gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 01:35
It doesn't put emphasis on old age defeats any more than it does young age defeats.
A loss is a loss.
Fighters always have excuses when they lose. Age is just another one. Some Fighters can continue to get big wins even long past their glory days. Some can't. It's things like that that separate good from great and great from Legendary.
By that logic Holyfield would have to rate below Morrison due to all his old age defeats.
Both Witherspoon and Holyfield were levels above in their primes. I don't see any argument for Morrison above either that doesn't focus on their old age defeats
You do realize that Holyfield has 10 losses to Morrisons 3 which is more than 3x more
gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 01:35
It doesn't put emphasis on old age defeats any more than it does young age defeats.
A loss is a loss.
Fighters always have excuses when they lose. Age is just another one. Some Fighters can continue to get big wins even long past their glory days. Some can't. It's things like that that separate good from great and great from Legendary.
By that logic Holyfield would have to rate below Morrison due to all his old age defeats.
Both Witherspoon and Holyfield were levels above in their primes. I don't see any argument for Morrison above either that doesn't focus on their old age defeats
You do realize that Holyfield has 10 losses to Morrisons 3 which is more than 3x more
I repeat. There are SEVERAL FACTORS when putting together someone's all time rating. Wins and Losses is one of them yes. It's not the only f*cking thing though. Holyfield rates well above Morrison due to his consistently stellar level of competition, and relatively high success rate against them. To top it off he was rarely ever stopped, and many of his losses were of a close or controversial nature so as not to be even be seen as legitimate losses.
I have all the criteria for how I rate people listed on Page 1 of my rankings system. I don't have to keep explaining it to you guys if you're just not gonna get. I get it. That's good enough.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Apr 2026, 19:11
The fact that you guys still think I can't grasp the concept of Prime is cute. Like you all think you're teaching me something about Boxing.
It's like an Elementary school teacher trying to explain Math to Einstein, and acting like he's not getting it.
You guys fixate on 1 element. I take in everything.
Einstein would know Ruddock wasn't in his prime against Morrison.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Apr 2026, 19:11
The fact that you guys still think I can't grasp the concept of Prime is cute. Like you all think you're teaching me something about Boxing.
It's like an Elementary school teacher trying to explain Math to Einstein, and acting like he's not getting it.
You guys fixate on 1 element. I take in everything.
Einstein would know Ruddock wasn't in his prime against Morrison.
He may not have been in his prime, but he wasn't f*cking shot either goddammit. That's all I'm saying. He put up a good fight in that fight. He wasn't a helpless lamb being lead to slaughter.
Ring Magazine once put Gerry Cooney's victory over Ken Norton as a "Past his best, but still credible Ken Norton"
That's what Ruddock would've been in the Morrison fight. Past his best, but still credible. Happens to a lot of fighters. It's a faze in your career on the way to being Completely past it or Shot. Ruddock wasn't there yet.
Like I say there's a lot of Gray area in a Fighters career. Hell some fighters even have a few bad years, and then bounce back so there's all kinds of ways a career can flow. Tim Witherspoon for instance lost to Everett "Bigfoot" Martin in 1992, and probably would've been deemed shot by a lot of people then, but he wasn't because he still had another resurgence and a handful of high level performances still to come.
Your absolute prime is probably only 3 to 5 years if you're lucky, but anything within the initial 10 to 15 years of most fighters careers is still them operating at a high level. Once you get past 15 years of fighting, it's getting tough, but a handful have managed it. Very few though have winning careers that extend past 20 years.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 17:01
He may not have been in his prime,
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ruddock went on a 12-0 run after losing to Morrison 11 of those fights being against guys with winning records. 2 of them coming 20 years after his fight with Morrison. 9 of them coming 4 years after his fight with Morrison.
But I'm supposed to believe he was a hopelessly washed up bum in 1995 because he couldn't beat Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis?
Yes I know Ruddock eventually lost in his ill conceived comeback bid in 2015, and guess what? That loss counts too buddy
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 17:57
Witherspoon was unquestionably a much better fighter in his prime than Morrison by any criteria though.
Deeper resume, better opponents beaten, less embarrassing losses
Morrison doesn't have much going for him in any prime for prime debate
He knocked out Carl Williams while Tim barely scraped out a Split Decision. He knocked out Pinklon Thomas while Tim lost to him. He lost to Ray Mercer and Tim did too though admittedly he did better.
How doesn't he have a debate? His results are right there with him or better against comparable opponents.
They also both knocked out Quick Tillis and Jesse Shelby in less than 2 rounds. They do about the same against the same level of fighters except that Morrison went 4-1 in these fights while Spoon went 3-2.
I don't think I've missed any other opponents they both faced.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 17:57
Witherspoon was unquestionably a much better fighter in his prime than Morrison by any criteria though.
Deeper resume, better opponents beaten, less embarrassing losses
Morrison doesn't have much going for him in any prime for prime debate
He knocked out Carl Williams while Tim barely scraped out a Split Decision. He knocked out Pinklon Thomas while Tim lost to him. He lost to Ray Mercer and Tim did too though admittedly he did better.
How doesn't he have a debate? His results are right there with him or better against comparable opponents.
They also both knocked out Quick Tillis and Jesse Shelby in less than 2 rounds. They do about the same against the same level of fighters except that Morrison went 4-1 in these fights while Spoon went 3-2.
I don't think I've missed any other opponents they both faced.
Thomas was totally shot against Morrison so that doesn't help his case at all. A prime Thomas easily beats Morrison.
The Mercer loss is also widely considered a robbery
There is also the problem that Witherspoon beat 5 guys ranked in the top 10 while Morrison beat 1
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 17:57
Witherspoon was unquestionably a much better fighter in his prime than Morrison by any criteria though.
Deeper resume, better opponents beaten, less embarrassing losses
Morrison doesn't have much going for him in any prime for prime debate
He knocked out Carl Williams while Tim barely scraped out a Split Decision. He knocked out Pinklon Thomas while Tim lost to him. He lost to Ray Mercer and Tim did too though admittedly he did better.
How doesn't he have a debate? His results are right there with him or better against comparable opponents.
They also both knocked out Quick Tillis and Jesse Shelby in less than 2 rounds. They do about the same against the same level of fighters except that Morrison went 4-1 in these fights while Spoon went 3-2.
I don't think I've missed any other opponents they both faced.
Thomas was totally shot against Morrison so that doesn't help his case at all. A prime Thomas easily beats Morrison.
The Mercer loss is also widely considered a robbery
There is also the problem that Witherspoon beat 5 guys ranked in the top 10 while Morrison beat 1
See there you go ranking people off of mythical wins again Prime Thomas COULD'VE beat Morrison so Morrison's ACTUAL win over him doesn't even count.
To me the thing that really happened in the really real world is what counts.
I thought Mercer beat Witherspoon myself, but it was a very close fight and Spoon definitely hammers the sh*t out of his body in that fight. It was a great matchup and Spoon definitely gives as good as he gets in there no doubt.
Morrisons win doesn't count because Thomas was unranked at the time he fought Morrison and had been for years. It was a win over a fighter who at that point had fallen off dramatically.
How does Morrison overcome Witherspoon having 5x as many wins over ranked contenders
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 May 2026, 14:18Morrisons win doesn't count because Thomas was unranked at the time he fought Morrison and had been for years. It was a win over a fighter who at that point had fallen off dramatically.
How does Morrison overcome Witherspoon having 5x as many wins over ranked contenders
It all counts. Every fight by every fighter. I'll never go along with "This fight didn't count because" type nonsensical statements.
Morrison was faster than Witherspoon, hit hard with either hand and was usually a more dynamic offensive fighter. If you just flat out don't want to give Morrison credit that's on you.
Thomas was unranked so it doesn't count as a win over a top contender. I don't see the controversy in this statement. Foreman is the only ranked opponent Morrison beat in his entire career.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 May 2026, 14:54
I'm not sold on Morrison being better than Bruce Seldon let alone someone like Witherspoon.
That seems like a reasonable debate
Again though. You THINK that. You're basing it on your feelings. No evidence other than your feelings and your imagination. I'm going by the actual fights. Not what I think would happen in fights that didn't take place.
Boy you all got me fellas. What can I do against such well thought out arguments like Witherspoon who couldn't beat Thomas is 100% definitely better than Morrison who did beat Thomas because we imagine the Thomas who fought Witherspoon was too tough for Morrison.
If Morrison was of a caliber some want us to believe his resume wouldn't consist of past it guys who had fallen out of the ratings with the sole exception of Foreman. He would have been beating prime contenders of whom there were many he could have fought like Moorer, Bruno or McCall.
There's no logical reason he wouldn't have been matched with tougher opponents if his team was confident he could have beaten them. That could have given him a title shot against Holyfield, Bowe or McCall.
