Saying that morrison was better overall and did hit harder and picking him to win is not stupid at all. Your comment yes.. It was pure trash
Both fighters as we know were flawed, especially in the durability department. However I just think Morrison is the more solid fighter all round. Obviously it could go either way, but I think Morrison is the better fighter and catches Hide at some point and sparks him. When? All i'm prepared to guess is some time between 1 and 12!
No doubt in my mind that Hide would spark him early. Bentt had no problem doing it. Hell, Williams almost turned the trick. Hide was only decisively beaten in his prime by Bowe and Vitali, with Bowe later admitting that Hide was the hardest puncher he ever faced. Stylistically, Hide comes out throwing leather, and is not the stiff, formulaic way that Morrison approached the early rounds. It took less to get Morrison driving down ***** Street and that is exactly the direction he would be headed in the early going.
This is why boxing is so different from most other sports, everybody will have different opinions on who beats who and how, who was the better fighter whose style would be bad for certain types of fighters. It does not matter one iota if Morrison hit harder than Hide in "your" opinion, i believe Hide would have beaten him, he would have been too slick and the duke when cracked on his jaw flush would have gone, herbie hide was very very quick for a heavyweight and could also box, and if Hide boxed him it doesnt matter how hard Tommy hits because if he cant land clean he gets out boxed, but personally i believe Hide stops his ass.
Hide had the better jab and movement, and probably faster also, they probably had the same power, I'd say Hide KO 4, not a fight that would go the distance anyway