Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Do you think Morrison had better footwork than conn and Walcott, yes or no?

 

When do you think his best was, then? All of one fight against Foreman?

Fighters get judged in part by the fights they had when not at their best, especially when they are still in their physical primes. Why limit the lifestyle excuses to Tommy? Shall we trawl through the lifestyles and excuses of the few ranked opponents Tommy beat in his physical prime to put his wins in that perspective? And then dig up excuses for Spinks, Louis, Walcott, and all the rest of them? Louis had a fair few for Schmeling I, I'm sure.

"Sustain the beating"?

Spinks no. Louis maybe, unless you can show us evidence that 90s PEDs vastly increased heavyweights' resistance to concussions and such.

That said, most posters picking Louis (or Spinks) don't believe that either man would "sustain a beating" comparable to what Mercer did. So the question doesn't move the needle much.

 

I apologize. I have been cruel. I didn't realize all this time I had been talking to a blind kid. If had known I wouldn't have been so hard on you. I should have known. What grown man with functioning eyes would look at Morrison and Holmes and say they fought anything alike!?!?

Mercer was known for slagging off in training and did so ahead of Holmes:

This content is protected

Again, Larry fights NOTHING WHAT SO EVER like Tommy. Morrison was SMASHING Mercer before gassing out, giving Ray the chance to land one of his massive telegraphed bombs. Something a resurgent Holmes never provided the opportunity for. This version of Holmes would've whomped Spinks.

Again, styles make fights and fighters are human beings, not machines, with the capacity to be inconsistent. Not that I hold it against a blind kid for now knowing that.

Again, no one said other wise. We're talking about fighters at their best. Louis was much closer to his best when destroyed by Schmeling and Marciano (Light Heavyweights in Morrison's era) thank coked-out Tommy was one he had those set backs.
Again, show me when Morrison was decked or rattled by a Light Heavyweight. Show me when a fighter as terrible as Baer, Simon, Carnera, Mauriello or Galento fought for the Heavyweight championship in the 90's.

You have soooo much to say, but you still haven't responded to my VERY SIMPLE request.

 

So you admit I never said it, you simply lack simple reading comprehension?

Conn was vastly more skilled than Morrison, Walcott was significantly more skilled defensively than Morrison.

But Morrison fought differently than they did.

That's obvious to anyone who's watched the three men fight. Morrison ran away, basically. That's how it would be seen in the 30's. So, to be fair, even if Louis never landed anything significant on Tommy, he'd probably be awarded the title on grounds. Look at Graham's fate. Dude actually could Box - extraordinarily well. But he was ahead of his time; thus, he "lost" to fighters he'd clearly out-classed. Possibly the greatest fighter to never win a championship. So, I concede, if Tommy plays keep-away, the judges will give Louis the fight without hesitation.

 

And when did I say they fought alike? This is a straw man.

I agree Larry fights nothing like Morrison. That's why Larry easily beat Mercer while Mercer beat the crap out of Morrison.

You're basically making excuses for Morrison's horrifically one sided beat down loss because he gassed out trying to KO an iron chinend opponent. That's entirely Morrison's fault that he didn't pace himself well and a 100% fair and square victory for Mercer.

You're the one typing like a kid when you're 45.

Morrison was consistently getting tagged, hitting the deck, and gassing. That's what people came to expect of him. The foreman performance was the exception, not the norm.

Louis was in his prime at 38 when he lost to Rocky? In his very last fight when he had a 68 fights and had been competing for around 15 years?

Morrison was undefeated and 22 when Mercer destroyed him. Does that not count as Morrison close to his best? Ok how about 1993 when he beat Foreman, the best win of his career when he was 24 and became WBO champ? The devastating loss to Bentt was that same year!

When you say at their best, do you mean cherry picking only the moments where a fighter looks good and ignoring everything else?

Then what in the goddamn **** was the point in you using Morrison of the foreman fight as evidence he could beat Louis if you are now conceding that Morrison would lose a lopsided decision due to running away and not throwing enough?!

This is either a staggering amount of stupidity and a lack of self awareness, or stand up levels of comedy.

 

The difference is Morrison's short-comings were owed to his lifestyle, not his age. Joe was on-fire heading into the Schmelling match. And while I fully admit he was past his best when he met Marciano, he was still good enough to beat the likes of Buddy Baer and Abe Simon. Again, Louis was ONLY 38, and not on the fast track to contracting AIDS.

You brought up Spinks beating Holmes who beat Mercer who beat Morrison. You made the A,B,C argument. Don't be mad at me for pointing it out.

You really think Mercer gets rocked by Conn? Decked by Baer, Schmelling, Galento and Braddock? Have you not seen Mercer-Lewis?

I get it, you are made at me because I have exposed your idol. But why you getting nasty? I am not MAKING you hit the reply button.

 

You're all over the place. You claimed Louis was in his prime against Rocky, now you admit he wasn't. You make every excuse in the world for Morrison but none for Louis. You keep going off topic whenever you have to answer simple questions. The fact you admit Morrison would lose means the debate died. It's like arguing with a 15 year old who only just started watching boxing 6 months ago.

At first it was funny, but now it's obvious you're trolling so I can't even get a good laugh anymore. Like a magician showing you how he did his tricks before doing them. The fact you joined Monday and immediately jumped straight into old vs new HW debates were major red flags and it was pretty obvious after just a few posts. Next time don't reveal your hand.

 

I asked that liar 70s to show me proof of max moving like tom he didnt I asked him mutiple times he wont which I already knew before I asked

he wont show cause he never did which means tom moves better then joe and max and would destroy both just like jersey moved better then both way better

you wont get any vid cause it is none for neither one of them dealing with somebody like tom

 

how about he should stop trolling saying bull like 70s should

 

thats a classic simple way of looking at boxing and so called debunking it by saying footwork is bad when tom and mutiple others had way better upperbody movement

only a person who is stuck into 1 way of thinking only looks at footwork instead of upper to

 

you have respect to talk to that legend crazy person glass I dont never have talked to him never will

I dont think your wrong just wasting time talking to him when everything you said is right and obvious yet he denies it and acts blind

good job at telling the raw truth with video like I always do vid proof is what is needed to prove to us a person from louis era doing good vs modern all we need is video and we will argee it's not hard to find vids on YouTube

 

Bentt doesn't count because Morrison wasn't at his best, but you're going to bring up the Marciano fight LMAO

 

I didn't show you Schmeling moving like Morrsion, I showed you why Schmeling's footwork was better than Morrison's. It's not my problem that you are so dense.

Let me repeat - the same Walcott who lost both fights against Louis?

 

Morrison was crap.

 

Whether he lost or not in the rematch is irrelevant, as one win over Holmes trumps everything Morrison ever did ten times over. And after reading your post, your scoring is absolutely shocking

Holmes was so done that he managed to school the man who put Morrison in a coma years later.

He did not lose to Witherspoon quit reaching.

And what's your point here? That Morrison was better than Holmes?

I take it you missed Morrison's fights with Bentt, Purity, Williams, Hipp, etc

Morrison would loss to multiple fighters Holmes beat, and already got smashed up by one of them.

It was against.... Ross Purity.

So now Morrison gets a free pass coz he was cooked out, but an injured, inactive, disinterested Spinks doesn't get one in his final fight against one of the best heavyweights ever doesn't? Louis doesn't for losing to Marciano?

Ross Purity was a bum. He was a bum in his own era, and would be a bum in any era.

How many people do you think could underestimate Michael Bentt, and still survive the first round?

Purity was a bum, and there isn't a planet in the galaxy where he hit harder than either Baer brother. Will Hinton beat Ross Purity just a year before Morrison failed to. This is a man who was shut out by Michael Grant.

He isn't stopping Godoy, Baer or Simon. His whole career indicates he'd lose every round to the three of them.