Tweet
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?
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?
Comment