Ray Mercer wasn't prime when he fought Wladimir but he wasn't shot either. He had only lost to Holmes, Jesse Ferguson, Holyfield & Lewis by decision up to that point. Wladimir is the first to KO Ray.
Yeah its easy to ko a punching bag, watch the lewis fight then rewatch that fight two tottaly diff fighters :bart
Are you of the opinion that as long as an athlete is active, that he is able to compete at the same level? Do you deny the physical deterioration of the body and that at some point the body cannot react as quickly as the mind wants it to, much less at the speed and precision it used to? Science says this a fact.
Ok...Larry Holmes was not shot when he lost to Brian Nielson in 1997 (at age 47-48 ) He had only lost to Holyfield, Tyson, Spinks, and McCall, all former HW champions. Common sense has to play a part here. This is precisely why stats need context. Anyone can look at Larry Holmes in 1980 and conclude that the 1997 version is not as good. There is a reason we actually watch boxing matches and not just read about them. Observation is clearly part of analysis.
Knn is a boxrec warrior hadnt even heard of damiani atschhe is also the guy that concluded due to his mathematical solution wlad is the atg no.1 hw so that says it all lol
That's stupidity, Byrd wasn't 41 years old and the reason why Byrd's performance was **** poor was because of Wladimir. The Mercer that fought Wladimir was hardly active and was nothing more than a damn punching bag, when I say look at his performance I mean compare it with his performances years before that fight. He was BEYOND shot that night and there's no need to even discuss this.
It was just as easy to say that beforehand too. This was the pre-Corrie Sanders Klitschko getting called out by a guy from the 1988 Olympics. Mercer hadn't won a meaningful fight in almost 10 years, unless you count his moral victory against Lennox Lewis, and that was still over 5 years prior.
oh man... didnt see knn's posts but i hope he didnt put that it was a great win lol... I dont know if mercer was so shot that he had bullet holes.... but he was obviously far far far from his best and also far from being a major player. Though also by the same token anyone with common sense and eyes can tell Wlad was a badass.... if you put that same ray mercer in with other contenders and champions in the last 5 years or so, not many would have done what wlad did....
Wlad did beat him worse than most would have that night. People are taking an either/or stance here. Mercer was IMO shot. But Wlad beat him badly and showed a tremendous amount of skill. It really depends on the question that's asked. Did this win further verify Wlad's skill level? Yup....all the skills were on display. Was he tested by Mercer? No, not at all. Could Wladimir have beaten Mercer when he fought Lewis? Possibly, as long as he didn't get caught, though Mercer was skillful enough to do so.
Evan Fields isn't shot either, of course. I was pretty impressed by his performance against Ibragimov. I know he lost, but it was very good. How can you claim he is shot when he comes to fight with an athletic body and very fast. Did YOU actually watch the fight? I mean, what is your definition of shot? "Worse than in his prime"? Of course he is worse than in his prime.