Old foreman vs Mercer

I think Mercer would win.

George would have success with the jab but his power punches would not affect Ray.

Neither guy would move much, it would a toe to toe war, similar to the Foreman/Alex Stewart fight.

Both guys had the solid chin to absorb the best shots of the other.

Neither had good defense.

Both would likely bust up.

Ray would land more with his faster hands and win a decision.

Mercer had great trouble with cagey boxers but guys who stood and fought like Morrison, Cooper, Holyfield and Lewis either were beaten or won very competitive fights.

Mercer fought a very high grade of opposition, and other than the Ferguson fiasco (where he was out of shape and tried to bribe Jesse) he aquitted himself well.

 

It was common knowledge that the Bert Cooper who quit against Foreman in '89 was on drugs.

He was coming off losses to Nate Miller and Everett "Big Foot" Martin

The Cooper who fought Mercer was on the rebound.

He went on to give Holyfield and Moorer exciting wars.

Comparing how Foreman and Mercer did against Cooper means little.

The competitive war that Foreman had with Alex Stewart is an indicator to me that prime Mercer could give Old George a very hard time.

You may disagree, fine

But don't denegrate and bad mouth everyone in this thread who disagrees with you.

We are all very knowledgeable.

 

The difference is mercer was in his prime and was dropped by holyfield so how the hell did mercer do better against holyfield than foreman you idiot?

 

Youre missing the point.

People are comparing how they did against common opponents when the evidence show foreman usually does better.

Foreman was a fat 40 year old man who knocked out a guy mercer went the distance with. Drugs or not, it might indicate a clear power and chin advantage old foreman had over mercer. Holyfield dropped mercer but couldnt drop foreman. Foreman schooled briggs but mercer was stopped by briggs, etc.

The only exception is the morrison fight. Its common knowledge morrison chose to run and change tactics against a fat 40 year old man out of fear but went right at morrison. That says a lot, especially because even against other punchers like ruddock and lewis morrison was fought off the front foot and was aggressive.

 

Didn't Foreman lose to Shannon Briggs?

 

Watch the fight and you'll find out.

 

This is a non-truth and only serves to invalidate your argument.

If you actually saw the Stewart fight you'd see that Alex abandoned the toe - to - toe brawl with Foreman after he was nearly knocked dead in the second round. He fought the remainder of the fight boxing and moving off the back foot. It wasn't a toe-to-war so there is no argument winning for Mercer winning based off that fight.

If Cus D'mato said anybody who walks into Foreman will get flattened then you know that face first Mercer would have no chance whatsoever.

 

By winning a greater percentage of the rounds on two of the official scorecards.

Do you understand how boxing works?

 

Lou Savarese did alright.

 

You clearly dont understand that getting dropped and losin by UD is hardly anything to be proud of.

 

Savarese looked like a top rated world beater against Old Foreman. Not to mention so did Alex Stewart, Tommy Morrison, Crawford Grimsley, Axel Schulz and Shannon Briggs (who should've lost).

If we compare their opposition from 1990-1997 I think Mercer did a fairly better job against the best:

Mercer
KO9 Damiani
KO5 Morrison
L12 Holmes
L10 Ferguson
W10 Ferguson
L10 Holyfield
L10 Lewis
W10 Witherspoon

Foreman
KO2 Cooney
L12 Holyfield
W10 Stewart
L10 Morrison
KO10 Moorer
W12 Schulz
W12 Savarese
L12 Briggs

Mercer went 2-2 against common opponents where Foreman went 1-3 against common opponents. Mercer beating Morrison and Cooper but losing to Holyfield and Briggs. Foreman beating Cooper but losing to Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs.

Mercer fought the better competition in Damiani, Morrison, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis and Witherspoon. Mercer struggled but went 3-3 against them with a couple close losses to Holyfield and Lewis. He arguably lost to Spoon but arguable beat Lewis.

Foreman fought Holyfield, Stewart, Morrison, Moorer and I guess Briggs. Foreman struggled in every one of his wins against top rated opposition. His wins over Stewart and Schulz were controversial and his loss to Briggs was as well.

Overall I feel Mercer fought the better competition and came out better winning the WBO title in the process. Mercer beat undefeated Damiani, undefeated Morrison, and beat a resurged Witherspoon. Foreman's winning the WBA, IBF belts made him lineal and had the best win over undefeated Moorer. Other than that his victories left a lot to be desired.

 

I wasn't saying it was anything to be proud of. I was specifically comparing it to your Foreman example, which you were trying to use to bolster your argument, despite the fact that Foreman got resoundingly beaten on all three judges' scorecards. In other words LOSING BY UNANIMOUS DECISION.

Mercer got dropped, but he also did a lot better over the course of the fight. That's reflected in the scorecards.

 

Not prime past prime Foreman.

You take Foreman from the years 88-94 . Any Foreman from that period beats Mercer. That Foreman would beat plenty guys better than Mercer.

 

Let me explain it to you kids like this. From 1991 to 1997 Foreman was still fighting better fighters than Mercer was. Foreman was fighter guys like Alex Stewart who was 28-3 at the time ( His only loses at the time were Holyfied ,Moorer, and Tyson) . Mercer was losing to guys like Jesse Ferguson. Foreman was fighting and beating tough rugged guys like 39-4 Pierre Coetzer and Mercer was drawing with Marion Wilson. Foreman was fighting guys like undefeated Michael Moorer 35-0, Lou Savarase 36-0, and 29-1 Shannon Briggs. While Mercer was fighting Mike Dixon. Jerry Halstead, and Tony Willis.

Of course Mercer fought Lennox Lewis and did well for himself. Mercer landed numerous flush punches on the so called weak chin Lewis and couldn't hurt him. Yet Rahman and McCall put Lennox to bed with one punch. But still a good fight for Mercer. Ray Also fought Holyfield and so did Foreman. Fought for the undefeated version and Ray fought a more wore down version. Foreman still did better and was never knocked down like Ray was. They both fought Morrison. Morrison kicked the crap out of Mercer and hurt him various time. Gassed out and got stopped. Morrison fought smart against Foreman ( I am assuming because he didn't want to gas himself out agian) and beat Foreman but never hurting him.

Mercer did fight Tim Witherspoon and beat him but Tim wasn't close to being in his prime. Mercer was always overrated. I guess because he was a US Olympian when that meant something so peopel wanted him to be good. His best wins in his career were against Morrison who as I said dominated him and hurt him but gassed out and against Francesco Damiani who was way ahead on the scored card before he quit because of a broke nose. So basically Ray Mercer best 2 wins he got lucky. Besides doing well against Lennox Lewis who Foreman called out various times and never got a fight . What did Ray ever do. He struggled with average fighters.

Mercer didn't have the punch to hurt Foreman and he wasn't a mover to cause Foreman problems. Even if you want to believe Ray had a great chin ( His chin was good but never a great as Foreman's). Evander was able to hurt him and make him take a knee. Lewis could of done the same if he didn't let Ray smother him and went to the body more. Foreman could of actually fought him instead of Shannon Briggs. Briggs was a bigger punch and had faster hands. It would even say Briggs was more durable. Lennox did stop him and so did Wilson. Both were more of fatigue problems, not chin problems. Even past this prime Briggs took a beating from Vitali Klitsckho who is probably a bigger puncher than Wlad and still wouldn't do down. Foreman should of took the Mercer fight. I don't know if he would of accepted it though. Mercer just stood there. He never nothing to really bother even a 48 year old Foreman. That version would easily win a decision. The Foreman who faced Holyfield up until the Pierre Coetzer fight would of probably stopped Ray similar to Wlad.

 

Wow you really are an idiot.

They BOTH lost by UNANIMOUS DECISION, it doesnt matter if you think mercer won more rounds than foreman. Holyfield won on all three cards in both fights.

I only said its worse for Mercer because he was in his prime and got dropped, Foreman was a fat 40 year old man with 10 years of ring rust yet he landed almost the same number of jabs as a prime Holyfield. If you still dont get it i cant make it any more simple. But dont respond with anymore bullcrap about mercer doing better "over the course of the fight" when he still lost on all 3 cards JUST LIKE FOREMAN.

Let me give you an example: if 10 guys are having a race and

-racer A wins getting 1st
-racer B finishes 7th
-racer C finishes 8th

Do you realize how stupid you would sound trying to argue that racer B is a "way better runner" than racer C because he placed one number higher? They both lost bad. And if racer B was in his 20's and racer C is fat and 40 it looks even worse.