Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

they forget boxing kept moving after he retired which means being the best ever is outdated and been outdated for a long time

 

caveman is right compared to 70s-90s unless you see him moving like frazier ali razor bowe and mutiple others which he didnt so yea caveman

 

Truth is, Morrison wasn't beating many fighters better than Bentt.
Bentt was nothing as a professional but he was still a prime fighter and well-known as a top U.S. amateur.
Morrison's entire win column is mostly guys well under the standard of Bentt, a couple of tougher journeyman types, and a few name has-beens, badly past their bests. George Foreman is BY FAR Morrison's best win, and it was a 'hit and run' 'pitty pat' performance against a slow old man.

 

Too bad Joe Louis wouldn't even be a good sparring partner today.

 

well he would be good to practice moves on

 

Sounds like Morrison in his own era basically

It's funny because in Morrison's era we had guys from earlier eras like Foreman and Holmes enjoying success.

 

Morrison would have been a good sparring partner but he would charge too much so no, he wouldn't be fit as a sparring partner.

Louis was just too damn primitive to be a sparring partner.

Foreman enjoyed success when Holy used him as a heavybag. Foreman also lost to Morrison, faced Schulz after bribery, lost and got saved via robbery.

 

Too bad that sentiment/delusion remains in the realm of speculation least likely WHILE Bentt’s victory over Morrison forever remains in the real world of: TOMMY got pulverised by a second rater in less than 1 round.

 

Fact is Louis got demolished by primitive Schmeling.

 

The fact he was able to beat Moorer and become lineal champion doesn't reflect well on the era. Holmes schooling Mercer and nearly beating McCall also doesn't look good if you are trying to make the case for fighters from earlier eras being too primitive to compete.

Is Schulz had gotten the decision against Foreman and became champion that also would not reflect well on the era as a whole.

 

The age difference between Louis and Morrison is equivalent to that between Ali, Foreman, Holmes and guys fighting at heavyweight today. Do they stand no chance against 2010s journeyman heavyweights?

Because the basic argument being put forward seems to be that fighters from earlier eras can no longer compete after a certain period due to progression of the sport

 

Moorer got the belt because Holyfield, who already beat Foreman, was having major health troubles right in the match.
Foreman was carefully matched and he ducked any credible challenger. Moorer was a good pick for him because he wasn't the most durable. Nonetheless, Foreman had his head boxed off for most of the fight. Moorer not listening to his corner doesn't really show Foreman's skill.

Nearly beat, but didn't beat McCall. Mercer could give a good fight but he was the inconsistent type. TBF Holmes went life and death with Witherspoon so does that mean he was ****?

It would be egg on the WBA's face since they messed up rankings for the sake of money.

 

What moves Mr Money?

You offer ridiculous conclusions without workings (Pssst….because you don’t have any “workings”). Your method in debate is low tech and primitive and, tbh, never was in date. Keep it real, that’s the deal.

 

I guess if we're using their logic of evolution and non stop progression of the sport, Dillian Whyte and Luis Ortiz should be able to beat Tyson and Holyfield.

 

Fact is Schmeling wasn’t primitive and Joe wasn’t demolished - Tommy WAS - 1:33, a jug of water takes longer to boil - and Tommy never exacted his revenge - and certainly wouldn’t have done it in the fashion Louis did. Morrison - an absolute ATG on paper and in deluded extrapolations - never in real life.

Again, too bad for your boy Tommy. The facts just keep giving.