Fourth and fifth best heavyweights of the nineties ?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

You need to go back and actually WATCH some of the fights you're commenting on, and it wouldn't hurt to take a course on rating fighters either. My guess is that you're rating Tua and Byrd based on what they did in the 2000's era and not where they stood two decades ago.

a course on rating fighters?

sure thing pal.

as I said before, I don't care whether you agree with me or not, it's a subjective sport. I didn't think Bowe lost his titles to Holy let alone Holy losing them to MM. he was a paper champ far as I'm concerned, rate him however you want, it's a free world

[mr. magoo]

=lufcrazy;13975699]
I don't care whether you agree with me or not

Sucks that I'm right, doesn't it?

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by Saltzy

Then his "losses" to Briggs or Morrison shouldn't count either.

Tua should not be in the running, he was schooled by Byrd and lost to Ike or was that 2000?

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Schulz was 'roided up when he fought Big George.

Was he? If so, that makes Holyfield, Morrison, Briggs, Schulz...Poor George.
Maybe Schulz lent some to Botha before their fight and covered it better.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Sucks that I'm right, doesn't it?

right about what?

This is a thread on a forum to be debated back and forth, your choice is just as valid as mine, neither are wrong nor right, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

you place who you want 5th, I'll do the same.

If you thought Holy beat Bowe and that MM beat Holy and that George did indeed become "the man" with that victory, that's great, I'm really pleased for you.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

right about what?

This is a thread on a forum to be debated back and forth, your choice is just as valid as mine, neither are wrong nor right, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

you place who you want 5th, I'll do the same.

If you thought Holy beat Bowe and that MM beat Holy and that George did indeed become "the man" with that victory, that's great, I'm really pleased for you.

Have a good evening.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Have a good evening.

I will indeed. Stella 4% is my new beverage of choice and I'm just about to tuck into the Tua v Ike fight. (I have a night off from my girlfriend you see)

Same to you squire

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Webbiano

Please argue his case jan, because I honestly can't see how he even makes the top 10. A win over Bert Cooper, Tommy Morrison and a well past it Spoon surely isn't enough to go above the likes of Moorer, Tua, Ike etc.

I am not generaly a fan of rating fighters based on loosing efforts, but the fact is that Mercer gave very competitive fights to both Lewis and Holyfield when it realy counted for something.

IThis suggests to me that at his best, he had a bit more going for him than Moorer or Tua, and was tantalisingly colse to being something realy special.

Thoughts?

[NoNeck]

Originally Posted by janitor

I am not generaly a fan of rating fighters based on loosing efforts, but the fact is that Mercer gave very competitive fights to both Lewis and Holyfield when it realy counted for something.

IThis suggests to me that at his best, he had a bit more going for him than Moorer or Tua, and was tantalisingly colse to being something realy special.

Thoughts?

He got outboxed pretty consistently through his career though. I wouldn't say he had more than Tua (who obv had a similar problem) or Moorer.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by janitor

I am not generaly a fan of rating fighters based on loosing efforts, but the fact is that Mercer gave very competitive fights to both Lewis and Holyfield when it realy counted for something.

IThis suggests to me that at his best, he had a bit more going for him than Moorer or Tua, and was tantalisingly colse to being something realy special.

Thoughts?

He did have good wins over peaking versions of Morrison, Damiani and Cooper along with a very close victory over a resurgent Tim Witherspoon whom the ring had ranked at #10 in 1996. His losing effort to Lewis was a galant one, and I myself felt that a draw verdict could have been appropriate. Never saw the Holyfield fight. So in essence, he does have some substance to go by. But at the same time, I feel that #5 is a tad high for someone who lost fights to Jesse Ferguson, an aged Holmes and drew with Marion Wilson. He certainly makes top 10 for the decade in my book.

[Unforgiven]

Maybe Mike Tyson at number 4.
Mostly for his two wins over Ruddock in 1991.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by janitor

I am not generaly a fan of rating fighters based on loosing efforts, but the fact is that Mercer gave very competitive fights to both Lewis and Holyfield when it realy counted for something.

IThis suggests to me that at his best, he had a bit more going for him than Moorer or Tua, and was tantalisingly colse to being something realy special.

Thoughts?

Well, Moorer beat (disputed but close) Holyfield before Mercer fought him.
Moorer also KO'd Cooper (albeit via almost being KO'd himself) whereas Mercer only outpointed him.