He wasn't as far ahead of Anderssen and Staunton as some hagiographies would have us believe though.
I trust Anderssen's assessment of Morphy's relative strength. He was a believer. The large blocks of quotes Lawson uses in his book provides pretty compelling evidence, Anderssen though Morphy was far superior to himself.
I'm not so sure that Anderssen felt any inferior to Morphy at all, despite the one-sided score and the endless quotes from Anderssen about Morphy. Max Lange spoke about the Anderssen-Morphy match in detail in his 1859 book, "Paul Morphy: His Life and Labors."
Part of what Lange expressed, which is seldomed brought out:
The match with the American began on Monday, December the 20th, and was continued without intermission. Besides these chief games, there were played a few off-hand contests, to which, however, Anderssen attached no importance whatever. They met for another distinct purpose, but the preparations were, through mistake, not finished; and just in order to pass the time, a few games were played in a skittling style. Afterwards, great emphasis was laid upon these games by French and English writers; often, also, the most innocent expressions, which sometimes had quite a different meaning, or were spoken occasionally by the German player, were laid hold of, and undue importance attached to them. Amongst these may be mentioned the words attributed to him, "that it was a rare fortune for a player to win one or two games against Morphy." The fact is, that at dinner, before the last game was played, Anderssen said, jokingly and in good temper, " He was glad to have already two sheep in safety." Again, Anderssen is reported to have said, " II joue non seulement le coup juste, mais le coup le plus juste." (Morphy makes not only the best, but the very best move.) " No living player has a chance in play against Morphy ; it is uncertainty struggling against certainty."
The truth is, that Anderssen only spoke of the great correctness of Morphy's play, and simply remarked, that the American never made a mistake, and very rarely an error. We do not intend, by correcting these misstatements, to diminish the glory of the American; for, after all we have said before, it is evident this can not be our intention; but an impartial presentation of facts, devoid of national vanity, can only be in favour of the youthful champion who came off victorious; and, therefore, we will add here a few expressions of Anderssen's, which we can warrant to be authentic. He was asked if the American was superior in coolness and self-possession, and if his play in general had seemed to him superior to his own. The first part of the question was not strictly answered, for Anderssen merely replied to it as follows :—" I cannot say I believe so; for, in my own opinion, I was quite cool, but still I have overlooked the most simple moves." The second question was answered without reserve:—" He did not even in his dreams," he said, " believe in the superiority of his opponent; it is, however, impossible to keep one's excellence in a little glass casket, like a jewel, to take it out whenever wanted; on the contrary, it can only be conserved by continuous and good practice." It was asked of him, if there were any external disturbing influences at work, and how the witnesses and spectators behaved. As to the first question, it was not denied that unwonted noisy surroundings in the hotel chosen (Hotel Violet), produced sleepless nights, which by no means contributed to fortify him for the exhausting play of a match. The near spectators, as Messrs. A. de Riviere Preti, Journoud, and Edge, as well as the proper witnesses or honorary seconds, Messrs. St. Amant, Lequesne, Mortimer, and Grandboulogne, behaved, all of them, most honourably; amongst the other spectators, however, there were unmistakable, and sometimes very disturbing, sympathies shown for his opponent. Signs of impatience were chiefly exhibited when the German player took time for reflection; especially conspicuous therein was a certain baldheaded Italian, who generally managed to place himself close to the American player. To such influences may be attributed the turn in the sixth game of the match, move twenty-eight. The German master was, amongst, other things, also asked wherein the strength of his opponent lay, and what was his opinion of the lost games in comparison with those he won. As to the first part, he had already mentioned that the American never committed a mistake, and very seldom an error. As to the second point, the games won by the German player must be good, because Morphy never loses through mistakes or errors. The contrary may be said of the other games, which were generally thrown away by evident blunders. Besides, the question has been addressed to Anderssen, and especially from Leipzig, if he would again fight with Morphy, and how the latter had behaved to him. The answer was, that Morphy was invariably polite to him, but more so after his victory, and that he manifested his satisfaction by several little attentions. He had distinctly promised, besides, to pay a return visit to Germany in the month of March ; whereupon, if he had no objection to idle away a fortnight in Breslau, most likely a return match could be arranged. Finally, the same parties inquired how the American master spoke of Anderssen's play. Upon this the German player replied with well-founded confidence:— " To express an opinion upon this subject was impossible for Morphy, as I had not gone to Paris to get a certificate of ability. Those who surrounded the American, however, seemed to think that they flattered me most when they said, how high an opinion the American had of my play, and that he considered me the strongest of all opponents he had met till now. But to be reckoned stronger than a Lowenthal I consider next door to nothing! "
The fact that Morphy had small hands were an advantage. He didn't accidentally touch other pieces and knock them over when moving.
Batgirl, that was a very dense, but informative post. Thanks for sharing it!
Good stuff batgirl. Unfortunately, I've already made up my mind and am no longer open to additional information. 
Edit: I recently stumbled upon an online collection of Antique Chess Books and Periodicals. It's fascinating to read original material from the period. I can appreciate your interest.
http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezie0b.html
I was impressed by the polite, bad-mouthing. Also, the context of the period works it's way into the discussions, e.g. the Civil War and the antagonisms between European countries at the time.
Seeing as Morphy beat all the champs in Europe at the time, and staunton himself refused to play, AND morphy beat the worlds best while he had a bad stomach flu, yah I'd say he was pretty good. But you have to remember chess was played differently in the 1800's. Morphy was a VERY talented player, and if he grew up now adays he would have adapted to modern play just as well as he adapted to former play. So please, Shut up and stop criticizing everything and everyone, I mean you are a lower rated player yourself. Just enjoy the game, and show civility, please.
It makes no difference whether it's casual or not. In fact, as a casual game it should be of better quality.
Do you hear yourself right now? "It doesnt matter if he won" really, I had no idea that in chess, winning wasn't the goal. and it makes no difference if it was casual? It makes a whole world of difference, You have no Idea what was going on in his mind at the time, he hardly cared about chess when he was competing, let alone casual games. It was a thing he did for a couple years while he waited on being a lawyer, and he still beat everyone.
Here is a game showcasing how terrible and overrated Moprhy has become:
are you kidding, what an awesome game.. I like it way more then the game in the opera or the one against Paulsen. Man i think i will have to study all of morphy games now.
One should be careful when hand-picking games as being representative.
man do you even play chess??? the game he represented at the beginning was just aWESOME!!! ofc it was representive
yes but why would you think its not representive it was an awesome game
In that game Morphy played the man more than the board. But Morphy was supremely confident of his own play and an astute judge of his competition. His competition here was relatively weak, so Morphy played riskier and perhaps not the best moves, although good moves nonetheless and finished with his usual flair. As with most of Morphy's off-hand games, his brilliance is put into a frame of his opponent's own making. Games that represent his real talent and skill, as I see it, are those against the best players of the time - Paulsen, Anderssen, Harrwitz, Lowenthal.
Steinitz:
1. Lived in the same era.
2. Played almost the same players.
3. Was only born a year after Morphy.
4. Played chess with greater accuracy.
5. Played far more brilliant combinations.
Far more brilliant combinations?? You must be joking.
No, I'm not joking.
You should see some of his games against Lasker or Blackburne.
Hahaha, Rybka actually said that? I gotta get the newest version then. It would be real cool if it sounded like Joe Pesci from all the mob movies.
Steinitz:
1. Lived in the same era.
2. Played almost the same players.
3. Was only born a year after Morphy.
4. Played chess with greater accuracy.
5. Played far more brilliant combinations.
And it took 4 months of hard work for yereslov to come up with this brilliant observations. 
Hahaha, Rybka actually said that? I gotta get the newest version then. It would be real cool if it sounded like Joe Pesci from all the mob movies.
Rybka doesn't really say anything.
... I was thinking of him from an all-enconmpassing perspective.
I just can't stop laughing at this