What If Wlad Klitschko Had Fought Lennox, Instead Of Vitali?

What are you talking about? It was almost a flawless performance. Ya, Lewis fought him when they were younger, but he wouldn't have gotten Mercer out of there sooner than Wlad.

 

Mercer wasn't remotely the same fighter Lewis fought. There's every chance Lewis gets him out of there just as fast, or faster. He was far more willing to put himself on the line than Wlad.

 

Mercer was 42 years old vs Wladimir and after 1996 he only fought 6 times up until fighting Wladimir in 2002.

And they were against 0 notable names aswell.

On paper it's not that impressive of a win given what stage Mercer was at in his career at that time.

There's also no reason to think that Lewis wouldn't dominate and stop that version of Mercer.

 

Nobody with the last name Klitschko was ever beating a prime Lewis. Vits didn't have the power, Wlad didn't have the chin. As far as Wlad in '03? I think he stood a better chance than his brother if he could have avoided Lennox power, but I doubt he would. Jmo.

 

Lewis didn't fight any spring chicken either. What changed besides a few years (Mercer was 41 - not 42)? He was coming off a 7 (not 6) fight win streak and fighting at home.

Can we get some of these facts right?

 

Didn't Wlad that year get knocked out by Corrie Sanders? How would he beat Lewis then? How is this even a debate? Sure, Prime Wlad would be a very different story, but he clearly wasn't in his prime in 2003. Wlad gets often underrated, but this is just extremely inconvenient timing for him.

 

Lewis fought Mercer when he was still relevant.

Wladimir fought a Mercer that was no longer relevant.

A few years ? It was 6 years.

Lewis fought Mercer in 1996 and Wladimir fought Mercer in 2002.

41 years old or 42 years old it's still old for boxing it don't really make a difference to the point I'm making.

I also said "after 1996" which would be a 6 win streak and that's also when Mercer become more inactive.

But you're also missing out huge context which I provided in my previous post.

Mercer fought against complete nobodies between 1997-2002 and wasn't that active only fighting 6 times during that period.

So that "win streak" is not really of relevance when they aren't against notable names especially with the inactivity during those years.

Hence Mercer was no longer world class or relevant when he fought Wladimir.

 

How could Mercer not be relevant? Some people believe he won the fight with Lennox. He had subpar competition after that fight, but that doesn't mean he wasn't relevant. Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua are fighting subpar competition now, but they are arguably the biggest boxers in the HW division (besides Usyk). People try to prop LL up, but the reality is that Wlad did much better against the same competition.

 

Trevor Berbick did better than Foreman, Frazier and Liston against the same competition too - Ali.

Trying to act as if the Mercer that Lewis fought is the same or remotely similar to the Mercer Wlad fought is the pinnacle of disingenuousness.

 

Doesn’t seem right.

If we’re going to get the exact Lennox who fought Vitali (not in great shape, not 100% engaged and dedicated, teetering on retirement) then we should get the exact Wlad of the same time.

That Wlad was three months removed from a KO loss to Corrie Sanders.

But if you want to further stack the deck and erase the Sanders loss for purposes of discussion, he’s also a year shy of getting stopped by Lamon Brewster.

So this a Wlad at his most vulnerable.

He’s a KO scalp for Lennox waiting to happen.

 

Mercer hadn't fought a world class fighter in 6 years.

He wasn't ranked in the top 10.

He'd only fought 6 times between 1997-2002.

Not to mention he was in 40s.

It's quite evident that Mercer was no longer a relevant world class fighter at that stage in his career.

And trying to insinuate that facing Mercer in the 90s is the same as facing Mercer in 2002 is just being dishonest and you know it.

I'm also confused at the Fury/Joshua comparison ?

They are both shot fighters which pretty much everyone acknowledges ?

Yes they are popular due to their name value I mean Fury has a Netflix show. And Joshua just fought Jake Paul who's one of the biggest influencers.

It's not like Mercer had that type of popularity or name value during 1997-2002.

And if you're using the Fury/Joshua example who most would agree are shot fighters. Why would Wladimir get the same credit for beating a shot Mercer then ?

So I don't understand the point you're making ?

Lastly Wladimir didn't always do better against the same opposition.

Lewis stopped Botha in 2 rounds.

It took Wladimir 8 rounds to stop Botha.

And the question is some of the same opponents they did fight. What stage of their careers were those opponents when they did fight them ?

Lewis for example fought Phil Jackson in 1994 when he was ranked in the top 10.

Wladimir fought Phil Jackson 5 years later when he was coming off 2 losses in a row and would end his career in his final 9 fights going 2-7.

Lewis fought Rahman when he was 29 years old who was coming off one of the best wins of his career vs Corrie Sanders.

Wladimir fought a shopworn 36 year old Rahman at the end of his career.

So context needs to be applied just like Wladimir clearly didn't fight the same version of Mercer that Lewis fought.

 

That is like saying Lewis would not beat Vitali-except for maybe a freak cut-because of his incredible chin.
Of course either fighter could win on a decision, & Vitali threw very high volume for a HW, especially of that size.

Wlad won endlessly & beat people with great power by size, very good defense, & clinching.

It is rare when one ATG-of around the same size-would never beat another one.
Assuming they fought each other enough.

 

The point I'm making is that Mercer fought a very competitive fight against LL. He went on to go 7-0 and earned a title shot at Wlad (I'm aware the WBO wasn't considered a "major" title at that point, but it was still a belt). He never looked bad in the ring until he fought Wlad. Yes, it was a 41 year old fighting, but I'm giving Wlad more credit than he is fighting some washed up guy.

You're making this point about Wlad fighting a "shopworn" Rahman, but the age difference between Rahman and Wlad was 4 years (which is less than when Mercer and Lewis fought (5 year difference). Also Rahman was the same age as Mercer (vs. Lewis) when he fought Wlad, but LL doesn't get any criticism from you for that.

It seems you are being a little bias.

 

Wlad was the #1 contender in 2001 & 2002. While he was trying to secure a fight with LL he had the WBO and was making defenses. It's unfortunate he lost to Sanders, but he very much had a chance to beat LL before he had his 2nd title reign.

 

Lewis was a completely different fighter to Corrie Sanders. Wasn't a lefty, wasn't as quick and didn't hit as hard.