BoxRec

Each man at his best, 12 rounds. IMO, this is truly a 50%/50% bout.

They had practically the same set of strengths and weaknesses. Same size, equally quick and athletic, both carrying explosive power, and each a superb combination puncher. Downside: both were hittable and chinny.

It could go either way, ending in any round. Absolutely anything could happen. Would be a barnburner as long as it lasted.

morrison was far better, early ko, with the usual caveat around the chin

mitchell wasnt quick at all btw. his skillset was much lower overall too

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Sep 2023, 12:42 morrison was far better, early ko, with the usual caveat around the chin

mitchell wasnt quick at all btw. his skillset was much lower overall too

Mitchell had excellent hand speed. His perceived "slowness" was more of a mental thing, because as a cross-over athlete who took up the sport late, he was always scripting his moves, as if remembering them from a boxing textbook. Lots of great athletes who convert to boxing exhibit that same flaw.

More experienced boxers could stay a step ahead of Mitchell in the ring. But he wasn't physically or athletically slow. He was more of robot whose "programming" could be interrupted.

nah, he wasnt particularly quick in the ring at all. more of a lumbering clubber. morrison was faster and more skilled, much smoother in the ring. not to mention easily had enough power to spark seth

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Sep 2023, 12:42 morrison was far better, early ko, with the usual caveat around the chin

mitchell wasnt quick at all btw. his skillset was much lower overall too

I do see where you're coming from, though. The Morrison who swamped and battered Ray Mercer for three mean rounds might have made short work out of Seth Mitchell.

But in this fight, just one punch....any punch...is all it'd take to change everything.

many versions of morrison would have made short work of mitchell, more tools to get his power there first

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Sep 2023, 12:54 nah, he wasnt particularly quick in the ring at all. more of a lumbering clubber. morrison was faster and more skilled, much smoother in the ring. not to mention easily had enough power to spark seth

I still disagree. The hand speed was there. Mitchell's left-jab, hard, straight, and hurtful, was like a shotgun.

Mitchell was an unusual mix of excellent and mediocre qualities. Because of his late start in the game, he was on a steep learning curve, and never quite figured out how to block right leads or protect his vulnerable chin.

you rate him higher than i do, big advantage morrison

The Duke would overwhelm Mitchell with body shots and left hooks to KO him out in at least 8 rounds.

Seth Mitchell was terrible. Slightly better than tye fields

no contest. Morrison would smear him.