Please don't laugh at the thought of me without underpants. My circumcised schwantz is no laughing matter.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 24 Aug 2023, 16:05
by Cojimar 1946
Bruno seems to have competed at a higher level. His losses are less embarrassing and he has the better win between the two.
Ruddock was unranked at the time time he fought Morrison and it was a controversial stoppage so not sure it's such an impressive win.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 24 Aug 2023, 22:07
by oogiebe
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:05
Bruno seems to have competed at a higher level. His losses are less embarrassing and he has the better win between the two.
Ruddock was unranked at the time time he fought Morrison and it was a controversial stoppage so not sure it's such an impressive win.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:05
Bruno seems to have competed at a higher level. His losses are less embarrassing and he has the better win between the two.
Ruddock was unranked at the time time he fought Morrison and it was a controversial stoppage so not sure it's such an impressive win.
It wasn't that controversial.
I'd say pretty controversial given Ruddocks ability to come back in prior fights after getting hurt. Bruno showed himself able to compete at a higher level.
I wouldn't even put Morrison among the top 25 of his era. I don't know where people are getting this idea he was one of the divisions elite.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 25 Aug 2023, 09:54
by Joson
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:05
Bruno seems to have competed at a higher level. His losses are less embarrassing and he has the better win between the two.
Ruddock was unranked at the time time he fought Morrison and it was a controversial stoppage so not sure it's such an impressive win.
I agree with most, but not all, of what you write.
Referee Lipton said Razor's pupils were uneven and looking in different directions after arising from that brutal sixth round knockdown. He claimed that's an unmistakable symptom of brain injury which justified stopping the bout. I tend to agree with Lipton.
Either way, the Ruddock of 1995 was an aging, semi-active fighter who'd fallen from the world ratings. Razor had fought only once in the prior three years. He was probably just 70% of the fighter he had been during his prime.
Regarding Tommy's win over Foreman, that was a good achievement, as Big George was still a legitimate top-ten heavyweight. But Foreman was 44 y.o. at the time. Like Ruddock, Foreman was just a shadow of the fighter he'd been in earlier years.
In fact, the Oliver McCall that Bruno beat in 1995 may have been a better fighter than the 1993 Foreman that Tommy defeated.
I'm also of the opinion that Bruno's record contains victories that were at least as good, and possibly better, than Morrison's. He stopped Gerrie Coetzee (top-ten rated), Joe Bugner (over-the-hill but still top-15 rated), in addition to respectable top-20 foes like Pierre Coetzee, Lucien Rodriquez, and Jesse Ferguson.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 27 Aug 2023, 01:27
by DrDuke
Morrison boxed better and was much tougher. I'd pick him to stop Bruno.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 Aug 2023, 16:05
Bruno seems to have competed at a higher level. His losses are less embarrassing and he has the better win between the two.
Ruddock was unranked at the time time he fought Morrison and it was a controversial stoppage so not sure it's such an impressive win.
It wasn't that controversial.
I'd say pretty controversial given Ruddocks ability to come back in prior fights after getting hurt. Bruno showed himself able to compete at a higher level.
I wouldn't even put Morrison among the top 25 of his era. I don't know where people are getting this idea he was one of the divisions elite.
I'd say pretty controversial given Ruddocks ability to come back in prior fights after getting hurt. Bruno showed himself able to compete at a higher level.
I wouldn't even put Morrison among the top 25 of his era. I don't know where people are getting this idea he was one of the divisions elite.
I'd put him below
Holmes
Witherspoon
Tucker
Mercer
Ruddock
Holyfield
Zolkin
Akinwande
Norris
Bruno
McCall
Lewis
Sanders
Tyson
Tua
Bowe
Moorer
Tubbs
Golota
Donald
Just from 91 to 96. If we use the 90s as a whole the list gets even longer. Then we have in addition
Rahman
Vitali Klitschko
Kirk Johnson
etc etc
Morrison seems around the level of Axel Schulz or Lou Savarese
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 27 Aug 2023, 16:31
by Joson
I remember Morrison's era, which was the 1990 through 1996 period. Interestingly, Tommy was never rated any higher than lower top-ten, and sometimes even as low as top-15 worldwide. He really wasn't on anyone's list of top five or six contenders.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 27 Aug 2023, 16:39
by Joson
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 16:20
Morrison seems around the level of Axel Schulz or Lou Savarese
Tommy was better than Schulz and Savarese, but you are otherwise correct.
Morrison couldn't hold a candle to the era's best heavyweights, such as Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, and Tyson. I can also think of another four or five guys who were always rated above Morrison and who would have been betting favorites to beat him.
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 16:20
Morrison seems around the level of Axel Schulz or Lou Savarese
Tommy was better than Schulz and Savarese, but you are otherwise correct.
Morrison couldn't hold a candle to the era's best heavyweights, such as Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, and Tyson. I can also think of another four or five guys who were always rated above Morrison during those years, and who would have been betting favorites to beat him.
He ranged from top 5 at certain times to top 15'ish. I always thought he lost something after starring in the Rocky movie.
Re: Frank Bruno v Tommy Morrison
Posted: 28 Aug 2023, 20:43
by wrighty
I loved his left hook. One of the best I've seen.
If Tommy had tightened up and taken the game as seriously as he did shagging and partying, the sky would have been the limit.
