Tommy Morrison vs. Joe Louis

Max Baer for starters. I'd say someone like Lou Nova was more dangerous than Morrison.

 

Not even close!

 

Glass, I understood your point the first time.

My point is that the majority of the hypotheticals involve such features, conundrums, what have you, impossible to prove 100%, including respective fighters who have never encountered anyone like one another - if you stop there you’ve got no discussion over numerous threads.

Then within the discussion, among other aspects, it is arguable as to 1)what is good movement 2) who actually displayed said movement from either era. Etc. etc.

The discussion has clearly progressed on ONE side, with multiple cross ref. as to why Louis’ movement would be sufficient and Tommy’s own overrated along with the false generic stamp of “mod. movement” being afforded to all so called mod. fighters.

His statements have been meticulously pulled apart and refuted. His contradictions highlighted and refusal to answer questions also called out time and again. Anyone who has read the related posts should understand that.

HIS methodology in debate and associated expressions aren’t part of the problem, they have always been THE problem. No one is struggling in terms of disproving him, rather, they likely want to him to simply acknowledge and admit when he is wrong - if you cited that as the objective that is truly futile, I would agree.

That you’ll read a post from him, even up to this point repeating the same old, previously debunked, simplistic mantras - well clearly that is not indicative of the well argued against and eroded status of his position. It’s simply him being in denial.

If you want more evidence of my point:

He’s on another thread re Louis. A poster, of course in the first person, asked him a SIMPLE question requiring a definitive answer.

He replied to the effect “You know I don’t do quotes like that”. I mean, seriously. Even if he was mislabelling a question as a “quote”
he is flatly stating he doesn’t do questions - and no one should have to try and guess what he means in the first place.

LOL, perhaps he’s a BOT since he rarely converges with points put to him.

He should be required to pass a CAPTCHA test before posting.

 

Can name 4 more dangerous?

 

Max Bear lost lot and couldn't fight! Lou Nova was a bum of the month type. Baer was dangerous but didn't have the skill if Morrison who wasn't that skilled to begin with. Look at the fights.

 

Baer was much more dangerous than Morrison. He didn't look cute, but he beat good fighters. Morrison's whole accomplishment is beating old Foreman, nothing else.

I'd take majority of Louis title opponents over Morrison. Tommy was nothing special. I'd expect Tommy Farr to outbox him. I'd take Lou Nova to stop him. Buddy Baer would be extremely dangerous fight for Morrison. Pastor would stay away from him all fight long. Maurelio is 50/50 fight at least.

Seriously, you should start focusing on actual accomplishments in the ring instead of off-sport hype. Morrison wasn't good, period.

 

Jesus

 

Yes, Morrison could outmove and beat him.

 

Agree with all of this. The bolded part especially.

I was basically coming to the conclusion he either knows he's full of it or is scared to engage with people who are even remotely capable of picking apart his argument. Hence him keeping everything vague and avoiding simple direct questions.

The moment he starts getting into specifics (what constitutes "advanced movement"?) giving time stamps and details/break downs of what he thinks modern guys are doing right, then people can actually refute some of the things he's saying. Yes, you can't know for sure what would happen in a hypothetical matchup between guys who never met in vastly different eras, but you can know for sure if someone is using poor judgment when analyzing a certain fighter.

 

Though severely short sighted, the Magoo I remember never used the Lord’s name in vain. Blasphemer!

Just the one or the Holy Trinity?

I think the latter, given the fusion of the most optimal styles known to man, beat the devil out of Tommy faster than you can say Michael Bentt.

 

Thanks Glass, agree and you’re also not wrong in what you said in your initial post to me either. There are often no unequivocal right or wrongs in a reasonable and nuanced discussion with due exchange and sensible acceptance of different ideas and perspectives - exactly the discussion we’re having now. Cheers.

 

Morrison had better fundamentals and more raw power in his left hook than Baer. That's about it.

Technique: Morrison (barely)
Left hand: Morrison
Right hand: Baer
Body shots: Baer
Stamina: Baer
Chin: Baer
Footwork: Morrison
Experience: Baer
Hand speed: Morrison
Killer instinct: even

There isn't anything crazy in claiming Baer was more dangerous because Baer was tougher, had better stamina, and carried his power late. Baer had far more experience and had beaten some decent contenders and a wider variety of styles. Baer also didnt get brutally knocked out in his prime twice.

Morrison looks amazing the first few rounds. But then he inevitably fizzles out and either has to land a hail Mary KO, or he himself gets knocked out. You can count with one finger the number of times he actually won a convincing decision over someone who he couldn't simply overpower and didn't gasp for air at the end of it.

 

I would have been more wary of matching him with Baer, Schmeling, Conn, and certainly Walcott when Louis was well past his prime.

Morrison is just a guy with a left hook and not much else.

Louis can probably blow him out quickly, and if he doesn't. then he almost wins by default if it goes to the latter rounds.

A dangerous opponent, but a very manageable one.

 

And what did Bear accomplish? Winning a belt in the 1930's a low point in boxing over Carnera ( so would Morrison ) and losing it to Jimmy Braddock ( Who Morrison would beat )? Bear Lost 13 times! 13.

 

A hell of a lot more than Morrison.