BoxRec

oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 18:58 LOL! That he did!

I thought this guy was eo in botp, but Im not sure.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:05 The huge multitude of fighters who easily beat Ross Purrity might disagree. I'm tempted to list them all but it's a long list.

Good for you! Never give in to temptation!

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:10 I thought this guy was eo in botp, but Im not sure.

Same ilk.

Jimmy Young proved he could compete with the top dogs of his era. He beat Foreman and Lyle and lost a highly controversial decision to Ken Norton that many thought he deserved to win. There is a pretty big contrast with a guy who got blown out by Bentt and struggled with the likes of Purrity. What am I missing exactly? Is Purrity the equal of Norton, Foreman, etc in your view?

Oh hell no never said that.

Bentt and Purity are several rungs below a guy like Jimmy Young, let alone Foreman and Norton. Real fighters have not just ability but staying power. Bentt had no staying power or desire, and Purity simply didn't have the skills to get over to the next level.

However, that being said....

My point is when people bring up Purity they generally just dismiss him as this completely horrible heavyweight. "Klitschko sucks cus he lost to Purity," etc.

Purity, arguably, was robbed against Tommy Morrison. He beat Klitschko. Went the distance with Byrd, Donald, Sanders, Chambers, Dimitrenko, Grant, Rahman, Johnson, Nielsen. He also beat Joe Hipp and Jorge Luis Gonzalez.

His fight with Vitali Klitschko, going 11 out of the scheduled 12, was pretty damn good too. No knockdowns in the fight. Only got stopped because of a cut. Purity could hang with just about anybody.

He was a mixed bag. He was basically a gate keeper. If you could beat Purity you were considered a contender. If you couldn't you were written off. He wasn't the cream of the crop, but he was no bum either.

oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:11Same ilk.

Yeah, I guess it's irrelevant if he is or not, he's a sucky troll.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:11 Oh hell no never said that.

Bentt and Purity are several rungs below a guy like Jimmy Young, let alone Foreman and Norton. Real fighters have not just ability but staying power. Bentt had no staying power or desire, and Purity simply didn't have the skills to get over to the next level.

However, that being said....

My point is when people bring up Purity they generally just dismiss him as this completely horrible heavyweight. "Klitschko sucks cus he lost to Purity," etc.

Purity, arguably, was robbed against Tommy Morrison. He beat Klitschko. Went the distance with Byrd, Donald, Sanders, Chambers, Dimitrenko, Grant, Rahman, Johnson, Nielsen. He also beat Joe Hipp and Jorge Luis Gonzalez.

His fight with Vitali Klitschko, going 11 out of the scheduled 12, was pretty damn good too. No knockdowns in the fight. Only got stopped because of a cut. Purity could hang with just about anybody.

He was a mixed bag. He was basically a gate keeper. If you could beat Purity you were considered a contender. If you couldn't you were written off. He wasn't the cream of the crop, but he was no bum either.

Yeah, gatekeeper seems like an apt description. But there is a pretty massive contrast between the guys Young lost to in his prime and the guys Morrison lost to. Young also has the better wins. I just don't see any case for Morrison here.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:16 Yeah, I guess it's irrelevant if he is or not, he's a sucky troll.

Can you enlighten me as to what wins Morrison has on his record that make you think he could beat Young?

Young showed he was the equal of someone like Norton. Whereas Morrison was the equal of ....Ross Purrity, Axel Schultz

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:11 Oh hell no never said that.

Bentt and Purity are several rungs below a guy like Jimmy Young, let alone Foreman and Norton. Real fighters have not just ability but staying power. Bentt had no staying power or desire, and Purity simply didn't have the skills to get over to the next level.

However, that being said....

My point is when people bring up Purity they generally just dismiss him as this completely horrible heavyweight. "Klitschko sucks cus he lost to Purity," etc.

Purity, arguably, was robbed against Tommy Morrison. He beat Klitschko. Went the distance with Byrd, Donald, Sanders, Chambers, Dimitrenko, Grant, Rahman, Johnson, Nielsen. He also beat Joe Hipp and Jorge Luis Gonzalez.

His fight with Vitali Klitschko, going 11 out of the scheduled 12, was pretty damn good too. No knockdowns in the fight. Only got stopped because of a cut. Purity could hang with just about anybody.

He was a mixed bag. He was basically a gate keeper. If you could beat Purity you were considered a contender. If you couldn't you were written off. He wasn't the cream of the crop, but he was no bum either.

Vitali didn't have near his brother or Morrison's power. But we agree on Ross, a solid Scott ledoux type.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:18 Can you enlighten me

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:17 Yeah, gatekeeper seems like an apt description. But there is a pretty massive contrast between the guys Young lost to in his prime and the guys Morrison lost to. Young also has the better wins. I just don't see any case for Morrison here.

There is no case to be made. Morrison could have been twice the power puncher he was and still would have caught nothing but air all night. And I'm a Morrison fan.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:20

So what wins does Morrison have to match wins over a prime Foreman and Lyle? If you feel he has comparable wins I'm all ears?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:18 Can you enlighten me as to what wins Morrison has on his record that make you think he could beat Young?

Young showed he was the equal of someone like Norton. Whereas Morrison was the equal of ....Ross Purrity, Axel Schultz

You did that on purpose, didn't you?

oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Jun 2019, 19:23 You did that on purpose, didn't you?

No, but I wish people were a bit less dismissive of other people's opinions. This guy just royally screwed up on Joshua-Ruiz yet he acts like everyone who disagrees with him is a moron. If he's so smart why didn't he predict Ruiz would win?

If I'd picked Ruiz to win he would have seen it as evidence of trolling/stupidity

Morrison's a reasonably good puncher but Jimmy Young faced punchers like Lyle, Shavers, and Foreman and was able to survive. His chin seems to have generally held up pretty well.

Morrison was real deal. Nothing to do with overrating here, he was good indeed. His problem was his dedication. That cost him a lot including a title in Bentt fight. Yeah, after Bentt he declined, but still he had some very convincing performances through his career.

DrDuke wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 06:05 Morrison was real deal. Nothing to do with overrating here, he was good indeed. His problem was his dedication. That cost him a lot including a title in Bentt fight. Yeah, after Bentt he declined, but still he had some very convincing performances through his career.

The problem is Morrison doesn't have wins on his resume to back up a high rating of him in his own era. He made his reputation beating journeymen types and former contenders who had fallen from the rankings. There's very little in terms of achievements to back up a rosy assessment of his abilities. Losing to Michael Bentt and scraping to a draw with Ross Purrity also don't help his case much. His major claim to fame is the Foreman win but Schulz did the same only to get robbed by the judges. Many also had Foreman losing to Stewart and Savarese.

Were I too rank the fighters of Morrisons era, Morrison would probably rank about 25 or so.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 11:55 The problem is Morrison doesn't have wins on his resume to back up a high rating of him in his own era. He made his reputation beating journeymen types and former contenders who had fallen from the rankings. There's very little in terms of achievements to back up a rosy assessment of his abilities. Losing to Michael Bentt and scraping to a draw with Ross Purrity also don't help his case much. His major claim to fame is the Foreman win but Schulz did the same only to get robbed by the judges. Many also had Foreman losing to Stewart and Savarese.

Were I too rank the fighters of Morrisons era, Morrison would probably rank about 25 or so.

Everybody do their reputation beating journeymen and former contenders before entering the top. Foreman was a very big win. Tommy scored it in a more convincing way, than Schulz, Stewart or Savarese did, if to count those as robberies. Williams was beaten before, but by the moment of Morrison fight he was still there and well prepared. Some say Ruddock wasn't prepared, but Tommy himself was past his best at that moment. He was trying to come out of that trouiblesome period, that followed Bentt loss. Morrison was a stable top-20 competitor at the first half of the 90s, I'd say, and at some points with fair top-10 claim.

Morrison was a tough guy. He doesn't enough credit for that. He only lost three times and once fought and won with a broken jaw and hand (against a tough Joe Hipp).

oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 12:52 once fought and won with a broken jaw and hand (against a tough Joe Hipp).

Btw it was a great fight and performance by Tommy indeed.

DrDuke wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 13:01 Btw it was a great fight and performance by Tommy indeed.

One of his best. Hipp was a fringe contender at the time and big hitter who could box a bit too.

DrDuke wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 12:51 Everybody do their reputation beating journeymen and former contenders before entering the top. Foreman was a very big win. Tommy scored it in a more convincing way, than Schulz, Stewart or Savarese did, if to count those as robberies. Williams was beaten before, but by the moment of Morrison fight he was still there and well prepared. Some say Ruddock wasn't prepared, but Tommy himself was past his best at that moment. He was trying to come out of that trouiblesome period, that followed Bentt loss. Morrison was a stable top-20 competitor at the first half of the 90s, I'd say, and at some points with fair top-10 claim.

See, Carl Williams and Donovan Ruddock would have been good wins had the fights happened several years earlier but by the time Morrison fought both men they were past their prime and had fallen out of the rankings. I don't know how great these wins are given the context. They are similar to Bruce Seldon's win over Tony Tucker in 1995 which would have also been a good win had it happened years earlier. Lou Savarese knocked out Buster Douglas but doesn't get much if any credit for the win due to Douglas being past it.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 13:19 See, Carl Williams and Donovan Ruddock would have been good wins had the fights happened several years earlier but by the time Morrison fought both men they were past their prime and had fallen out of the rankings. I don't know how great these wins are given the context. They are similar to Bruce Seldon's win over Tony Tucker in 1995 which would have also been a good win had it happened years earlier. Lou Savarese knocked out Buster Douglas but doesn't get much if any credit for the win due to Douglas being past it.

Seldon-Tucker and Savarese-Douglas aren't comparable to Morrison-Williams. Morrison-Thomas, for example, yes. But not that one. Morrison-Ruddock was the whole different situation, when both fighter were past prime.

DrDuke wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 13:24 Seldon-Tucker and Savarese-Douglas aren't comparable to Morrison-Williams. Morrison-Thomas, for example, yes. But not that one. Morrison-Ruddock was the whole different situation, when both fighter were past prime.

Following the loss to Lewis in 1992 Ruddock had fought once prior to facing Morrison. Morrison on the other hand had been extremely active during this time period with numerous bouts. I would say Ruddock was the one at the disadvantage due to inactivity and age (he was 5 years older). He also didn't look to be in great shape. It also worth noting that Ruddock's best wins were in the distant past and he didn't go on to score any wins over ranked opponents post-Morrison.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 14:59 Following the loss to Lewis in 1992 Ruddock had fought once prior to facing Morrison. Morrison on the other hand had been extremely active during this time period with numerous bouts. I would say Ruddock was the one at the disadvantage due to inactivity and age (he was 5 years older). He also didn't look to be in great shape. It also worth noting that Ruddock's best wins were in the distant past and he didn't go on to score any wins over ranked opponents post-Morrison.

You certainly are committed to this. I admire your "sticktoitiveness."

oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 13:03 One of his best. Hipp was a fringe contender at the time and big hitter who could box a bit too.

Absolutely loved Joe Hipp.

That guy could eat pain like candy and could hit like a sledgehammer. Was just on the slow side and not the best boxer around by miles. I was pretty disappointed when he lost to Bruce Seldon for the WBA title.