Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

You’re not going to educate me on anything.

Jeff Lacy was massively overhyped.

With or without a shoulder injury, he wasn’t a great fighter.

That was also just an example of how fighters can be rated higher than other guys who go on to do better things afterwards.

Again, Ricky Hatton was once rated higher than Manny.

So Ruddock being rated higher than Mercer for a short period, does not mean that he was better than Ray Mercer.

We’re not just comparing a quick snapshot in time.

We can see what happened.

We can see how their careers played out.


Donovan Ruddock did not have more ability than Ray Mercer.

He wasn’t as skilled.

He also suffered hammerings to two guys who Mercer fared great with.


You have no argument that Ruddock was better than Mercer.

Again, we can do a poll or start a thread.


He was also fortunate that Lennox traded with him?

So you don’t give him credit for his performance over Lennox?


You’ve also not taken into account Larry’s age.

I believe that he was in his early 40’s when he beat Mercer.

That means that he was older than Mike was when Mike was losing back to back fights against two Euro level HW’s.


Again, Larry’s win over Mercer was better than anything that Mike did in both the 90’s and the 00’s.

 

It appears to me that you are being argumentative, as well as being in a position where you’ve just dug yourself a bigger hole.

Again, we can do a poll or a thread.


Ruddock was a dangerous fighter, as he was strong with lots of power.

However, he didn’t have the ability that Ray Mercer had.

Ray Mercer proved that he was a better fighter than Donovan Ruddock.


Regarding Gerry Cooney, why was he the most important win of Larry’s career?

How was Gerry Cooney more dynamic than Ray Mercer?

When and how did both of those guys reach a higher level than Mercer?


Yes, Mercer could lose to the elite.

As did Cooney and Ruddock.


As with Ruddock and Cooney, Mercer was also a threat to anyone in his prime.


So the only reality here, is that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.

 

Some more comedy gold from you.

Especially as you aren’t even aware that you’ve destroyed your own argument.


That so called ‘plodding’ Mercer destroyed a guy who BEAT Donovan Ruddock.

That so called ‘plodding’ Mercer almost beat a Steward trained Lewis, yet Ruddock couldn’t even make it out of the 2nd round against him.


Regarding Cooney reaching higher levels etc, you’re talking about a guy who couldn’t even make it beyond the 2nd round against a 41 year old George Foreman.


Ha!

This is great entertainment.

Please continue.

 

Ruddock was obviously not the same fighter?

So: Context is absolutely fine when it suits your agenda, but when it doesn’t, it gets completely ignored.


No, I don’t want to do triangle theories.

I have only done that to highlight how bad your posts are.

There’s lots of triangle theories that we could do.

However, it’s not me who’s making these bold and ridiculous claims.


What you’ve written in this thread is absolute nonsense.

As per usual, you are completely devoid of any objectivity.


Your initial thoughts on Mike losing to Douglas:

“Well done, pat yourself on the head and have a cookie”


Your thoughts on Mercer going the distance with Lennox, and almost beating him:

“He was lucky that Lennox traded with him”


I could go on and on.

It’s there for all to see.


Regarding Cooney, if you think that he was so great, and that he was much more dynamic than Mercer was etc, then you can give Larry huge credit for having beaten him.

Except you won’t.


To be honest, I don’t know why you even bother making these types of threads, when you can’t allow yourself to be fair.

 

Not an insane take tbh

 

I know exactly what was going on.

You’re not going to tell me anything.


You’ve also completely missed the point.

The point is:

You’ll apply context when it suits, but won’t if it doesn’t.


Now tell me why Larry should have granted him a rematch?

He fouled him repeatedly, he was TKO’d and then he kept retiring.

Larry didn’t have to rematch him at all.


Golota?

Really?

He quit.


Again, wins over Golota and Seldon etc, weren’t great wins.

He was also fed very low level competition and easy stylistic fights by King, who was clearly protecting him before cashing him out against Lennox.

Guys like Savarese and Francis were low level guys.

Brian Neilson etc.


None of those were better than a win over Mercer, at a time when Mike was already in retirement, due to him no longer being capable of beating even non world level guys.

 

Around and around we go.

At least you’re providing me with some good entertainment.


Ruddock was not better than Mercer. Ruddock was dangerous because he was strong and powerful. But he wasn’t in any way better than Ray Mercer, where he had more ability.

Again, do a poll or start a thread, and we’ll see what everyone else thinks.


Neither Bruno or McCall were on another level to Mercer.

McCall has his monster win over Lennox, in the same way that Rahman does.

Mercer couldn’t top that, but we can see what McCall did during the rest of his career.

You’ve also missed the most important factor, which was that Holmes beat a very good fighter in Ray Mercer, at 42! An age where Mike had long since retired, as he was no longer capable of fighting.

Again, Mike couldn’t beat Euro level HW’s in his late 30’s.

So Larry beating Mercer at that age was very impressive.

More impressive than Mike having beaten Bruno and Bruce Seldon when he was 30.

Again, context.


Golota quit. He had obvious psychological issues.


Brian Neilson beat Larry?

Ha!

When Larry was 47-48?

And how can that be of any relevance to you, when you don’t care that Morrison beat Ruddock?


Please continue.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if you rated Rahman higher than Mercer.

 

1. Both were brilliant and dominant at their respective peaks.

2. Holmes was at or around his peak for longer and his decline from peak was less dramatic. Therefore, he dominated for longer.

3. Holmes beat Mercer aged 42, whereas Tyson lost to Williams and McBride aged 38.

What boxers do when they're way past their best, at an age long removed from their physical peak, isn't especially relevant to how I rank them, so I only mention 3 as it's been discussed in this thread.

Tyson at his best was every bit as good as Holmes at his. Holmes had the greater career because of point 2) above.