Tommy Morrison a champion?

I dont like comparing guys ,especially heavyweights, too far back in era's as the size difference is just plain silly.
But Tommy sure could've taken a version in the alphabet years of the early to mid eighties.
He could have beaten a Tate/ Tubbs/Page/Witherspoon/ Smith , type on a given night.
He actually fought in a really good era, Lewis , Holyfield ,Bowe etc...Tyson was out of the picture ( jail) in Tommy's prime years if i remember correctly.
I remember his fights v Lennox , Foreman, Truth Williams. He was at his peak after the Williams and Foreman wins, but then lost to Michael Bentt in round 1 in a total shock result. He rebuilt with a few wins including a win in a tough fight with Ruddock.
That led to the Lennox fight where he was outgunned ( a fight that showed what a great fighter Lennox was) not many fighters could out blast Morrison. After that came the HIV news. Years later it was said he never had aids and that he was making a comeback.
Im none too sure about how that was resolved. Even when he died there were contradictory reports as to whether HIV played a part ?
If i remember he got a jail sentance for firearms and drugs possesion ?
He certainly lived in the fast lane.
In the true sense of the word he was a fighter, a damn good one at his peak.

 

I don't think Tommy Morrison's WBO title is LESS legitimate than, say, the WBA belt in the 1980s.

Morrison won his WBO against George Foreman, who had been a lineal heavyweight champion previously and would be AGAIN the year following his loss to Morrison.

No WBA champs in the 1980s ever beat a former, reigning or future Lineal champ for their titles. The only one who even scored a win over a lineal champ was Gerrie Coetzee, but when he stopped Spinks it wasn't for any title.

Tate. Weaver. Dokes. Page. Tubbs. Spoon. Bonecrusher ... none of them beat a lineal champ for a belt or as a pro.

I don't consider them "more legitimate" champs than Morrison.

 

The status of the World boxing organization ( WBO ) has changed over the past 20 years. It wasn't respected as a credible organization in 1993. So with that said, my answer would have to be no. He wasn't a true world champion.

 

Who considered any of the WBA heavyweight champions of the 1980s the actual heavyweight champion, though? None of them were considered the legit champ. Holmes was. By EVERYONE but the WBA.

There's no difference, really.

Nobody was saying, "That Michael Dokes. He's the real champ." Or "Who can possibly beat the heavyweight champ Bonecrusher Smith?"

 

What you say is true. But in the early days of its induction the WBO was considered even less prestigious than those belts were. It was seen as being more on the level of like the NABF, USBA or EBU type titles. At least the IBF, WBA and WBC had been around a while, were recognized as world governing bodies and had been held by legitimate world lineal champions either at heavy or in other weight classes even if not all their champions were considered the best in their divisions.

 

On any given night you might be right. But at their best, I completely disagree. Every single one of the above mentioned either had enough skill to outbox Tommy or the power to knock him out with a single shot.

To answer the OP, it's a definite "NO".

 

Hi Sangria, i dont mind you disagreeing, its a discussion after all.
I just think that there are guys who held a belt that Tommy could've beaten ?
Maybe i need to try harder with some examples.
I will keep to the modern era.
How about Leon Spinks/ Trevor Berbick/ Frank Bruno ?

 

Tommy would beat Joshua and Fury no problem, so he would have easy been heavy weight champ today

 

Can see him defeating ruiz, valuev, Rjj, a older holy field at the start of his last title reign, maybe rahman and David haye. Trouble with Tommy is that unpredictable chin but great left and showed heart

 

Not when they were title-holders he couldn't.
Oh, maybe he could have beaten Witherspoon the night Witherspoon lost to Smith, but only because it seemed like Tim didn't really want to fight that night.

 

Morrison might beat Bruce Seldon, David Haye, maybe Deontay Wilder. I guess he was on that level.
But, of course, Wilder still has time to prove himself better than he has thus far.

 

Other than Witherspoon, those guys were all just titleholders for a couple months. Other than Witherspoon, NONE of them successfully defended their titles. They all (including Spoon) suffered shocking knockout losses to guys people didn't expect them to lose to.

None of them beat better fighters (like Foreman, Ruddock) than Morrison did. None of them were considered the real world champion at the time they held their belt.

None of them were better than him.

He could've beaten all of them. He could've lost to all of them. They're all in the same category.