That is because Tommy Morrison was in a forgetful Rocky movie playing Tommy Gunn. Joe Louis was a great fighter, an autobiography movie was made of his life in 1953, Joe outlived Tommy. My pick is the great Joe Louis, he fought big men such as Buddy Baer and won. Joe by TKO 9.
How do you know that? Are you referring to specific fights where it didn't work against fast or fluid opposition?
Conn fought a more mobile fight than Morrison, though, and we are agreed that Morrison will be coming at Louis like a freight train. Nor is Walcott an example. He's a mobile sort-of-but-maybe(?)-not-quite counterpuncher. He didn't attack like you're expecting Morrison to do, either.
Are you trying to sell the idea that Morrison is comparable to Conn in terms of style? Start watching different sport then...
He was a hype job in his own era, and his only good win is literally running away from a fat old man. He lost to the two prime fighters of substance who he fought and avoided the majority of the heavyweight division. He'd be nothing more than contender in any era. He'd pick up tens of losses in Louis' shoes.
The pattern of this thread has settled in. The arguments in favour of Louis are extensive, on point, fact based and well reasoned. The arguments in counter and in favour of Tommy are thin and more or less on repeat: he’s bigger, punches harder and therefore smashes Joe and his opposition. The BS Asymmetry Principle is a beautiful thing. It correctly dictates that it is far easier and less time consuming to invent BS than it is to properly and comprehensively refute it.
Hard to gage Morrison era Bentt’s “non prehistoric” skills over a mere 1 min 33 seconds. Tommy didn’t even hang on the line long enough to allow for an adequate trace. Louis only went down after 35 mins 29 seconds of fighting against a very respectably skilled Schmeling. But then Joe also saw Max off in just 2 mins 4 seconds in their rematch. The “principle” has been upheld yet again.