George Foreman vs. Ray Mercer in 1995

I do.

 

I know you do. You argued hammer and tong about how he'd just bob and duck and make Foreman miss all night while hammering him with impunity. Its a notion that I myself find to be rather ridiculous, but hey if we agreed on everything here it would be more like an old lady's tea party and not a boxing forum. :good

 

It would be Round 7 of the Holyfield fight until someone stops the fight for Foreman's own good.

 

Morrison was normally a come forward type of fighter. But when he met foreman in 93, he ran like a thief in the night. So you cant use him as an example...i didnt say foreman would blast mercer ala norton and frazier. I said what his key weapons would be...foreman was good enough by then to deal with a limited slugger like mercer. But considering the chin on both, it would go th distance.

 

Thank you

 

Agree on all accounts.. Just change round 7 to round 10. Give Tyson a swollen face and anticipate a late retirement in Foreman's corner.. Now we concur on everything. :good

 

Than you don't agree on all accounts.

 

He's certainly a valid example for that reason. Foreman was so slow at this point that a guy far more comfortable pressuring, was able to potshot his way to a decision off the back foot.

Not really, an aggressive Stewart beat the tar out of him just a few years prior. Working behind a hard jab as he did in 95 against Holyfield, Mercer could do the same.

Now the Mercer who made an ass out of himself against Holmes and Ferguson is losing this for sure.

 

LOL

 

Foreman didnt prepare properly for Stewart, clearly he expected a quick win. He almost got it, if you remember, Stewart was Down hard in the first couple of rounds, then Foreman tired. Which was something that rarely happened in his second career. He knew how to pace himself.

Sure he was slow, but your arguments dont hold. in 97 a 48 year old foreman kept up with Young guns Savarese and Briggs, beating them both clear..He could have done the same with Mercer if he had his mind set to it.....What fight are you gonna bring up now?

 

Savarese and Briggs aren't on Mercer's level. WHo did they fight before facing Foreman? Mercer was more experienced, more dangerous and just overall a better fighter. Comparing those two to Mercer won't cut it.

 

Off course it does, and this was two years later and a now 48 year old forman. Nuff said.

 

And who had mercer beaten at that time...? Only name'was morrison..plus he lost to jesse ferguson.....

 

Mercer by 1995 was no better than Savarese or Briggs were 1997. He hadn't beaten anyone of note since 1991. He was losing fights to an aged Holmes, Jesse Ferguson and drew with Wilson. He barely squeaked by Mark Wills and Ferguson in the rematch..

But I'd still give Ray an edge to eek out the decision by virtue of the fact that I just think Foreman had started going to **** after the Moorer fight. It would be close and probably controversial, but looking at Mercer's galant effort against Lewis 1996, it was better than anything Foreman did from 1995 onward.

 

Foreman's best comeback days were probably from 1989-1991. Certainly not 1992-1997.. The Michael Moorer fight of 94' was the last and final display of George Foreman's power and ability as a world class fighter. It was a great win and great performance. But it also had just as much to do with having a chinny opponent who opted to trade with him at the right time and place, and who otherwise was beating the **** out of him. Had Moorer chose to play it a little safer, he likely would have taken it on the cards. George was right around 44 or 45 at the time of that fight, and 45 is the magical age where a lot of guys start turning into old men, and I mean most men and not necessarily just athletes. A guy like Crawford Grimsley never would have taken a 1990 Foreman the distance and in truth, Axel Schultz likely would have been stopped too.