I think his weight, if anything, helped Mercer against Lewis. I can't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that Mercer's weight going into the Lewis fight was intentional. I'm not sure I fully understand your compromise. But, anyway - On paper, Mercer's form was obviously going to look better, when facing Holmes as an undisputed [albeit stripped] titlist, than how it appeared going into either of the Holyfield and Lewis bouts. But, if we were to follow the '91 Mercer form guide, going into the Holmes match, then we could reasonably predict that he was going to have to stopped Holmes, after being behind on the cards, in order to win. I think that, as soon as you take the wild assaults and considerable wasted effort out of Mercer's game-plan (if it that's what it was) against Holmes; reintroduce a consistent jab and a steady marshaling of his energy, then it certainly changes the shape of the fight, in my opinion.
You're explanation for why Holyfield's performance against Mercer is rarely, if ever, compared with Holmes' performance, against the same, is interesting. It demonstrates just how much weight you place on this one Lewis fight, as a benchmark for Lewis' place in history - and perhaps why you find it hard to offer Mercer much in the way of credit, for having improved enough by the time he faced Lewis, to make it worth noting. Myself, I don't think any of the ATG HW lists I have ever pondered on composing, have entertained Lewis being above Holmes. (Not sure, but I just can't recall one). I'm not even certain Lewis could beat Holmes, Head-to-Head. Both points are well within the realms of being arguable - and reasonably so.
No danger. Holyfield was greater than Holmes with a bullet. Unless you mean just at heavyweight then I don't really mind which way round they're ranked (though I have Holmes above Holyfield at HW).
Fair enough. I've just noticed you refer to the fight, in relation to playing down Lewis rating, in virtual isolation, before now. It seems to be at the forefront fo your arguments, provided in similar discussions. It is noteworthy, of course, and maybe I am reading to much into this. I'm of the same mind, but also see that Mercer's lack of discipline, which he then turned around in a several fight transition, led him to give two fine performances against the two leading Heavyweights of the decade - both of whom were on the comeback trail with a lot to lose, had things gone against them. I don't doubt it. Mine too and, as I imagine, most people's arguments are, when discussing events and facts, which have occurred within the range of living memory. But events and facts can be interpreted differently - both at the time and through subsequent refinement, in hindsight.
By my count the decade had six active hall of fame members. It will be 7 ( Wlad ) in a few years and possibly 8 ( Moorer ) when all is said and done. I'd cap it at nine ( Witherspoon ). Not only was the talent at the top very good, it had depth. To say it a different way, I bet most people have four or more fighters from the 1990's in their top 20 and you might be one of them! Thats 20% from one decade. Or check the Ring Magazine annual ratings, and you'll have trouble finding decades with better talent, period. Fighters who didn't win titles like Ike, or Tua would be one of the champions today, or would have at least held the title.
Yes. The '90s were frustrating, because the capacity for splintering the titles became the device of certain promoters, boxing managers, networks, lawyers etc. etc. We'd already perhaps seen a precursor of what was to come when Holmes relinquished his WBC title for an awarded title from the newly formed IBF. How many, I wonder, long for the days of one division; one belt. The heavyweight bouts of the '90s, with just THE Championship on the line, would no doubt have written a different chapter. That said, the '90s was an exceptionally rich period, as well as being perhaps a welcome relief, after the sequential dominance of the 80's by Holmes and Tyson, respectively.The period also marked quite a shift in the division, with the dawn of the elite class Super Heavies. Personally, I rate the '70s as being greater than the '90s, overall, but I'd not argue the case too strongly. The '90s had some extraordinary - tough and dangerous Heavyweights.
This .. Mercer was a real talent. He only turned pro at 28 which was late back then. There was no margin for error He was 15-0 then beat Cooper Damiani Morrison At that point his career looked excellent, then came the Holmes defeat , followed by Ferguson and the Marion Wilson draw. Owing to his age ( by now 34/35 ) which was ageing/ veteran back then , he had little time to regroup . He got the Holyfield and Lewis fights when past his best age related , but put up good shows. Ideally if he hadnt screwed up against Holmes and Ferguson well who knows ? Truth is back then when you turn pro at 28 you have no margin for error. Its gonna take you 3 years to get to 15-0 then you gotta keep winning. If you get beat X 2 and have to start over, then you gonna get your big shots when you mid 30's and past your best. That's what happened with Ray. He was very good. Dont underestimate those wins against Damiani and Morrison for a guy of limited experience at the top level.
For xyz reasons, Mercer as a serious contender was done after Lewis. I hate it when fighters are analysed like its career relevant when way past their best.
I think Mercer expected to beat Holmes quite easily as did most people .Ray I think was the type of fighter who fed off fear not that he was scared but fighters he saw as dangerous woke him up training hard and fighting hard !.if not he could sleep walk through fights and lose or go close against guys he should deal with easily. I always hoped to see him against Tyson pre or post nick ! Would of been a tremendous fight which could go Ether way .Mercer was a real hard &astard and didn't give a ****.
