Underrated fighters.

Maybe, maybe not. He looked like a big fellow to me, huge hands, big neck, wrists etc. Thing that don't really get bigger with roids. Wlad was barely over 200lbs when he started boxing and now walks around as 240lbs statue of muscle. :conf

 

This is a ****ing good post.

 

Tommy Morrison was a pretty good heavyweight who deserved to float in and out of the lower half of the top 10 for three or four years.
He had a few decent wins over has-beens, his biggest win by far being a 12-round decision against a 44-year-old George Foreman.
He packed a genuine top-level knock-out punch.

He was nothing more, nothing less.

 

Agreed, I have a few fights of his and he was clearly very good.

As always, terrific post.

 

Yes they do. Abnormally so.

 

Watch Ruddock in the Morrison fight and then Baer even at his best in the Schmeling fight and tell me who looks more skilled. Things like proper not looping punches, punching with correct technique, utilising the jab, defence, countering, timing, closing distance effectivley etc. were completely foreign concepts to Baer.

BTW, I think I'm comparing Baer and Ruddock because Unforgiven said that Schmeling would beat Ruddock...I think...I'm responding to like 4 different people here.

 

I've seen dozens of bodybuilders with enourmous bodies but with tiny necks. HGH is what gets the hands growing. Semantics but Morrison said steroids.

 

cruiserweights are pretty big fellows too.

The point is, a 220 or 225 pound Morrison is not going to dwarf a Schmeling or a Sharkey like Klitschko would, and he's an inferior boxer to them all.

 

Bodybuilders with 'tiny necks 'are simply neglecting to train their neck.
The neck is muscle. Heavyweight boxers train their necks. Steroids will help the neck grow massive.

 

Ruddock is very unlikely to beat Schmeling, imo.
And you're talking about the 1995 Ruddock, which really hurts your arguments.

Max Baer of 1933 was better than Ruddock of 1995.

 

Again, this is not my point.

What I'm saying is, when Morrison fought Ruddock he wasn't as good as he was previously.

Regardless of technical nous, Baer, at his best, was more comfortable and skilled in his style than Ruddock was then. He was more durable also.

If what you were saying actually applied, in an almost mathematical sense, then Sung-Kil Moon would never have won a fight, let alone beaten far more technical operators than himself. Mayorga would never have beaten Forrest.

There is no right or wrong way to win. Otherwise Baer would not have bludgeoned as many people as he did. He knew what he was doing, even if it wasn't aesthetically pleasing at all.

Baer would annihilate Morrison, of that I have no doubt. Unless he shows up clowning and it's the Morrison that fought George. Even then, Baer was quicker of foot than Old George, and not in his 40s. He'd smash Morrisons face in.

 

Yes, it's semantics and you know full well what I meant, he was likely on all sorts.

Considering the case you've made for him, I'd say it's more likely that Morrison, who I really like by the way, is one of the most overrated fighters on the board. Shannon Briggs is more underrated IMO, even if Morrison beat Foreman in a more convincing manner.

 

Can't be arsed posting pics through photobucket and I got Uni **** I gotta do so I'll keep this short.

Like I said before Baer was probably the naturally bigger man but Ruddock was nonetheless bigger. He looked like this:
http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/b/bf/Ruddock.Razor.jpg

Baer like this
http://www.poorwilliam.net/pix/baer-max-sr.jpg

Ruddock being more heavily muscled means he probably had not as much stamina but he still went 12 rounds alright. **** he went 12 with Tyson would Baer last as long with his 'Defence' probably not. Also it's less taxing on one's gas tank to fight people smaller which Baer did 90% of his career. Coupled with Baer's 'workrate'.

Also yes you will find Baer was under 200 lbs for the first few years of his career.

Tyson's comment was in regards to you saying Baer hit harder. Completely unfounded and can't be based on anything realistically. Tyson has fought guys like Bonecrusher Smith, Lewis, Bruno, Tucker, Douglas and said Ruddock hit the hardest. It is relevant when a man who fought legitimate heavyweights and super heavies who could bang said that Ruddock hit him the hardest when Cruisers like Schmeling and Farr said other people hit them harder than Baer.

Carnera was not a puncher and he was chinny, IIRC Loughran had him all over the place. That fight also exposed Baer's crudeness he had him badly hurt in the first minute and couldn't put him away for what another 12 rounds?

Never said Ruddock was this amazing fighter nor Morrison, I just believe Morrison is better than given credit for and Ruddock could beat Schmeling. El fin.

 

That's the first minute of the footage but not the first minute of the fight IIRC. Carnera had a broken ankle or summat, which shows poor chin or not, he had balls.

I don't remember Loughran having Carnera all over the place either.

Either way, not sure whether that's as bad as getting starched in a gun fight with Michael Benntt, top amateur or not.

 

Carnera was a ballsy no doubt but that fight like the Bentt fight would've been stopped in the first round if it was today.

Someone who was much smaller and not even a puncher had Carnera in trouble. I think Loughran I dunno. Also it was Loughran and Schmeling who said someone else hit them hardest not Farr. He, Braddock and Carnera said Louis.

Bentt waz de gri8tst feyetr nxt 2 d Morrison mayne. Trust.