Ray Mercer vs. 90's Mike Tyson

It’s not about being a totally new man.

It’s more about how they’d have matched up.

Yes, you can say that Ray Mercer blew hot and cold.

But he had very good skills, and a great chin.

Mike was only a shell of his 80’s self in the mid to late 90’s.

King had him fight guys like Julius Francis for a reason.

There was no way King was putting him in with The K bros and Tua etc, in the late 90’s-early 00’s.

He was spoon fed the right guys, with the right styles at the right time.

 

I’ll educate you for a minute. He fought Francis in 2000 because he was doing a fight in England. Francis had beaten Williams, so he was the most viable British heavyweight not named Lewis in a dire landscape. He wasn’t promoted by King at the time.

Mike was a top heavyweight at that time and Mercer was top 30.

 

You’ll educate me?

Do me a favour.


Julius Francis was a Euro level HW.

It had nothing to do with him having beaten Williams.

It was just an easy fight for him, before another easy fight with Savarese in Scotland.


We then had guys like Botha and Nelson.


He was specifically given easy match ups against mostly lower level fighters.

He was still a huge name, but never a top HW at that stage.

 

He easily disposed of Savarese in a way that nobody else could.

What British fighter would’ve been a better fill in for Francis at that time?

Who should he have fought in Copenhagen instead of Nielson?

And oh, he easily disposed of a dangerous and relevant version of Golota in between those fights, arguably a better win than Mercer even logged. He then fought Lewis and lost, no shame there.

 

Mercer was very hot and cold the version of Mercer who gave Holyfield and Lewis very competitive fights, could upset the mid to late 90s Tyson who at that point was no longer a 12 round fighter and was mostly a head hunter.

The early 90s version of Tyson beats any version of Mercer clearly IMO.

 

He didn’t have to fight any British HW.

He didn’t have to fight in Copenhagen either.

Again, Golota obviously had severe psychological issues. He probably wouldn’t even be able to fight today.

No, there was no shame in losing to Lennox.

I’m simply telling you that he was steered down a path of least resistance, because they had to match him carefully at that point.

 

Not exactly. There were big purses in fighting local heroes in Europe and there was an even bigger purse down the road for a Lewis fight. It wasn’t the first time a contender fought less than top notch comp while awaiting a title shot. What’s unique is that Tyson’s “world tour” purses were still huge.

 

Tyson was a name.

He could make money anywhere in the world.

I am merely telling you that after he lost to Evander, he specifically fought low level guys who were easy stylistic match ups for him.

That is what happened.

They had to give him the RIGHT fights at that stage.

Were you even watching?

It’s not exactly a secret.

Why do you think he was given 2 Euro level HW’s after a low level Etienne?

His tank was empty.

 

Early 90s Tyson wins but it would not be easy.

50/50 bout through the mid 90s when Tyson was just coming out of jail and Mercer was still active.

Late 90s Tyson was shot and while Mercer was no chicken spring either by this era, I favor him to beat this version of Tyson and everyone among the casuals still acting surprised, because they still thought Tyson's power would win the day.

 

In 91 that's a pick em fight.

 

Mercer lost once and arguably twice to Ferguson, and almost lost to a forty year old, flabby Witherspoon during his prime. He lost almost every round against Damiani, the best win of his career, and Damiani wasn’t even top 5.

That’s who Mike is up against, not Ali.

 

And Mike could only beat B and C level guys at that time, and then literally not even Euro level fighters after Lennox.

Mercer would have had a shot at beating the Francis, Golota, Neison and Botha versions etc, who was only a 4 round fighter.

 

Mercer would be unlikely to get through those guys without taking an a L, even if it were the 91 version. I suggest watching Mercer struggle against Witherspoon and then watching Golota deal with him.

BTW Etienne would probably count as a top five win for Mercer, a career B or C lister himself.

 

Back to triangle theories are we?

I thought we weren’t doing those?

Etienne? SMH.

I suggest that you go and watch Golota have another mental breakdown.

I suggest that you go and watch Mike try and break a guy’s arm.

I suggest that you go and watch him look like sh*t against Nelson.

I’ve already given you my opinion, which many others have agreed with.

Mike wasn’t in any way great in the late 90’s, and Mercer had good skills and a solid chin.

Mercer had a very good chance of beating Mike from the late 90’s, irrespective of who he had struggled with.

You’re talking about a guy who couldn’t beat Danny Williams and Kevin McBride not so long afterwards.

In the early 90’s, Mike would have been a very big favourite.

In the mid 90’s, Mike would have been the favourite.

In the late 90’s, after Evander, Mercer would have had a very realistic chance of beating him.

 

Etienne would be Mercer’s fourth best win, right? Damiani, Morrison, Washed Witherspoon and Clifford.