Micheal Spinks Vs Tommy Morrison

The problem with truly assessing Tommy Morrison, is the same as Gerry C., American Caucasian heavyweights became a very rare breed of fighter within 20 years after world war 2.
As such a rare breed many promoters and managers were terrified of losing their golden egg before it hatched. So they coddled their blue chip asset until it was time to cash out. Both guys feasted on over the hill former name heavies.
This leads to great speculation on them. Were they good? With great potential? Or were they waiting to be exposed?
Unfortunately this business model has taken grip with fighters of all color today as most just pad undefeated records while "trying" not to lose to get their big payday against the champ.
While I liked Morrison's style, there is no denying Morrison was an exciting fighter and he had very good offensive skills I think he would fall short against many prime top 5 contenders.
On the other hand i believe prime Gerry C. Had the size and ability to have beaten many of the alphabet guys of the 80's had he been developed and given the chance.

 

He wasn't a top contender.
The highest he was rated was for those few months between beating Foreman and getting KO'd in 1 round by Bentt, when perhaps he sneaked in to the top 5.
Most of his prime he was barely in the top 10, if that.

 

If that's the case, then Foreman was by then sh!t, and Morrison ran all night. It's no big deal.
He cannot win like that against Spinks.

It's true.

 

He was a top contender and also WBO world champion.

Stop copying Seamus and come up with your own material.

Spinks will get hit by Morrison. His skills aren't enough to tangle with Morrison who is just too big , fast and powerful.

 

If seamus stated the same as me then perhaps it's because we're both just stating facts.

WBO heavyweight title was the joke of boxing at the time.

Morrison wasn't a serious contender.
Mercer finished him in 5 rounds. Bentt finished him in 1 round. Lewis finished him in 5 rounds.

He struggled badly to beat a washed-up Carl Williams, who was made to measure for a left-hooker and not even known as a puncher, he was knocked down twice. He struggled badly against Joe Hipp. He was beaten by Ross Purrity and got a gift "draw".

Every name he beat was old and unranked, except Foreman who was just old but still ranked. He ran away and nicked the decision against Foreman, but then Axel Schulz should have got a win against Foreman too. No one calls Schulz a "top contender of a great era".
Morrison beat a bunch of shot fighters and tomato cans.
He couldn't take a punch. He wasn't very good.

 

Williams was bombed out.
Ruddock was bombed out.
So was Hipp by a Morrison who had two broken hands.

And these guys were all big HWs.

What LHW ever beat Morrison?

He was stunned by a useless Kooney in rounds one and two.

His style and stance left him wide open to body shots. The old Holmes almost stopped him with body shots and he hit nowhere near as hard or as fast as Tommy.

Spinks duked it out with everybody- and he got hit. He stood with ya in the pocket and traded. He was better at that than everybody at LHW - but that does not mean he can be successful against big powerful natural HWs.

Morrison was too physically imposing. He's smother Spinks and unleash savage body and uppercut attacks into him.

Spinks isn't weathering that storm like Mercer did. It just ain't happening.

As i said already , if Spinks had even the smallest ,minute moments of success against Tyson you could say something , but he didn't.

Spinks would fare a lot better against HWs who boxed , opposed to guys who would bull rush like Tommy would.

 

The fact that you are boosting the versions of Williams and Ruddock and Hipp that Morrison squeaked by only strengthens my argument.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.