sarcasm towards me ?

Me and @BCS8 were kind of half trolling in some of our recent responses.

Me and him have gone back and forth numerous times over the years.

We both don't like to give up on certain points we make and sometimes we have moments like this where we are kind of sarcastic towards each other.

But i've learnt not to take it too seriously and I'm sure he feels the sameway.

But no I don't truly believe that the Mercer fight means that Holmes would win 100 percent.

But I do believe that with Morrison not having a game changing KO right hand. And not being skillful or savvy enough that'd I'd make Holmes the favourite.

 

I think Dynamicpuncher feels I am underrating Old Holmes.

I feel Old Holmes could do well against certain fighters because he still had his skills, but the sort of fighter Morrison was (young, fast, aggressive) would overwhelm him.

There's no real way to prove it one way or the other.