Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[Cojimar 1946]

Young had beaten Lyle and prime Foreman. He was clearly better than the version of Ruddock that Morrison fought who hadn't scored a good win in years and never did anything subsequently.

Moreover the versions of Williams and Thomas that Morrison faced were likely no.better than a number of other guys Norton beat. Henry Clark was probably better than those versions of Thomas and Williams. So was Cobb, even Bobick has an argument

[gilgamesh]

See it how you want to fellas. Try addressing some of my points if you want me to continue this conversation. I'm not gonna keep giving the same answers to the same comments over and over.

[Cojimar 1946]

One huge problem is that Morrison was fighting a much lower level of opposition. There were countless guys in his era who would have taken him out effortlessly had he fought him.

Tyson stops Morrison early
So does Bowe
McCall knocks him out
Plenty of others do as well

Morrisons win loss record is a result of his lower level of opposition relative to Norton

[gilgamesh]

One huge problem is that Morrison was fighting a much lower level of opposition. There were countless guys in his era who would have taken him out effortlessly had he fought him.

Tyson stops Morrison early
So does Bowe
McCall knocks him out
Plenty of others do as well

Morrisons win loss record is a result of his level of opposition

For his first 30 fights Norton fought a bunch of Journeymen or guys with losing records as well, but you guys only see the half of the picture that you want to see. I see the whole picture.

Who you think wins Mythical matchups means jack sh*t as far as rating a guy.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't rate Morrison in his own era at all though.

The wins over Thomas and Williams that you want to make a big deal about don't do anything for me on account of them being totally shot and no longer world class. Ruddock is also highly questionable for me.

Without those we are down to just Foreman and one good win doesn't cut it given the rest of Morrisons career

[gilgamesh]

Fun fact: Jerry Quarry had more losses heading into his fight with Ken Norton than Razor Ruddock has total in his career, but go ahead and tell me some more about how Ruddock was washed up heading into his fight with Morrison while Quarry was apparently fresh as a daisy for Norton.

[Jaywheel]

2x Ali, 2x Frazier, Ellis, Chuvalo and Norton are 7 out of his 9 losses. Lucky for him he never had to face Ruddock's first conqueror, the mighty David Jaco lol .

[gilgamesh]

Another fun fact: Ruddock has 4 wins over Former World Heavyweight Titleholders. Quarry has 1.

And yes you are correct Jaywheel all those losses happened. I am correct also, am I not?

[Controversial]

Fun fact. Morrison never beat anyone in their prime

[gilgamesh]

Yeah George Foreman and Razor Ruddock. What a couple of p*ssies huh? Anybody could've beat em. Pinklon Thomas...no way he could've won his next 12 or so fights after losing to Morrison. I mean that guy was FINISHED!

[Cojimar 1946]

Fun fact: Jerry Quarry had more losses heading into his fight with Ken Norton than Razor Ruddock has total in his career, but go ahead and tell me some more about how Ruddock was washed up heading into his fight with Morrison while Quarry was apparently fresh as a daisy for Norton.

So what? Young and Ali were both prime and coming off good wins. If Jerry Quarry was his best win you might have a point but he's not which is why I see no argument for Morrison here.

This whole argument is among the most ridiculous I have ever come across

[Controversial]

Anybody could've beat em. Pinklon Thomas...no way he could've won his next 12 or so fights after losing to Morrison. I mean that guy was FINISHED!

Are you for real, have you seen who he beat? 5 of them had never won a fight and most of the others lost more fights than they won, he was fighting journeymen and poor ones at that.

[gilgamesh]

I come with facts. You all come with opinions.

Shared opinion: Ken Norton's win over Muhammad Ali is a single better win than any win Morrison has.

I agree with that ^

Shared opinion: George Foreman wasn't in his prime when Tommy Morrison beat him

I agree with that ^

You guys however are of the opinion that Norton's great win undoes all of his failure. I am not.

You guys seem to be of the opinion that beating George Foreman in 1993 doesn't matter. I disagree.

Morrison either won or lost spectacularly. A KO one way or the other was the result in 45 of his 52 bouts.

Ken Norton on the other hand had quite a few lackluster decision wins, and would frequently struggle against most contenders he was matched against.

I acknowledge every fight both men ever had. You guys seem to only want to acknowledge the few that you'd like to.

Nothing I've stated in this thread as far as the achievements of the fighters is anything short of a fact.

[Ambling Alp II]

More interesting facts: the Annual Ring Magazine Rankings:

Ken Norton's Rankings:
1972 #9
1973 #3
1974 #6
1975 #1
1976 #2
1977 #1
1978 #1

Tommy Morrison:
1992 #9
1993 #9
That's it for Morrison. 2 Years in the Top 10 and he barely made it then.

Norton was a top contender in the best era ever for the heavyweight division. top 10 for 7 straight years.

Norton was a much better fighter. Absurd that we have to argue this.

[gilgamesh]

We don't have to argue anything. I don't care who agrees with me or doesn't. I've merely stated my case with facts that you guys can't refute. You sure keep telling me your opinions though.

Wherever they had Norton ranked and when. He still only has 3 quality wins on his record.

[Controversial]

Pointless arguments now. You stand alone and no one is changing their mind so everyone is just regurgitating the same things.

[Cojimar 1946]

Norton has more than 3 quality wins if someone like a faded Ruddock qualifies as a quality win let alone shot versions of Williams and Thomas.

By that logic Bobick has to be a quality win. Same with Clark and others. Maybe even Zanon.

[gilgamesh]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

[Controversial]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

You are clearly on a wind up. Unless you can’t tell the difference between a prime fighter and someone on the slide. You might as well give Jake Paul credit for beating Mike Tyson.

[gilgamesh]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

You are clearly on a wind up. Unless you can’t tell the difference between a prime fighter and someone on the slide. You might as well give Jake Paul credit for beating Mike Tyson.

No man. I've watched Boxing for 25 years and the concept that fighters get older has never dawned on me.

Where would I be without you guys to tell me fighters get older and lose their strength. How could I possibly know that people get weaker as they age?

It is however A FACT that Ruddock didn't lose a fight for over 20 years after losing to Tommy Morrison. And yes I do find facts like that amusing.

You guys act as if a fighter is either in his Prime or he's a Corpse. There's a lot of middle ground between Prime and Shot. A Fighters diminishing skills is often a long, drawn out process. Not something that happens overnight. Something that happens bit by bit. However in Boxing when it all catches up to you, it can seem like it all happened overnight.

[keithmoonhangover]

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

No.

[Controversial]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

You are clearly on a wind up. Unless you can’t tell the difference between a prime fighter and someone on the slide. You might as well give Jake Paul credit for beating Mike Tyson.

No man. I've watched Boxing for 25 years and the concept that fighters get older has never dawned on me.

Where would I be without you guys to tell me fighters get older and lose their strength. How could I possibly know that people get weaker as they age?

It is however A FACT that Ruddock didn't lose a fight for over 20 years after losing to Tommy Morrison. And yes I do find facts like that amusing.

You guys act as if a fighter is either in his Prime or he's a Corpse. There's a lot of middle ground between Prime and Shot. A Fighters diminishing skills is often a long, drawn out process. Not something that happens overnight. Something that happens bit by bit. However in Boxing when it all catches up to you, it can seem like it all happened overnight.

You are the one throwing out ridiculous statements that this fighter was still great because they went on a run of so many wins or were undefeated for so many years when you know full well the reason is they weren’t fighting decent opposition anymore. All to try and justify your claim that Morrison was better than he was. However you want to spin it Williams etc were not the same fighters they were in their primes, that’s why these guys end up losing fights at the end of their careers to guys the would’ve beaten or been far more competitive with..

[Cojimar 1946]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

His competition was abysmal. He never faced anyone in the top 20 following the Ruddock fight. He was also inactive for most of those years.

You can be totally done as a top fighters and still get past guys like that for years.

[giacomino]

After losing to Tommy Morrison the "faded" Razor Ruddock didn't lose another fight for over 20 years.

[gilgamesh]

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

No.

So he won 3 out of 4 against Holmes and Ali and I missed it? He didn't get knocked out by George Foreman?