BoxRec

Record times in sports are broken all the time so the more recent athletes seem to have an advantage over the old-timers as far as measured performance. However, the more recent athletes benefit from more advanced technology and nutrition than their predecessors and the old-timers might be more formidable if they were born later.

Mercer was a bit inconsistant. While he did give Holyfield and Lewis competitive fights he was also beaten by Jesse Ferguson and fought to a draw against Marion Wilson. However, nobody seems to feel Ferguson was a better fighter than Holyfield and Lewis. A deteriorated Holmes beating a guy who lost to Ferguson does not seem that shocking.

KOJOE90 wrote:

DaveV17 wrote:Ward showed what a solid 6-2 230 pounder could do in the 70s, imagine what Morrison could have done, about the same size but with quick hands and power.

If Morrison fought in the 1970's he would have weighed around 205lbs as he would not have used the same hi-tech steriods I imagine.

Absolutely right.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Ezzard wrote: "If Morrison fought in the 1970's he would have weighed around 205lbs as he would not have used the same hi-tech steriods I imagine."

In the 90s, Morrison would have had access to Performance Enhancing drugs (PEs) that were more difficult to detect than the PEs available in the 70s. But, in the 70s as far as I know, no sport tested for PEs. If Morrison had fought in the 70s he would have had access to PEs that were probably as effective as the one in the 90s, just easier to detect if anyone checked.

I have read that no Olympic track or weightlifting record has been set without the benefit of PEs since the 40s. If that is true, boxers have probably known of the benefits of PEs for about as long. By the 50s, and 60s, PEs were probably being used in boxing, and definitely by the 70s. I have no idea how wide spread the use of PEs was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but if even one top athlete was using them, others would have to use them to remain competitive.

It is doubtful that any boxer from a previous era is going to admit using PEs because he would be written off as a "cheat" and people would say that he only succeeded because of PEs. PEs allow people to train harder, and recover faster, with fewer injuries. One does not have to look like a bodybuilder to be using PEs.

One of the best indicators that someone is using PEs is if a person trains harder and more often and maintains or increases his weight, recovers quickly between workouts, and is able to go just as hard everyday. If a person is training naturally and trains extremely hard, the person will lose weight, get tired, won't be able to recover to train the next day. Instead of building muscle, if a natural person trains too hard, he will lose muscle and look more like a marathoner than a power athlete.

PEs have been around for a long time. Tommy Morrison was not the first boxer to use them, he was just one of the first to admit using them. Athletes always look for an edge, PEs are an edge.

B/c that extra 10 lbs of muscle and being gassed by the 5th round really gave him "an edge"

Boxing is not professional baseball, or track and field. Steroids are good for increasing muscle mass but not beneficial for a cardio-intensive sport such as boxing, hence all of your well known steroid users in boxing fading badly down the stretch (Vargas, Morrison, Holyfield after he started weighing in at 215 and above etc.)

One simple concept that is often skipped is that, for a healthy athlete or human being in general, there is a certain amount of weight your body was meant to carry and still be productive. You can ingest tons of HGH and add on 15 lbs of muscle and look good, but it will ultimately become more of a hinderance as your body will struggle to carry that extra muscle mass, hence the widespread muscle tears and tendon injuries that occur with users. It doesn't make your "body bigger" . . .you still have the same bones and tendons you had before.

Hence, unless you are in a 4 round fight, that lactic acid buildup and overall wear on your body is going to take it's toll. You can try to cheat the system, but you can't cheat your own body.

DaveV17 wrote:Ezzard wrote: "If Morrison fought in the 1970's he would have weighed around 205lbs as he would not have used the same hi-tech steriods I imagine."

In the 90s, Morrison would have had access to Performance Enhancing drugs (PEs) that were more difficult to detect than the PEs available in the 70s. But, in the 70s as far as I know, no sport tested for PEs. If Morrison had fought in the 70s he would have had access to PEs that were probably as effective as the PEs in the 90s, just easier to detect if anyone checked.

I have read that no Olympic track or weightlifting record has been set without the benefit of PEs since the 50s. If that is true, boxers have probably known of the benefits of PEs for about as long. By the 50s, and 60s, PEs were probably being used in boxing, and definitely by the 70s. I have no idea how wide spread the use of PEs in boxing was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but if a few top athletes were using them, others would have to use them to remain competitive.

It is doubtful that any boxer from a previous era is going to admit using PEs because he would be written off as a "cheat" and people would say that he only succeeded because of PEs. PEs allow people to train harder, and recover faster, with fewer injuries. One does not have to look like a bodybuilder to be using PEs.

One of the best indicators that someone is using PEs is if a person trains harder and more often and maintains or increases his weight, recovers quickly between workouts, and is able to go just as hard everyday. If a person is training naturally and trains extremely hard, the person will lose weight, get tired, won't be able to recover to train the next day. Instead of building muscle, if a natural person trains too hard, he will lose muscle and look more like a marathoner than a power athlete.

PEs have been around for a long time. Tommy Morrison was not the first boxer to use them, he was just one of the first to admit using them. Athletes always look for an edge, PEs are an edge.

Not my quote, Dave, but I did second it...

Everything you say about PEDs is right.

There was a post on here some time ago which said that a height to weigth ratio had been maintained pretty steadily throughout HW history until the 1980s when the weights just went up and up and up. This is not conclusive but it is interesting, and at least indicative...

I don't doubt that performance enhancers have always been around but you only have to look at the physiques of boxers from the late 80s onwards to see that there's been a big change.

Watching 80s fights with friends a while back who are casual boxing fans. They all remarked on just how different the fighters are built and just how much more stamina they seemed to have. They watch a lot more contmeporary fights than me...

I just take it for granted now that almost all fighters are on one thing or another, or, if not, they have been. You can't jump up and dopwn the weights like these guys without something...

I don't hold it against Morrison. BUT PEDs are more prevalent now. 20 years ago there were a few in the gym on them these days they are offered to everyone who comes through the door.

In response to Dave V17:
Norton wasn't in the prime when he fought Garcia. It was more than two years before he made the top 10. He clearly wasn't the fighter that he would become. It's silly that you keep bringing this up.

Purrity was a journeyman who wasn't a hard puncher yet he decked a prime Morrison twice and Morrison was lucky to get a draw. Yet a prime Norton (who hit a lot harder than Ross Purrity) would get blown out early by Morrison.

Hipp was a total stiff and a prime Morrison had all he could handle with him. Yet a prime Norton (who was much harder to hit and was better in every way than Hipp) would be destroyed by Morrison.

Williams had a glass jaw in his prime and was way past his prime when he fought Morrison. Yet it took a prime Morrison with his alleged power 8 rounds to knock him out. Morrison got decked in this fight. Yet a prime Norton who had a much better chin than a prime Williams would get blown out early by Morrison.

Michael Bentt was very inexperienced and had beaten absolutley no one of consequence, yet knocked out Morrison in one round. Yet a prime norton couldn't do this and would be blown out early himself by Morrison.

Ray Mercer destroyed Morrison. (Who is the best fighter Mercer ever stopped? Francisco Damiani?)
Lennox Lewis walked through Morrison's alleged power and destroyed him.

Foreman in his 40's looked like an athlete? You mean like a sumo wrestler? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his body % was pretty high. It's good that you were there to see Foreman train when he was older. You sure wouldn't know by looking at him and watching him that he trained that hard. To think that he was in better shape than Quarry and furthermore the younger Foreman is ludicrious.

Styles make fights is why Holmes at the age of 42 beat Mercer? That's all there is to it? How about it's more proof that the heavyweights of the 1970's were better than the 1990's? (which wasn't a bad decade)
Thjat Holmes and foreman had as much success as they did when they were way, way past their primes is strong evidence that the heavyweights of the 1970's were better. It's as plain as day. Stop making excuses.
Was the extra 20 pounds Holmes was carrying fat or muscle? Nice of you to say that the Holmes of 1991 wasn't better than the Holmes of 1978-1983. No kidding. I'm surprised that you didn't say that the 42 year old Holmes wasn't stronger and a harder puncher than the prime Holmes, like you claim was the case with the older Foreman and the younger Foreman.

Thanks for the info on how important it is to be muscular. Funny that we don't see many body builders in boxing. Funny that Jameel McCline at a muscular 260 can't crack an egg.
Funny that Lance "Mount" Whitaker at 250 had little power either.
Or Ray Austin at 245 doesn't either.

Funny how Michael Grant at 250 and a better athlete than Morrison wasn't that good. Funny how when pro football players turn to boxing they aren't very good.
Could it be that, gasp, there is an awful lot more to boxing than size,strength and speed?
It's LOL that Bobick hit harder than Morrison? Why? I keep asking who did Morrison ever stop and you never give an answer.

So all you have to be is a hard puncher and back up Norton? As I have said before, Norton was only stopped by Foreman in his prime. Foreman happens to be probably the hardest hitting heavyweight champion of all time. How long do you think Morrison would have lasted against a prime Foreman? On second thought, don't answer that.
Norton went toe to toe with Larry Holmes for 15 rounds and wasn't even knocked down. Are you going to say Holmes couldn't punch? Unlike Morrison, Holmes proved he could. He stopped the next 8 contenders that he fought.

Styles make fights? Ok, who is much more likely to get nailed first, Morrison or Norton? Norton had a good defense and Morrison had no defense. Norton would probably nail Morrison first. Since Morrison had no chin (as proved throughout his career) he is going be hurt and stopped.
The odds of Norton stopping Morrison early are far greater than Morrison stopping Norton. Morrison has a very remote puncher's chance. That's it. If goes more than a few rounds, forget it.

edit

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Ezzard, I agree with you about the change in body builds in boxing. I was recently watching a replay of the Hagler - Antuofermo fight. Years ago, Hagler was unusually muscular and I was surprised when I watched the old video that he didn't look unusual compared to many of the contemporary fighters. There are a lot of muscular fighters out there today.

Like you mentioned, guys can't move up and down in weight the way some of these guys have and not gain body fat. RJJ was as fat free as a heavy as he had been at 154, that ain't natural...

I think a lot of that is plain old vanity coupled with perception. A guy who looks good with his shirt off must be a great athelete, or so the logic goes. Beefing up seems to be the norm.

I agree with you though. A lot of fighters physiques and division hopping is just not natural.

DaveV17
Of course Norton was flawed, so is everyone. However Morrison was much more flawed.
You would have loved to have bet with on fights with me. Big talk since you know that didn't happen.
Sorry that I keep running Ross Purrity down. Well, he was 8-8 when he fought Morrison. His career record was 30-20-3. He was used as stepping stone and almost everyone else that was any good at all beat him easily. He was a jopurneyman. It's embarrassing that Morrison could only get a draw with him and was decked twice by him.

I like how if Norton or someone else from the 1970's beats a big guy he is a fat guy. However with the ancient George Foreman who was much fatter than these guys was in great shape because "one doesn't have to be cut to be in shape". That really makes a lot of sense. He lifted cars and weights. Were you there to witness this as he did this for hours day after day getting ready for a fight?
Were you also there to see Quarry,Stander,Bobick, etc train to see them train? Is not possible that they weren't in great shape even they weren't cut?

Of course the extra weight and age made Holmes decline. Yet he was still able to compete well with top heavyweights of the 1990's. You don't think he was much, better in the late 1970's and early 1980s?
Do you seriously think that the 42 year old Holmes would have beaten a prime Norton or even a prime Quarry?

I do agree that a mediocre fighter can go farther than he could with the right connections. He can build up his record with wins over tomato cans, then TV wins over washed up fighters until they get a reputation that is better than their ability.
That describes Morrison almost to a T. He was fed him weak competition early, then wins over washed up fighters like Pinklon Thomas and Carl Williams on TV. In his two fights when he took a risk, he got crushed. His
management team knew his limitations. He didn't fight rematches with mediocrities Purrity or Hipp or Bentt.
Some other comments:
Standers ko of Shavers shows how 1970's heavyweights are overrated today. -Shavers had been a professional for all of 6 months.

The constant reference to Norton's early career loss to Garcia.

However, when Quarry beat Lyle (Lyle had already beaten Middleton and Mathis) the win for Quarry is blown off because Lyle was inexprienced.

"Big, strong, and athletic goes a long way." That seems to pretty much sum up your boxing philosophy. You keep saying words to this effect over and over. By itself, it only goes so far in a good era.
There are so many other factors - defense,stamina,jab,chin,punching accurracy,counter punching etc. All of which Norton and Quarry is better than Morrison at.

Yes stylewise, Morrison was closer to a Shavers or aForeman than he was to a boxer like Young or Ali. However, Morrison didn't have nearly the ability of Shavers or Foreman. He was closer in ability to a Stan Ward or a Mac Foster or a Duane Bobick.

I liked one of your earlier comments - "Ward showed what a solid 6'2 230 pounder could do in the 1970's". Stan Ward proved that size and strength wasn't enough to make you a serious contender in that era.

DaveV17 wrote:Alp, I have gone over all of that before, I'm not going to rewrite everything again. Morrison was a flawed fighter, so was Norton. Morrison had the right strengths to exploit Norton's flaws. If you don't think so, fine, I don't care. From you argument, I would like to have you around to bet with on the big fights.

You keep running Purrity down. Purrity has a pretty impressive resume for a guy who just got into boxing after football didn't work out. Tough as they come. I've never heard a lot about him, but from what I see on his record I bet he is a gym legend.

Alp wrote:"Funny how when pro football players turn to boxing they aren't very good."

How do you think pro boxers would do in pro football? One can not train for one sport and automatically be good at another.

I don't want to insult you but you seem to lack an understanding of physical training and athletes. You can't understand that Jerry Quarry was an untrained, flabby 207 and that Foreman was a big, strong 257. Extra weight did not help Quarry and in fact it hurt him. He was a short armed, small heavyweight who needed to be quick and agile to have a chance against bigger men. Carrying extra fat just made him slower.

One does not have to be cut to be in shape. Foreman knew he was not a skilled, quick fighter so he enhanced his strengths - which was primarily that he was physically strong. He pushed cars, lifted weights, etc. He made himself even bigger and stronger hence he was a better fighter for his style. In addition he learned to relax in the ring, that took care of his stamina issues. Holmes was a different type of fighter.

Holmes was a slick boxer with movement and a great jab. Getting older and heavier did not make him better, but his skills were so good that he could get by - if he picked his opponent carefully.

Alp, all fighters are different, different body types, different strengths, different weaknesses, and different lifestyles. What benefits one might damage another. A mediocre fighter with a good management team might well go farther in boxing than a good fighter who does not have good management. Match making, picking the opponents, getting the type opponent that your fighter can do well against is a big part of boxing.

Maybe we look at boxing from different perspectives. I don't read Bert Sugar, Nigel Collins, Norman Mailer etc., I don't listen to Lampley, or Merchant, and I don't have much respect for any of their opinions about boxing. I just watch the boxers and try to match their strengths and weaknesses. Where you see Purrity as a bum, I see him as a guy who must have had a lot of potential and as a guy who on a given night could make it interesting for anyone. When a man does as well as he did taking fights on short notice in other fighter's hometowns, I have to think with proper management he is a contender.

If you think Norton beats Morrison because he beat Ali and Young, and because Morrison got knocked down by Purrity, that is your perrogative, but you will never convince me. I see more similarities between Morrison, Shavers, and Foreman, than I do between Morrison, Ali, and Young.

Dave, your analysis of Foreman in his comeback shows everyone how deep your boxing acumen is. If Foreman was only successful b/c he was big and strong, why wasn't Ed Jones HW champion of the world? I don't like to bring this up usually in boxing debates on a message board, but it's clear you lack any boxing experience yourself, b/c with that you would understand how conditioning and skills (which encompass a WIDE range of things, timing, placement, pacing) are so much more crucial to success than raw strength. Foreman DID have good boxing skills . . he weighed in the 250s b/c he was older and couldn't cut the weight like he'd done before. He did the car pushing in his 20s too . . it's not like in the 1980s he suddenly discovered strength training.

ANd no, Purrity with whomever management doesn't go far. His work-rate sucked and his skills were incredibly mediocre. He was a good journeyman and trial hose b/c he had a good chin and would always be game whenever he fought, but he was no "lost champion"


Quarry was a very athletic and strong guy, with finely tuned boxing skills developed from an extensive amateur career. Morrison in comparison was basically an amatuer. You seem to think throwing fast combinations equates to having solid boxing skills, and sorry man that just speaks right to your ignorance.

Morrison's slight size advantage would mean very little.

Ambling Alp, Mercer was fairly durable. His durability seems to have exceeded Norton's by a good margin so Norton might not have been able to take punches from Morrison that Mercer took.

Holmes and Foreman beat Mercer and Moorer but lost to the other top 90s fighters they faced so they are not great evidence. Additionally, other top contenders of the 70s such as Shavers, Lyle and Young were far less successful against younger heavyweights.

Of course Mercer was durable. The point about Mercer is that he was one of two high level opponents of Morrison (Lewis being the other) and that Morrison got crushed both times. Mercer was no harder of a puncher than Norton and wasn't nearly as good defensively.
Morrison had no defense, little stamina, a vulnerable chin and very little technical boxing skills. Norton or Quarry is going to exploit that.

Of course Shavers,Young,Lyle didn't do well when they were past their best. This is how it almost always is.

My point about Foreman and Holmes is that they wouldn't have had the success that they did have against top fighters from the 1990's if the 1990's was nearly as good as the 1970's heavyweights.

This isn't rocket science. When fighters from one era are way past their best and can still compete with the best of a later era, that is a strong indication that the earlier era is better.
We aren't just talking about 1 fight here that can be passed off as a fluke or the "styles make fights line" either.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Alp and DF,
Your posts are so full of innocent misconceptions about boxing that I don't know where to start. This was a great one.

DF asked[i]:" If Foreman was only successful b/c he was big and strong, why wasn't Ed Jones HW champion of the world? I don't like to bring this up usually in boxing debates on a message board, but it's clear you lack any boxing experience yourself, b/c with that you would understand how conditioning and skills (which encompass a WIDE range of things, timing, placement, pacing) are so much more crucial to success than raw strength."[/i]

Well, because Jones was a football player? By the way, with only his athleticism and size, and little to no boxing skill - how many did Jones lose?

If either or both of your think that Foreman was a polished boxer, that is your opinion, it doesn't bother me. Foreman had some boxing skills, at least relative to a football player, compared to a slick boxer, he was just strong. I was surprised that you guys are so naive that you think that when I say Foreman lacked skills I was comparing him to a non boxer. Well, let me clear that one up for you. George Foreman has better boxing skills than Lawrence Taylor or Peyton Manning, or The Fridge or any football player who is not a boxer first. He just does not have the skills of a Larry Holmes or a Doug Jones. Does that help you to understand?

I didn't think guys with your experience and perspective would be impressed with a guy like Purity. Dumb ole me, with my lack of boxing experience am impressed by a 6-4, 240 pound tough guy who went the distance with some big punchers. But you two know the score. No books about Purity, no movies, no songs, you guys see through it all and know he wasn't much. AND, I guess with your all knowing eye you noticed he had a "low work rate."Fighting everybody, many on short notice as the "opponent", usually in the other guy's hometown and being stopped about twice doesn't show two experienced boxers like yourselves much does it? He didn't start with easy fights, and he probably has not had the benefit of being in great condition for many of his fights, but to old hard case boxers like yourselves, that is just his fault.

Of course, he hasn't had any books written about him and he isn't on talk shows so he must not be good, right guys? I bet me mentioning Doug Jones as a highly skilled boxer will throw you two too...LOL. He doesn't have any books out about him either, no movies, no songs, he couldn't be any good could he? LOLOL

What does fighting on short-notice have to do with having a low work-rate? I've seen Purrity fight many times and he always fought like a sparring partner, basically following his opponent around, listless. and firing occasional flurries of punches, and then plodding after the guy again, doing nothing . . . and that was Ross Purrity in a nutshell.


Doug Jones . . . . . .I recognize Jones as a very good fighter. In fact, Jones, all 185 lbs of him, would've whupped Tommy Morrison's butt!

Holmes beat Mercer and lost to Tyson, Holyfield and McCall (this is 1 win, 3 losses) and the Tyson loss was by stoppage. This is not particularly impressive. Mercer lost to Ferguson who is not considered one of the elite heavyweights of the 90s so him losing to a past it Holmes is not shocking. Perhaps it depends on what version of Mercer shows up. Foreman has a good win over Moorer but aside from that lacks any particularly impressive wins against 90s fighters.

First to address Dave V17 comments about football players- The reason I brought up football players a while ago was almost all that you seem to talk about is size,strength and athletic ability. I was just pointing out that there is a lot more to boxing than that.

As to cojimar 1945 comments
Holmes was 38 and hadn't fought in 2 years when he fought Tyson. He was 42 when gave Holyfield a tough fight. Holmes was 45 when he barely lost to McCall. He was actaully a head until he faded down the stretch.

Foreman beat fringe contenders Cooper,Stewart,Coetzer, Savarese and got ripped off against Briggs when he was in his 40's.

When a fighter gets old he loses his speed,relexes, stamina etc. Are you guys not aware of this?
That Foreman and Holmes had any success is truly remarkable. They weren't nearly as good as they were in their primes. Yet they were serious factors when they were way past their best. This is a strong indication that the 1970's heavyweights were better than the 1990's heavyweights. This doesn't mean that every heavyweight in the 1970's was better than every one in the 1990's or anything like that. Actually the 1990's was pretty decent (better than the 1980's and much better than this one)
However it's silly to think it was better than the 1970's.

btw - Evander Holyfield won 8 of his first 10 heavyweight fights by knockout. Guess who the two guys were that went the distance with Holyfield?

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Holmes beat Mercer and lost to Tyson, Holyfield and McCall (this is 1 win, 3 losses) and the Tyson loss was by stoppage. This is not particularly impressive. Mercer lost to Ferguson who is not considered one of the elite heavyweights of the 90s so him losing to a past it Holmes is not shocking. Perhaps it depends on what version of Mercer shows up. Foreman has a good win over Moorer but aside from that lacks any particularly impressive wins against 90s fighters.

Mercer lost to Ferguson . . he also gave Lennox Lewis the toughest fight of his career which he wasn't knockout out in, winning the fight on many ringside scorecards, so what's your point?

edit

Dempseyfire & I don't understand strengths and weaknesses? This is coming from someone obsessed with size, strength, and speed and barely aknolwedges the many other factors which make a fighter.

You are the one that never answers how Morrison is going to be avoid being knocked out by Norton. You seem to be oblivious to Morrisons lack of defense, vulnerable chin and lack of all around boxing skills. Not to mention that Norton had a good jab that he would use effectivley.

Just keep repeating that Morrison weighed more than 220 and punched hard (what really good fighter did he ever stop? You ducked this question the first 5 times) and thats all you need to beat Norton. How insightful.

You actually don't think that given their advanced age, that Foreman and Holmnes didn't do very well against heavyweights in their primes in the 1970's? Oh thats right. Foreman was better in the 1990's then he was in the 1970's. That is what you have to say because you know embarrassing it is to admit that the way past their prime Holmes and Foreman could do so well against the 1990's fighters in their primes.
You sound ridiculaus.
Lets see how great Tommy Morrison looks in his mid 40's.

The 90s had heavyweights that were better than Coetzer, Stewart and Cooper. Defeating these guys does not show that 90s heavyweights are worse than their predecessors given that the 90s featured much better heavyweights.

There are many examples of older fighters beating younger fighters but are a few instances of this proof that the later era is worse?

An old Floyd Patterson was competitive against Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis and Oscar Bonavena, some of the top heavyweights of the late 1960s/1970s. From this we are forced to conclude that the 50s heavyweights were superior to those of the 1970s but not everyone seems to believe this given the lack of praise for 50s heavyweights.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:The 90s had heavyweights that were better than Coetzer, Stewart and Cooper. Defeating these guys does not show that 90s heavyweights are worse than their predecessors given that the 90s featured much better heavyweights.

There are many examples of older fighters beating younger fighters but are a few instances of this proof that the later era is worse?

An old Floyd Patterson was competitive against Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis and Oscar Bonavena, some of the top heavyweights of the late 1960s/1970s. From this we are forced to conclude that the 50s heavyweights were superior to those of the 1970s but not everyone seems to believe this given the lack of praise for 50s heavyweights.

An "old" Patterson? . . he was in his early 30s in the mid-late 60s when he had his tussles with Quarry,Ellis etc . . .he was still champion in 1961!!!

That would be comparable if Foreman had come back around 1980, not the 1990s!!! I can't believe you just made that comparison!!!

SHOW ME ANOTHER ERA of HWs in which you had two guys in their 40s in the top 10 . . . it might take awhile BECAUSE YOU WON"T FIND IT.

Foreman and Holmes together in the 90s have a resume consisting of Moorer, Stewart, Mercer, Cooper, Saverese, Briggs, and close, tough fights with McCall and a prime Holyfield.

That's better than Tommy Morrison I'll tell you that much!

DaveV17 wrote:Coljimar wrote: "Holmes beat Mercer and lost to Tyson, Holyfield and McCall (this is 1 win, 3 losses) and the Tyson loss was by stoppage. This is not particularly impressive. Mercer lost to Ferguson who is not considered one of the elite heavyweights of the 90s so him losing to a past it Holmes is not shocking. Perhaps it depends on what version of Mercer shows up. Foreman has a good win over Moorer but aside from that lacks any particularly impressive wins against 90s fighters."

Coljimar, I agree with you, but you are trying to explain something to people, (DF and Alp) who have no understanding of how a boxer's strengths and weaknesses can make him vulnerable to certain fighters and make other fighters vulnerable to him.

DF wrote:"What does fighting on short-notice have to do with having a low work-rate?"

DF, again, I'll try to explain something so that you can understand it. When a fighter takes a fight on short notice, the fighter may not be in the best of condition. Hence, the fighter may pace himself rather than take a chance on gassing out later. I think we are getting a good understanding of your knowledge of conditioning and boxing in this thread.

Df also wrote:"Doug Jones . . . . . .I recognize Jones as a very good fighter. In fact, Jones, all 185 lbs of him, would've whupped Tommy Morrison's butt!"

So you think that Doug Jones at 185 could beat the 225 pound Morrison. How do you see him doing it? Which opponent of Morrison's with Jones's size and skill set beat Morrison. How did that 185 pounder keep Morrison away during the first 5 rounds or did he stop Morrison early? Which opponent of Doug Jones weighed 225 pounds of solid muscle and was extremely quck and powerful like Morrison? How did Jones handle that fighter? I am looking forward to reading your reply.

Another question for you, Did Ali beat Doug Jones on your scorecard? Was Ali more skilled, with better boxing techniques than Jones? Suppose Doug Jones had been 6-3 and 210, and Ali had been 5-11 and 185, who do you think would have won? Which fighter was better pound for pound? Did size, and speed play any part in the outcome of that fight?

Feel free to consult your entire Thomas Hauser collection before answering. It is obvious that you have studied under him.

Ali beat Jones on my card by OUTWORKING Jones . . .something Morrison couldn't dream of doing b/c he would be sucking air like a fat guy on the 4 by 4 relay by the 5th round!! Ali, who was all of 203 lbs back then, wasn't spending the fight bullying Jones to the ropes . . he was firing combinations and then side-stepping out. Morrison never even properly employed angles his entire career.

And yes Purrity took fights on late notice . . .that wasn't his whole bloody career!! He look lethargic in his planned fights as well . . .that is just the way he fought.

Going back, Jones was faster thah Morrison, much more skilled, much better defensively, and had much better stamina. Morrison has a puncher's chance and that's it.