HomicideHenry wrote:Again, Williams was older than dirt. Hipp was limited, slow, and clumsy. Ruddock hadn't fought in a few years. One can argue Morrison never really had a win over a 'prime' heavyweight in his career. If that's coming over adversity, when the same criteria is used against Cooney, who lost to two prime fighters in Holmes and Spinks (I left Foreman out cus that wasn't 'prime'), then you have to factor in just how easy it was for Cooney to defeat the not so prime guys he faced versus Morrison's victories over not so prime guys, whom as you all pointed out he fought almost life and limb against. That makes them practically 'even' when it comes to resolve. At least Cooney had wins over Chaplin and Gregg who were still useful and in their prime. Morrison on the other hand, I can't seem to recall as having beaten a guy who wasn't either old, inactive, or had limitations in their skill set.
Thank you for that non-answer.
Ruddock hadn't fought in a little over 16 months, not "a few years."
And the Foreman win is better than any of Cooney's.
HomicideHenry wrote:Again, Williams was older than dirt. Hipp was limited, slow, and clumsy. Ruddock hadn't fought in a few years. One can argue Morrison never really had a win over a 'prime' heavyweight in his career. If that's coming over adversity, when the same criteria is used against Cooney, who lost to two prime fighters in Holmes and Spinks (I left Foreman out cus that wasn't 'prime'), then you have to factor in just how easy it was for Cooney to defeat the not so prime guys he faced versus Morrison's victories over not so prime guys, whom as you all pointed out he fought almost life and limb against. That makes them practically 'even' when it comes to resolve. At least Cooney had wins over Chaplin and Gregg who were still useful and in their prime. Morrison on the other hand, I can't seem to recall as having beaten a guy who wasn't either old, inactive, or had limitations in their skill set.
Thank you for that non-answer.
Ruddock hadn't fought in a little over 16 months, not "a few years."
And the Foreman win is better than any of Cooney's.
Unless you're Mike Delisa and believe Foreman took a dive to Morrison.
HomicideHenry wrote:Again, Williams was older than dirt. Hipp was limited, slow, and clumsy. Ruddock hadn't fought in a few years. One can argue Morrison never really had a win over a 'prime' heavyweight in his career. If that's coming over adversity, when the same criteria is used against Cooney, who lost to two prime fighters in Holmes and Spinks (I left Foreman out cus that wasn't 'prime'), then you have to factor in just how easy it was for Cooney to defeat the not so prime guys he faced versus Morrison's victories over not so prime guys, whom as you all pointed out he fought almost life and limb against. That makes them practically 'even' when it comes to resolve. At least Cooney had wins over Chaplin and Gregg who were still useful and in their prime. Morrison on the other hand, I can't seem to recall as having beaten a guy who wasn't either old, inactive, or had limitations in their skill set.
Thank you for that non-answer.
Ruddock hadn't fought in a little over 16 months, not "a few years."
And the Foreman win is better than any of Cooney's.
Unless you're Mike Delisa and believe Foreman took a dive to Morrison.
I'm not one of these conspiracy theorists, so I have no interest in the "dive" crap.
And no, I'm not Mike Delisa.
Vintage Henry, say something incorrect and blabber on endlessly like you never said it after you get called on it. Cooney getting his ass whipped by Holmes was no different than Morrison getting his ass whipped by Lewis. Tommy just happened to have some wins battling back from adversity where Gerry never did. Yet now the competition he did it against is the big issue. What a fornicating moron.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He got his ass whipped. Same as Lennox Lewis, it's not like he stopped trying. You can't possibly agree that Cooney is the fighter among these two that is more proven when it comes to rallying off the canvas? He's the only one that has ever done it.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He got his ass whipped. Same as Lennox Lewis, it's not like he stopped trying. You can't possibly agree that Cooney is the fighter among these two that is more proven when it comes to rallying off the canvas? He's the only one that has ever done it.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He got his ass whipped. Same as Lennox Lewis, it's not like he stopped trying. You can't possibly agree that Cooney is the fighter among these two that is more proven when it comes to rallying off the canvas? He's the only one that has ever done it.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He got his ass whipped. Same as Lennox Lewis, it's not like he stopped trying. You can't possibly agree that Cooney is the fighter among these two that is more proven when it comes to rallying off the canvas? He's the only one that has ever done it.
Cooney only lost to Hall of Famers.
That has nothing to do with the conversation. Nice job evading the question.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He got his ass whipped. Same as Lennox Lewis, it's not like he stopped trying. You can't possibly agree that Cooney is the fighter among these two that is more proven when it comes to rallying off the canvas? He's the only one that has ever done it.
Cooney only lost to Hall of Famers.
That has nothing to do with the conversation. Nice job evading the question.
bollox wrote:"Speed" was the first thing to come to mind here also. Morrison by KO mid rounds, unless Cooney lands the left hook
I would disagree Morrison has any significant speed advantage. Cooney had quick hands, especially with the hook, and any minor speed advantage Tommy has is negated by Gerry's height and reach advantage.
Morrison was probably more durable but that doesn't matter much here as both had crap chins. I think Morrison would get tagged hard first and because of that would most often lose, although I can see a Morrison-Ruddock ie Tommy lands the fight-ending hook while hurt outcome too, but forced to pick I say Cooney by early KO.
bollox wrote:"Speed" was the first thing to come to mind here also. Morrison by KO mid rounds, unless Cooney lands the left hook
I would disagree Morrison has any significant speed advantage. Cooney had quick hands, especially with the hook, and any minor speed advantage Tommy has is negated by Gerry's height and reach advantage.
Morrison was probably more durable but that doesn't matter much here as both had crap chins. I think Morrison would get tagged hard first and because of that would most often lose, although I can see a Morrison-Ruddock ie Tommy lands the fight-ending hook while hurt outcome too, but forced to pick I say Cooney by early KO.
It's certainly a fight where either guy could be extinguished early on. There is nothing logical about demanding Cooney is the guy who is more likely to get off of the canvas and battle his way to a win. Every time Gerry was dropped, he was stopped.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It's certainly a fight where either guy could be extinguished early on. There is nothing logical about demanding Cooney is the guy who is more likely to get off of the canvas and battle his way to a win. Every time Gerry was dropped, he was stopped.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Morrison by KO 7 or 8 out of 10 times. They could both bang, Tommy was more technical, a lot faster and he had more heart.
having gone back n forth just a little on this one, i make Morrison's speed the most important factor, too, especially as they're likely to be throwing left hooks at each other near-simultaneously
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Morrison by KO 7 or 8 out of 10 times. They could both bang, Tommy was more technical, a lot faster and he had more heart.
having gone back n forth just a little on this one, i make Morrison's speed the most important factor, too, especially as they're likely to be throwing left hooks at each other near-simultaneously
The biggest thing for me is that if Cooney gets hurt the fight is over, not a definite if it happens to Morrison.
