Opposites in many ways, these two are kind of there or thereabouts in terms of the overall quality of their resume and abilities. Even weirder, you hear people name them both underachievers and overachievers based on intangibles, which is really strange and seems to depend entirely upon point of view. So, who would you rank higher? RAY MERCER beat Ossie Ocasio pretty early doors and went three years before his first loss, to Larry Holmes, and in the interim he beat some really good guys, running over Bert Cooper (UD12), Francesco Damiani (KO9) and Tommy Morrison (TKO5) in quick succession. He lost to Jesse Ferguson not long after Holmes, avenged this defeat, and then stepped up to take on Holyfield and Lewis, back-to-back. The Lewis performance is the more famous, but I thought he was excellent in both of these losses. Nevertheless, Tim Witherspoon was the only interesting win to follow - Wlad pasted him in '02 and that was him, rally. DONOVAN RUDDOCK beat a sliding Mike Weaver to one-up Mercer for an out-the-traps win and stayed dominant over middling competition until he stepped up versus James Broad in 1988, cannoning him out in just a round. Bonecrusher Smith and Mike Dokes followed to complete his equivalent to Mercer's Cooper-Damiani-Morrison bag, before a superb pair of efforts against Mike Tyson in 1991. Like Mercer, he still had something left after this effort stopping Greg Page and taking Phil Jackson's 0 before Lennox Lewis absolutely crushed him. Two guys who were pretty exceptional but couldn't do it at the highest level, one mobile with a snapping jab, the other plodding but with great stoicism and his own excellent thudding jab. Who do you reckon you would rate higher? For a bonus point, who do you think would win a fight? But the vote is on "greatness" (although neither was great).
Good post..but think u answered your own question..nothing between them in terms of achievement and same level..but so different styles. If you could match them up on their best ever night each...i would go for Mercer as he was so 'durable' for want of a better word...think he would outlast Ruddock over 12 rounds..Both excellent boxers who would be HW champ without a shadow of doubt if around today...their era was the best ever IMO...TYSON LEWIS DAMIANI BOWE MASON HOLYFIELD BRUNO MORRISON BIGGS GOLOTA TUCKER TUBBS MCCALL and more..would ALL be number one now.
i tend to rate ruddock a little higher. they were both good but both had there problems. i dunno i just tend to think of mercer as the bigger dissapointment out of the two
Interestingly enough, Ruddock was highly thought of as the next heavyweight champion and possibly the best heavyweight in the world after Tyson was removed from the game. He was heavily favored to beat Lewis as well as the would be winner of Holyfield Vs Bowe. I don't think Mercer was ever in that sort of position. He went from being a hot prospect to being fringe where he basically remained. Mercer has claim to the Olympic gold medal and WBO title. His wins are comparable to those of Donoven's. Ray had no early career defeats to journeyman, while Ruddock lost to Jaco. But Mercer also lost to Ferguson and drew with Wilson at a time when he shouldn't have. Tough call. I suppose if forced to choose I'll go with Mercer as having the better legacy. He was only stopped once late in his career to a peaking Wladimir Klitschko and has a few wins over guys who were a bit more primed than the ones Ruddock beat. He also gave fits to a better version of Lennox Lewis than the one who killed Ruddock. Throw the Olympic gold medal and WBO title in their and I'd say it about covers it.
Mercer did a little more in his career, but Ruddock, on his best day, was the more dynamic fighter and would be more capable of icing more good-elite heavyweights than Mercer could beat. Oh, and I think Mercer's wins over Damiani and Morrison are both a little bit better than anything Ruddock has on his resume.
Mercer He wasn't quite the same after the Cooper fight imo & the Witherspoon fight took a lot out of him too.
Very close, both fighters had a lot of momentum at one point in their careers. Both were durable (Mercer more so), both were powerful (Ruddock more so) and both were at times inconsistent. I feel Ruddock at his very peak overall was the better of the two he really seemed to be one of the single best heavyweights in the world going into his fights against Tyson. In those fights he showed a lot of heart and gave hell to a very determined and well conditioned yet raw Mike Tyson though clearly being beaten in both fights. These fights proved Ruddock was one of the better heavyweights in the world yet also underlined how one dimensional he had become as he seemed to be 100% relying on his one punch power as opposed to trying to win rounds against Tyson who looked to be quite devastating but not nearly the defensive well school'd destroyer he was a few years back. He rebounded well from the Tyson fight but getting caught early and taken out by a young Lennox Lewis really seemed to derail his career and his desire to become great. Mercer overall I feel had to better career of the two. He started off with a lot of momentum coming out of the Olympics and got some big wins. The victories over Morrison and Damiani in fights he were trailing underlined his grit, durability and power but he proved even early on to be very inconsistent with lack luster performances in a number of his fights. An old Larry Holmes proved that Mercer was quite one dimensional by how he controlled him and whacked away on him on route to a clear decision victory. After that he really went downhill for a bit highlighted by his terrible performance against Jesse Ferguson. He came back put on excellent performances against Lewis and Holyfield in losing efforts and another good performance in beating Tim Witherspoon. He'd real off a couple more wins then a few years down the line take a terrible beating from a young Wladimir Klitschko. Overall Mercer had a very solid career and proved on a good night with his strength and durability he could give the best heavyweights in the world very tough fights and even possibly win. When it comes to who I'd rank higher its very difficult to say. As mentioned I feel Ruddock as his peak may have been the better of the two but Mercer had a better career overall. If I was to rank my top 50 heavyweights of all time I'm pretty sure these two would come along somewhere pretty much side by side.
I consider both to be top 100 all time heavyweights, but think Mercer was the better of the two, even if he was a tad more inconsistent.
