I left out the losses to McCall and Rahman because I could've just as easily pointed to his devastating knockouts he had over the two of them. Can you explain to me which of the men listed were shells?
Mercer was over confident and it contributed to his defeat. Would the Mercer that fought Lewis lose to Holmes? Sure, but I think the one that fought Lewis was more motivated and knew he was in for a tough fight.
I don't think it bothered him much, because he purposely didn't train despite the fight being a done deal 3 - 4 months before. Well, according to you, that is.
I'm sure he was not happy about it but he was not enraged like he was losing what he felt were bad decisions to Spinks ... he then adopted the Foreman like comeback strategy later on and had a semi-decent run .... Larry rationalized it and moved on ...
People make it sound like Holmes was told on the way to the grocery store he had to fight Tyson and simply turned and went to the airport. He had months to train, not the two weeks or month that many people say. Had Holmes won by a giant uppercut in round 4, everyone would praise him for showing up in such fantastic shape.
Okay, well I can think of at least one fight you haven't seen. Lewis's rematch with McCall was not the result of a " devastating knockout. " No problem. Below is a quote from your list, and the shot fighters are highlighted in green. This content is protected
Not sure i'd label Holy, Tyson and Mercer as shot. Past prime yes but certainly not shot IMO. Shot to me is a stronger term.
He asked me to point out the fighters that he listed, and tell him which ones I felt were shells of their former selves. Frankly, I think Tyson and Holyfield fit the bill, and Mercer may very well have too. Holy and Tyson were both many years past thier primes, and had been exposed on a few occasions, not to mention had careers that were disrupted by either periods of inactivity, or health issues. Mercer was 35 years of age, and was losing or looking unimpressive against mediocrities. Personally, I think he was a far cry from the young olympian who defeated Morrison, Damiani and Cooper in the early 90's.
To me there is no doubt that Tyson and Holyfield were passed their best. However, a great fighter operating at, say, 60%, can still be a tough cookie. On Mercer, i think it should be pointed out that while he was getting old at 35 and coming off a loss, he had always been getting by because of his great strength, durability and power... and all of those were still there in 96. Let us not forget that he Damiani (an excellent boxer, by the way) was outboxing him handily and Morrison beat the crap out of him until his chin gave in. His boxing skills and stamina were already questionable back then. He also seemed to utilize the fine jab he did have more later in his career, from the Holyfield fight on.... of course it was too late then, but i think it's fair to say he gave prime versions of Holyfield and Lewis very hard fights.
I really don't think that Holyfield was prime when he fought Mercer, in fact neither of those men were prime. While I agree that Mercer's actual skills and agility weren't particularly stellar during his best years, I do feel that he had a tad more handspeed and slightly more devastating power, along with more aggressiveness. Given how close his fight with Lewis was in 1996, and that both men were giving their very best efforts, I think its plausible to think a 1991 Mercer may have stopped Lewis, or squeaked out a decision. Lewis didn't have the right style for Mercer. Of course, he might have outboxed him with the jab, had he chosen to take the safe route, but I doubt he'd do this against an old rival.
When did I ever say he didn't train? 3 months isn't enough time to shake off ring rust and get back into fighting shape.
It helped him forget his pain when he got the money, but his temple was clearly bothering him after the fight.
Ok, well Chris has answered your post pretty much but i'll just comment on this one point. The fight after Mercer beat Morrison he was beaten by a very past it Larry Holmes then three fights later by the trailhorse Jesse Ferguson. So we see even in your selected time he was still inconsistent. Actually, around the Lewis fight his only loss was to Holyfield, and a draw against Wilson prior. This would be the bad showing you are talking about but he came back to fight somewhat better vs Holyfield. I feel the Lewis fight was one of his best efforts, but it's all in how we look at things personally of course. Otherwise what would we have to debate.
A shot fighter to me is one who's a complete shadow of what he once was in his prime. Handspeed very slow, co-ordination and reflexes gone, and punch resistance not what it was either. And IMO he can't retain what he once had. Holyfield was said to be shot in the mid-90's, but proved he wasn't by coming back and looking very good. Tyson and Moorer II were just two classic examples. Prior to those fights Holyfield was marked down as in the graveyard as a fighter. However he had everyone fooled and IMO those performances proved he simply had off nights inside the ring. Hagler wasn't shot for the Leonard fight. Past his prime, yes. We would needed to have seen Hagler in the ring again to determine if he was shot or not as the Mugabi and Leonard fights simply showed he was slowing down. Who's to say he wouldn't have came back and retained some of his old muster close to his prime. A fighter being shot is called too quickly in some instances. Being shot is something thats pernament, not a temporary kind of thing. Leonard's performance against Camacho proved he was shot as he showed the signs of a shot fighter. In hindsight it's hard to see him retaining what he had 10 years previously. Highly unlikely.