Ray Mercer vs Tommy Gibbons

Fine, care to explain how.

Thats the problem, nobody has yet to tell me how Gibbons is going to beat Mercer actually using the style he fought in and not some imagined style that he never actually used.

Funny thing about Damiani is that he stood 3 inches taller than Gibbons, had a longer reach, actually moved when he boxed, and outweighed Gibbons by 50 pounds. He was better suited to take on someone like Mercer than Gibbons and he got knocked out. The closest guy anyone has to compare Gibbons against Mercer is Dempsey and Gibbons lost a wide UD after giving up trying to win and fighting to survive after round 5 or 6.

 

Neither of those pics show clearly his thick waist. He's not exactly a lean 225 pounds. And you'd have to question whether that was "naturally", since the same man was fighting at 200 pounds just a couple of years earlier in his late 20s. Let's put Dempsey on the same juice and see.

I'm not saying he wasn't bigger but I don't think "20-40 pounds bigger" than Dempsey.

Anyway, it's largely irrelevant, since Mercer was not that good.

 

There's no need for an "imagined style".
Gibbons was the better boxer. Mercer was a plodding brawler without any exceptional punching power.

 

Thats what I thought. You arent even going to attempt to tell me how Gibbons would do it, you cant.

You arent going to fight in Gibbons style and beat the best Ray Mercer giving up 40+ pounds. When you want to come back and tell me how thats done Id be happy to entertain it. There's a reason why Harry Kid Matthews was **** at HW, theres a reason why Mike Gibbons never fought any of the LHWs and even managed to lose to some MWs despite being one of the wonders of the age, theres a reason why Tommy couldnt do much at HW. The St. Paul style does not translate well to fighting larger, heavier, harder hitting opposition. You will get beat down. Period. You cant stand in the pocket against bigger guys who hit harder, that you cant hurt and hope to step around them and peck and poke out a decision. That style worked with guys their size because they could lean and bend out of reach, they could absorb the occasional punch, they could hurt the other guy enough to get his respect. How do you do that against a stronger guy who can lean on you, keep you on the end of his punishing jab, hurt you much more, and not be hurt by you? Mercer would have no respect for Gibbons power, he walked through shots from guys like Tommy Morrison and Lennox Lewis both of whom would look like giants compared to Gibbons. He outjabbed Lewis in their fight, a guy who had an 84 inch reach. He stood toe to toe with these guys (and was even out of shape for Lewis). Ive got every s**** of footage on Gibbons and every fight thats available on Mercer going back to the amateurs and I dont see a thing that Gibbons brings to the table that would bother Mercer or outpoint him. I think at best Gibbons would go into survival mode and hope to hear the final bell. At worst he takes a beating and gets stopped. I mean Im serious, as a big fan of the Gibbons brothers and the St. Paul style Id like to hear how anyone thinks Gibbons would beat someone like Mercer. How exactly would he do it? Dempsey had to give Gibbons more respect than Mercer would have and he still won as many as 10-12 rounds even with the spurts that he allowed Gibbons to have. Put the Mercer who fought Morrison, or even the one who fought Lewis, in with the best Gibbons there ever was and I dont see Tommy winning more than a round or two at most.

Some are saying Mercer just wasnt that good. Really? What exactly did Gibbons do at HW beside run up a joke of a KO streak against aging cans and aging LHWs? What was Gibbons best HW win? Billy Miske? I rest my case. When Billy Miske MIGHT be your best HW win dont come at me like Gibbons was this unbeatable HW. Ray Mercer was a legit top ten HW in a very strong era (not a pitifully weak one that saw a MW in the top 2 at the time) who had a combination of size, strength, power, durability, and class that none of Gibbons victorys ever did. When you go into a shell and get snowed under on points because a light hitting MW like Greb, or a LHW like Boy McCormick, or a light hitting LHW like Gene Tunney, or a small (by Mercer's standards) HW like Dempsey are all over you then dont tell me Gibbons is going to beat Mercer. Thats if hed actually fight him. Since he ducked the 5'8" 180 pound black Kid Norfolk for 7 or 8 years Im not even sure Gibbons would face Mercer if given the chance.

 

I'm not going to give you some imaginary bullsh!t blow-by-blow account.

I can tell you that Gibbons would outbox Mercer because he was a better boxer and was tough for his size. Mercer wasn't a particularly explosive puncher, certainly not a sharp puncher. Mercer struggled with such ordinaries as Ocasio and Cooper and Wilson

Well, I saw lesser fighters than Gibbons, such as a fat Ossie O, win more than 2 rounds in a short fight with Mercer, and he stood right in there while doing it.
You can talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Gibbons' style all you want, but Mercer barely had a style.
It doesn't mean anything to have a granite chin if you're almost completely inept at avoiding punches, and flail away on the inside, wide open - against a good boxer you will lose.
You can "walk through shots" but every time one lands the man throwing 'em is one step ahead of the man catching 'em.

I saw you arguing against the worship of "granite jaw" HWs just the other day. Now you reveal your love for Mercer, who had little going for him except chin.

Gibbons wasn't unbeatable. I never suggested anything of the sort.
I'm saying he'd beat Mercer, which wouldn't necessarily put him in any sort of illustrious company.

Mercer's was so legit in such a strong era, he lost to a flabby old 42-year-old from a previous era, and proved over two fights to be on a par with the division's favourite perennial opponent/sparring partner, (who he even had to try to bribe to lose to him).
His best win was a dubious decision over an over-the-hill Witherspoon.

Whatever. You grossly underrated Tunney there, nevermind Gibbons.

I'm sure you have much higher opinion of men like Jesse Ferguson, Marion Wilson ....

 

What a fantasy load of bull****. Occasio, Cooper, and Wilson didnt even beat Mercer so I hope you arent hanging your hat on that. Nevermind that Mercer hadnt even been a pro for 1 yr when he fought Occasio who outweighed Gibbons by 30 pounds and was a former champion (something Gibbons never got close to). Both Wilson and Cooper outweighed Gibbons by 40+ pounds and Cooper at least was dynamite puncher, something Gibbons was not. If you want to match the worst Mercer with the best Gibbons then lets flip that and match the best Mercer with the Gibbons who did jack **** against Tunney and collapsed from punches that wouldnt have knocked over my grandma. See how that works. Lets match them at their best.

Gibbons was a better boxer. Debateable but big ****ing deal. Vernon Forrest was a better boxer than Mayorga and didnt have the detriment of being a much much smaller fighter. How did that work out for him? Hell, Id say the gap in talent between Forrest and Mayorga was much wider than the gap in talent between Gibbons and Mercer totally ignoring the added size difference.

The difference between the losers who worship chumps like Chuvalo and me giving Mercer a good shot to beat Gibbons is the simple fact that Mercer was more than a chin and Gibbons was a lot less than this master boxer you want to paint him as. He wasnt even the best fighter in his family or any division he ever fought in. Period. He was a front runner who didnt like pressure, wasnt a huge puncher even at MW much less HW. He had a padded record at HW and wasnt particularly mobile either. Add in the fact that hes undersized by a country mile compared to the guys you want to sell short and you have a huge ****ing mountain for him to climb and Gibbons wasnt a guy who liked climbing mountains. The sad fact is everything you said about Mercer you could also apply to Gibbons except youd have to pair down the guys he fought by 40 pounds. Perreniel contender who was never the best in any division he fought in, best win at HW came against an overrated dying also-ran like Miske (who himself was never the best fighter in his best division which just happened to be nearly 50 pounds south of Mercer), when the going got hot Gibbons went into a shell and lost wide points decisions, or got stopped and thats when he was actually fighting top guys instead of ducking them and fighting no-hopers. Now take that same guy and put him into the ring with Mercer. Ha, that **** would be funny.

No, I dont underrate Tunney. I give Tunney more credit than most as a fighter. But Tunney wasnt a hard hitter and he dominated Gibbons easily making him look absolutely impotent. I dont think Tunney was any better or more dangerous than Holyfield, to the contrary I think Holyfield was much better and Mercer fought a hell of a lot better fight against Holy than Gibbons ever did against the ATG HWs he fought. Against the champions he fought Mercer put up a better showing than Gibbons did and those champions were more daunting than the ones Gibbons had to face. Could Gibbons duplicate Mercer's performances against Witherspoon, Holy, Lewis? **** no. Would he have last six rounds against Klitchko at 41? **** no. I dont even know if Gibbons would have beaten Bert Cooper much less Mercer and Mercer did it when he was a baby in boxing terms. Gibbons is so overrated as a HW its ridiculous. Remember, this is the guy who only got his shot at Dempsey because HE LOST his elimination contest... to a MW...

 

Mercer was a very inconsistent fighter. Over and above this he just was not that good. He was easily outboxed by an aging Holmes who did not dance....he just outboxed him relatively flat footed mid ring and along the ropes. Why is it such a stretch to think a great boxer in his prime like Gibbons could not do the same?

 

Gibbons did not have the size, length or skill of even that older Holmes.
That was not a good version of Mercer anyway, & we are supposed to be comparing prime versions of both.

Mercer was definiotely good, top 10 in aqn excellent era, at his best.

It is absurd to ask a much smaller fighter who was not near an ATG from so many decades ago to be competitive in a case like this.

 

Very few hwt fighters were easier to outbox than Marcer. He seemed to freeze when he had to think in the ring.

 

Those fighters didn't beat Mercer, although Wilson arguably could have got the decision. But they won rounds.
Ocasio was a fat joke in the fight, his best fighting weight was around 188 pounds, not a big heavyweight. And, no, he was never a champion (unless you mean "alphabet cruiserweight", which they didn't even have in Gibbons' day).

Again, if Cooper was outweighing Gibbons by 40 pounds we're talking about a fat Bert Cooper. He was maybe 20 legit pounds heavier but hardly known for durability or defense, and went 12 rounds with Mercer.
No, these fights are not important, I just thought I'd remind you that Mercer was fairly mediocre performer.

If Mercer had improved dramatically or much at all, then you'd be right to protest those fights. But he hardly did.
He remained a very basic fighter his whole career.

Well, you already mentioned the Tunney and Greb fights, and any other poor Gibbons' performance a few posts back.

1. Mercer was a "chump like Chuvalo". So I guess you're the "loser".

2. Mercer was not much more than a chin.

3. Far from painting Gibbons as a "master boxer", I'm simply saying he was good enough to beat Mercer, which does not in any way qualify him as a "master".

Tunney fought a shop-worn Gibbons. Tunney himself stated that he fought an over-the-hill Gibbons.

Conversely, imo, Mercer's career best performance comes against a shop-worn Holyfield.

You're comparing Gibbons at his worst against Mercer at his best.
Which contradicts what you suggested earlier, "match them at their best".

Styles make fights.
We could go on for ages cross-referencing and guessing who does what against who.
Obviously Mercer's strengths lay in soaking up punishment against the big men and dragging them into the trenches, he was good against big punchers who banked on taking him out or making him quit, but against those elite he still lost. He also lost to less-than-elite fighters who boxed him.

Mercer never really grew much in boxing terms, unless we're talking weight-wise.
His peak was probably '91-'96, Cooper was just before his peak.
His most refined performances were against a faded Holyfield and an amateurish (in my opinion) Lewis, and the "win" against an old Witherspoon. I'm not knocking those performances, but he didn't exactly look much different from the man who fought Damiani, Mercer, Holmes.

Well, I don't know about you, but I think Harry Greb was quite exceptional.

 

Mercer, for the reasons Klompton2 explains.

 

What was Gibbons' greatest heavyweight victory?

Mercer beat Cooper, Morrison, Damiani, a streaking Witherspoon and fought a very close fight with a prime Lewis.

 

Klompton,

i havent decided on a winner, and i actually think this is a very interesting fight. Gibbons the better fighter, by quite a lot, but also obviously half the size of Mercer. I think you raise good points and at his very best probably does win. Or put another way, in a five fight series I doubt he loses them all. Though i also doubt he wins them all.

But since you ask how Gibbons would win, i dont think it is too hard to imagine a Gibbons win using his style in a fight similar to the Dempsey fight but with Mercer fading by about the 5th round or so. In the fight or fights Gibbons wins, i see Gibbons beating Mercer to the punch quite comfortably right from the start. And while i see Mercer landing, I think he is too slow compared to Gibbons to land cleanly too often, if at all. It is too simplistic to just say he leans on gibbons with his superior size. This is true, but he will be hit, quite clean before he leans, will not do anything substantial in the clinches because Gibbons will see it coming and roll/avoid the big KO punch. Eventually they will have to break and Mercer will get hit on the way in again. Much cleaner than what Mercer will land on Gibbons.

I know what you are saying about him taking Gibbons power but, noone can take clean shots consistently. Much like the first couple of shots from Roy Jones to Ruiz in their fight. They looked to have no effect, but eventually they worried him. I see the same here. The first couple of rounds would have mercer shake off Gibbons shots but eventually they would take their toll, and he would tire. If gibbons frustrates him like he did Dempsey, he will take over the fight in the later rounds and Mercer will struggle, like he did against Ferguson? when he realised he wasnt in shape to win the fight.

 

Gibbons

 

So did almost half the people Cooper fought.