Tommy Morrison Versus Mike Tyson compare and contrast

[Sugar Adam Ali]

What stands out to me is that Tommy Morrison had wider punches.

Tyson's were more compact and economical.

The main determining factor was punch resistance. Frankly, I can't see Morrison surviving four rounds with Tyson in a head to head/prime for prime match up.

Agree with both.

Mike was better technically and had the better chin

[OctoberRed]

Agree with both.

Mike was better technically and had the better chin

The best version of Morrison can't beat the mid-level version of Tyson.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Tyson post-prison would smash the best Morrison.

As far as similarities go I can't really think of any. Sure both fought in a sort of crouch and utilized head movement with speed and power but Tyson didn't throw as good of combinations and Morrison could box quite well. Due to size there was never a reason for Tyson to box so he didn't. Tyson was also more cautious than Morrison which is why Morrison is perceived as having a weak chin. He would get carried away unlike Tyson who was very focused on slipping then countering.

[QueensburyRules]

--- Need to remember that around the Tommy//Tyson match, Butterbean was also in the Queue, all being sideshows.

The way it was...

[TonyGe]

So I was watching a few Morrison fights on Youtube , and it came up in one of the threads, a comparison to Tyson. Now strictly speaking I know that 95% of you will say, as I would say, that Tyson was better. But there are some interesting caveats to that argument.

Both guys fought many similar opponents, Morrison getting to them a little later, pretty similar KO percentages, Both guys were felt to have gone off the path at some point. etc. Both guys were brought along carefully at first, taught to develop their game, overcome their flaws, feasting on those superb technical guys around that time like Pinkleton Thomas and Quick Tillis, for example. Both guys were big punchers, though we have to qualify this a bit more to be accurate...they were alas different types of punchers.

It gets interesting when we look at their technical skills and imagine a match between them... Tyson was a lot harder to hit than Morrison. Both men were the perfect weight for a heavyweight contender, but Morrison had the frame for it, looking like the good lawd used just the right amount of material, and not a penny nail more. Tyson's height and bob and weave made him better defensively, despite his short stature and lack of reach.

Tyson could catch you with either hand, Morrison was an accomplished puncher, but his left hook was truly one of the best. Watch the hook he caught Ruddock with, there is no telepgraph, no set up, just a perfect hook on the button. What is superb about Morrison is that when coming up, he set his big punches up. This made him a much better fighter than just a one punch wonder. Morrison also had other artillery like an uppercut and a jab.

Morrison was in fact a superb and accurate puncher...watch as he catches many opponents behind the elbow protecting the ribs, with his hook. He threw his punches in bunches, while a younger fighter.

Most people will say that Tyson was faster, but I think that the real difference was Tyson's explosiveness...Its something one sees in Jack Dempsey as well, instead of throwing the punch hard, or soft, there is a quality that looks like someone took a bomb and it in the punching hand. This quality is rare, and it makes Tyson one of the best punchers ever, pound for pound imo. But in terms of accuracy and speed Morrison was an excellent puncher. Tyson by comparison was indeed faster, and could hit you anywhere and hurt you.

I think in a head to head, prime for prime, Tyson's head movement wins it for him. But Morrison was always dangerous and that hook of his was good enough to be a threat to anyone. I sometimes think it is a curse when a fighter is squared up and forward moving with no understanding of head position, angles, and distance... Morrison always got hit with stuff he should not have and it virtually guaranteed that Tyson could catch him at some point.

Thoughts?

The biggest difference is durability. Morrison could be hurt by good punchers Tyson had a better chin and better stamina. He was also a better defensive fighter.

[QueensburyRules]

--- post prison Tyson was no more than a talented 4 rd brawler compared to the finely tuned destroyer Cus created.

[OctoberRed]

--- post prison Tyson was no more than a talented 4 rd brawler compared to the finely tuned destroyer Cus created.

Post prison Mike admitted that he didn't really care about boxing anymore, he just needed money

[QueensburyRules]

--- Yupsir, just a cash grab for the sycophants who control boxing.

[GelfSara]

So I was watching a few Morrison fights on Youtube , and it came up in one of the threads, a comparison to Tyson. Now strictly speaking I know that 95% of you will say, as I would say, that Tyson was better. But there are some interesting caveats to that argument.

Both guys fought many similar opponents, Morrison getting to them a little later, pretty similar KO percentages, Both guys were felt to have gone off the path at some point. etc. Both guys were brought along carefully at first, taught to develop their game, overcome their flaws, feasting on those superb technical guys around that time like Pinkleton Thomas and Quick Tillis, for example. Both guys were big punchers, though we have to qualify this a bit more to be accurate...they were alas different types of punchers.

It gets interesting when we look at their technical skills and imagine a match between them... Tyson was a lot harder to hit than Morrison. Both men were the perfect weight for a heavyweight contender, but Morrison had the frame for it, looking like the good lawd used just the right amount of material, and not a penny nail more. Tyson's height and bob and weave made him better defensively, despite his short stature and lack of reach.

Tyson could catch you with either hand, Morrison was an accomplished puncher, but his left hook was truly one of the best. Watch the hook he caught Ruddock with, there is no telepgraph, no set up, just a perfect hook on the button. What is superb about Morrison is that when coming up, he set his big punches up. This made him a much better fighter than just a one punch wonder. Morrison also had other artillery like an uppercut and a jab.

Morrison was in fact a superb and accurate puncher...watch as he catches many opponents behind the elbow protecting the ribs, with his hook. He threw his punches in bunches, while a younger fighter.

Most people will say that Tyson was faster, but I think that the real difference was Tyson's explosiveness...Its something one sees in Jack Dempsey as well, instead of throwing the punch hard, or soft, there is a quality that looks like someone took a bomb and it in the punching hand. This quality is rare, and it makes Tyson one of the best punchers ever, pound for pound imo. But in terms of accuracy and speed Morrison was an excellent puncher. Tyson by comparison was indeed faster, and could hit you anywhere and hurt you.

I think in a head to head, prime for prime, Tyson's head movement wins it for him. But Morrison was always dangerous and that hook of his was good enough to be a threat to anyone. I sometimes think it is a curse when a fighter is squared up and forward moving with no understanding of head position, angles, and distance... Morrison always got hit with stuff he should not have and it virtually guaranteed that Tyson could catch him at some point.

Thoughts?

There are many things I could say, but a few observations off the top of my head--

1) While Tyson may have used PEDs after prison they were not integral to his career; indeed--while I am a huge advocate of proper weight training and believe it can help any athlete--"Prime Mike Tyson" (AKA Tyson from 1986 until firing Kevin Rooney shortly after the Spinks fight on June 27, 1988) did not even do non-bodyweight resistance training (with the exception of heavy bag work and light dumbbell shrugs).

Morrison, on the other hand, was by his own admission a "steroid creation" in much the same way sprinter Ben Johnson and NFL player Tony Mandarich were; without modern chemistry he never would have been a viable heavyweight contender and most likely would have fought as cruiserweight (perhaps battling fellow modern chemistry creation Evander Holyfield).

2) There is a phrase I'm fond of: "necessary but not sufficient". In boxing, a great chin is necessary but not sufficient if you wish to become an all-time great. Tyson had a great chin. Morrison did NOT.

3) Prime Mike Tyson was an exceptionally elusive fighter. A wonderful example: https://youtu.be/3nH8-4BBW7k Morrison, on the other hand, had no real defense of note; his offense was his defense. Even in the first few rounds vs. Mercer, Morrison was getting tagged: https://youtu.be/HhuC1quvIxQ

If you lack both a solid chin and a solid defense, you will have major problems in boxing.

4) Prime Mike Tyson had exceptional power in both hands. Morrison--while not as one-handed as former "great white hope" Gerry Cooney--nevertheless didn't have much of a right hand.

5) Prime Mike Tyson was never a Joe Calzaghe or Julio César Chávez or Rocky Marciano or Gennady Golovkin with respect to endurance, but he was capable of boxing 12 hard rounds without fading notably in the later stages of a fight. Morrison, on the other hand, was, known to "gas out" badly past the early stages of a fight.

6) Speed kills; the difference in handspeed between these two fighters--and speed in closing distance--is dramatic; while Morrison was not slow, Prime Mike Tyson had freakish speed for a heavyweight.

7) Prime Mike Tyson had one of the most skillful and coherent corners in boxing, from Kevin Rooney, to Steve Lott and Matt Baranski. Morrison--with no respect intended toward John Brown, who had "a handful" to deal with in terms of Tommy's mental issues--did not.

[SerafeimSt.]

Don't be so sure that tyson would beat morrison

Lot believe that tyson would got him. I dissagree on that. My opinion is that both would had 50-50% they were both beasts so between two same skill lvl beasts depending on day on luck also depending on lot things... with mercer and with Brentt he was just unlucky or was in not very good day they re not better in my opinion. A very good connected left hook should destroy them ... Besides everyone can be defeated few or more times. Even Mohammed ali lost few but that not necessarily means that the opponent was better. Depending on lot things. And ali was the #1