On first glance of this thread,it looks a bit barmy,does n't it ? Holmes as a late bloomer peaked circa 1978-82. When he lost his title to Michael Spinks in '85,he was three years past his best,and when he beat Ray Mercer seven years later,he was TEN years past his best. What I'm talking about is making the best of what Holmes had left. When he beat Mercer,he utilised his ring generalship,as he realised that he could n't fight as he used to. His speed was virtually gone. In his last defence against Spinks in '85,he tried to fight like the Easton Assassin of old,but simply could n't do it anymore.
Mercer was very inconsistent, there are merely 2 occasions in which he looked "very good" in fights... Ray only impressed me against Holy in '95 & Lewis in '96, & even then he lost both fights.
No, I don't think he was more effective. The Holmes of 1985 would have beat Mercer even more clearly. Mercer was a tough fighter but he wasn't a particularly good boxer - Michael Spinks, Carl Truth Williams were much better.
Slightly, yes. He fought more like a 42 year old than a guy trying to be 25 again. But as has been stated by others, it helped to have a guy like Mercer in front of him rather than a slick Heavyweight. Or even moderately talented. I'm a huge Holmes fan. I loved that Mercer fight. One of my personal favorites. The thing that stuck out to me is that it was a full 7 years after his last major win. Great comeback regardless of what one thinks of Mercer.
