Mercer had a higher punch output against Holmes.He just was better conditioned in that fight.Against Lewis he needed to rest on occasions and could not always sustain the pace. I do not know why you imply that Mercer suddenly improved during the later years of his career.I haven’t heard that one before and would not agree with it.
That's not what I've been suggesting. At no time have I implied this was a 'sudden' improvement. The period of time in question has also been quite specific - and it has not been focused on Mercer's "later years". The timeframe was actually well within the realms of his meaningful career, before injury and illness took a hold of him. There were more than 4 years between his matches with Holmes and Lewis. Proposing that Mercer improved during that period is hardly an unreasonable position for anyone to take. The manner in which he acquitted himself, against Holyfield, his opponent prior to Lewis, supports that view. You "haven't heard that one before"? Really? You replied to at least one poster, making the same claim, before me - so, I'm not sure where the source of your surprise comes from. Whether you agree with it or not, the idea that a boxer can get better after several more fights, over the course of several more years, is not a novel outlook, out of left field. To a fair extent it aligns with common sense.
Mercer really wasn`t that good early in his career, he struggled with Cooper also, he gave Holy problems later on he certainly improved, he became harder to hit I thought that was common knowledge.
Well he says about their fight - I learned how to throw my jab off Larry. He had one of the best jabs in the world, ever. His jab improved post Holmes.
Of course he was favored to beat Holmes which, after coming off two great, come-from-behind KO Wins, fed his over-confidence; something clearly evident in Mercer against Holmes. However, charging in with lead rights and hooks, dispensing with the jab almost entirely; throwing punches at a rate of knots; not marshaling one's energies and missing over 70% of one shots, whilst evidence of him being highly game, was perhaps more a sign of him needing to mature. And the mixed results played a part in his gained experience, which I think made him appreciate his opportunities against Holyfield and Lewis, with a more measured and mature approach - both to his training and to the events. I think this is more than evident from him in the performances themselves. Whilst it might seem convenient for some to look at it this way, I don't think anyone has stated that Lewis/Mercer represents Mercer's absolute peak. It's not as though Mercer had this one, isolated performance of note, against Lewis. His previous outing, against another of the major protagonists of the '90s was also a very solid showing. As stated above, Mercer was reckless and overconfident against Holmes; not so against either Holyfield or Lewis. You, of course, disagree but I saw a significant improvement in Mercer, post-Holmes. We'll just have to accept our differing views on that one. A neutral observer might say a lot of things, other than what you think they would. As above, the degree to which Mercer improved after Holmes is up for debate. Small changes can have big impacts but, as already outlined, I think there was a lot for Mercer to work on after the Holmes defeat. Mercer won the Ferguson rematch with relative ease, in my opinion, even though he played to Ferguson's strengths, at times. Ferguson was also very game - probably thought he had Mercer's number and had brief moments in a few of the rounds but, other than round 6, in which Mercer had a point deducted, it's difficult to identify a round that Ferguson won clearly, without doubt. The "styles make fights" truism goes a long way, but it can't account for all and every event, unexpected or otherwise, in boxing.
For gods sake Mark think about what you type. What "so-called ATG" did not have trouble with someone they shouldn't have on paper? How did Snipes drop Holmes and put him in such drastic condition? Why did Shavers drop him so hard when he'd been basically shut out not long prior by Holmes? Why did Spinks have such a tough night with Eddie Davis? Why did Brimm run SRR close? Why did Louis struggle with Godoy, Galento and Conn? Arguello - Fernandez? Tyson - Douglas? Holyfield - Cooper? Hearns - Barkley? Benitez - Curry? Duran - Laing? The list is endless. They basically all had their tough nights at the office. It happens for a multitude of reasons - ATG or other.
You're unbelievably annoying He was an Olympic gold medalist, I was going to call you a ***** but that's probably what you want
Amateurs mainly just wait and land counter punches, they don`t really know how to open an opponent up and miss more lead shots than pros do, Mercer was a more accurate puncher by the time he fought Holy and Lewis, he used to miss all ovder the place when he firsturned pro Tommy was boxing his ears off.
Tyson wasn`t a great fighgter without Rooney, Hrearns stopped fighting great some time after the Hagler fight he was far better at the lighter weights and was awesome v Benitez in `82 his last great win was v Duran in `84 and then he moved up and struggled at the bigger weight with strong fighters, Barkley was a powerful middleweight and looked how undefined Hearns body was in his rematch v Iran, he was nowhere near his old speed.
Mark just stop it lol The instant Rooney left Tyson he wasn't great anymore. Jesus Mark. Hearns was more vulnerable and slowly declining post Hagler but to say he suddenly wasn't an ATG is debatable. You missed the other 10 or so examples and if you want to attempt to break down and refute every example we could do 50 or 100 more. They are endless.
96-93 (which would have been 97-93, but for the point deduction from Mercer) is a comfortable win and, in the main, on account of Mercer being able to control Ferguson and his work on the outside, using the jab. It only ever looked close when Mercer was allowing Ferguson to work on the inside. And, even then, Mercer was getting the better inside, more often than not. The fight wasn't close, let alone "very close".
