No, he was not a great fighter. He was America's Brian Nielsen, a resume soft as Charmin, with a smattering of "name" fighters who were all over the hill. He simply could not compete with the division's elite with the exception of a fighter so old and so leaden of foot that Tommy could turn his back and run across the ring. If that was such a masterful strategy, why didn't he try it against Lewis or Mercer? Again, I ask what it is that we were missing in the 90's that is recognized now, thirty years later? Why was he only twice ranked in Ring's Annual Rankings, both times at number 9?
He was a flawed fighter, and the era was pretty stacked with talent as well. He was a little underrated back then too.
Tommy had nothing to be ashamed of as far as his boxing went, a little cranium in the chin. but 48-3-1 with 42 knockouts speaks for itself, he made comeback wins, Carl the truth Williams (its the truth) Joe Hipp. Raor Ruddock, he came back from extreme situations.
I don't think anyone is calling Morrison great. Of course he wasn't. Not even in his wildest dreams. He wasn't elite in his day either. It's clear he couldn't hang with Lewis and Tyson would have eaten him alive. Bowe too. He was a level below the best of his era. But also better than the likes of Alex Garcia, Bert Cooper, Herbie Hide, Frans Botha, Axel Schultz and the likes of faded fighters like Tucker, Williams etc. He's kind of between these categories of fighters. Maybe in that Bruno/McCall/Tua/Ruddock category. In other words, good enough to beat all but the best of that era.
Schultz did a better job on Foreman than Morrison. Botha beat Schultz and got that draw with Briggs. Tucker edged Norris and went the distance with Lewis. I wouldn't put Morrison above above any of them. McCall smoked Lewis . Ruddock decapitated a top 5 Dokes and gave Tyson hell. Bruno was a contender in two eras and won a title. Tua...needs no explanation. These people are not Morrison's company.
Neither Hipp nor Williams were ranked in any to 10 when Tommy beat them, the Ruddock was just a messy brawl, Tommy was in trouble in that one but his power and Ruddock`s lousey defense saved him, he looked awful v Lewis and Bent KO`d him in a round, he really wasn`t tat good at all.
Bruno wasn`t that good al, Lewis was all over the place before Steward hooked up with him and Tyson had faded cause Rooney left his corner, Tyson said he ws bored with boxing by the 90`s and didn`t train that hard for his rematch v Ruddock, he looked listless and they constantly clinching in that drab bout.
Foreman by far. One of only a handful of men (and Briggs wasn't one of them) to beat George. Morrison was a little like Shavers, great punch, couldn't quite stay with the big boys for long.
Neither Schultz nor Botha beat any name opponents their entire career. Neither were bad fighters, but what did either achieve? If nothing else, Morrison won a strap against a capable fighter. Tucker in the 90's wasn't much. He got a gift vs. the much smaller Norris. Lasting the distance with Lewis was a good, though more stubborn than anything, performance. Sure McCall smoked Lewis, but he didn't do much else really. Ruddock was good for a while no doubt, but in fairness to use the win over a faded Dokes as a yardstick in itself says a lot. Gritty performance against Tyson though. But then got annhililated against Lewis in a fight I believe he was favourite to win. Bruno won a strap finally and lost it just as fast. What was his best win? McCall? Tua didn't win a strap. Even if all you do is take Morrison's win over Foreman, it trumps almost anything the above-mentioned fighters did. They either best nobody of note, had one or at most two good wins, and/or won and lost a strap in their first defence. I'd say Morrison belongs right alongside them. And I'm not sure why you bring up the issue of PEDs, since I'd say they were being commonly used. Botha was busted for them, to name but one example.
Schultz gor robbed against Foreman and drew with Akinwande. That is at least Morrison's level. Botha beat Schultz for a recognized belt (Morrison never won a recognized belt) and drew with Briggs. Sure, Botha tested dirty for Schultz, but Morrison was constantly dirty. That is at least Morrison's level. Tucker beat Norris who was top ten, McCall who was better than anyone Morrison beat, and went the distance with Lewis whereas Morrison got destroyed. That is not a level that Morrison was on. Foreman declined to fight Tucker and dropped a belt because he knew that McCall smoked Damiani, Seldon, Akinwande and Lewis, and decisioned Holmes. This is well above Morrison's level. Bruno cuts it somewhat close, but he won a real belt, unlike Morrison, and gave Lewis and Witherspoon tough fights. Ruddock was top three in the division. Tommy wasn't even close. Morrison would've been out in one round against Tyson. You'd have to be smoking crack to think that Morrison's win over Foreman was better than anything these guys did. He won a vacant unrecognized belt by running against a guy in his forties. McCall knocked out Lennox Lewis. Tua stopped a prime Rahman. Schultz beat Formean when Foreman was lineal. Bruno beat McCall for a real belt. Ruddock put a top 5 heavyweight and former champ in orbit.
Perfect summation. I remember the winner of Morrison-Ruddock got Lennox Lewis next and the Mega-Fight with Mike Tyson down the line. Having to beat each other was one thing, facing Lewis and possibly Tyson after was an incredible mountain to climb. It would feel like climbing K2 and Everest back to back.
I remember Ruddock more or less setting the pace and dictating the terms. He just fought a dumb fight after only facing one opponent in 3 years between Lewis and Morrison. And Morrison looked gassed by the 6th.
