Ray Mercer vs Tommy Gibbons

Gibbons probably.

 

Depends on which Mercer shows up

 

And perhaps which Gibbons?

 

I dont see Gibbons as incosistent though. I just dont think he was great. Neither was Mercer but the problem for Gibbons is that Mercer (at his best) would be a big, strong, iron chinned, hard punching monster who came forward behind a good jab looking for the ko. Gibbons style was to stay in the pocket and against someone like Mercer (at his best) he would go into a defensive shell and lose on points or get stopped late. He might beat the worst Mercer, i dont think he could beat the best Mercer.

 

Mercer just wasn't good.
People say he was inconsistent and sometimes unmotivated, that's true, but there wasn't that much difference.
Take, for example, his two fights with Ferguson. The second time he was in much better shape and had everything to prove, but barely beat Ferguson, he arguably deserved to lose again.

Sure, he was strong and could take a punch, but he was easy to hit, slow, plodding, flat-footed.

 

I dunno, at his best he was very good.
Against Lewis that jab was very effective.
Ad in his size, chin & power & Gibbons os likely overmatched.

 

Mercer after an old Holmes beat him, "I must learn to box".:think

 

If he can go 15rds with Dempsey ,he won't be overmatched by Mercer.

 

He lost to Dempsey and was overmatched largely on size and power. His skill did almost nothing but allow him to spoil and last the distance. Ray Mercer was the same height as Dempsey, weighed 20 - 40 pounds more, was more durable, had a better jab, was at least as strong, etc etc. I just see this as a bad matchup for Gibbons unless Mercer just shows up (which he did in some of his fights). Gibbons was no Holmes, Holyfield, or Lewis (who I thought Mercer beat). Even Ferguson was a good boxer and much much bigger than Gibbons with a style much more suited to movement than Gibbons'. Gibbons never beat anyone with Mercer's combination of size, power, ability, and toughness. That combined with the fact that Gibbons style was to stay inside and counter, I think thats a bad style to take to Mercer if you spent most of your career at 160 and fight in shape at 175-180.

 

Dempsey was a lot more elusive than Mercer, quicker into range and with his punches, he was a bit stale for Gibbons but even so for Tommy to survive 15 rds tells me Mercer will not overmatch him.

 

Dempsey fought that fight almost entirely on the inside. He didnt have to close range quickly or anything of the sort. Nevermind that distance wasnt Gibbons' game anyway. He fought inside the pocket like all St. Paul style fighters do, working very tight circles and leaning way back to pull leads and counter. It wasnt about being elusive for Dempsey. It was about being too big, too strong, and too hard hitting. Even Gibbons admitted this. Gibbons wasnt a big guy, he wasnt a huge puncher (despite his KO streak gained on the backs of tomatoe cans, even his brother admitted this), and he wasnt a runner. All of those things combined are a bad matchup against a big, strong, durable guy like Mercer who at his best was a very hard puncher and had a very good jab. I would like to hear exactly what, based on Gibbons actual style and size (not some imagined Ali-esque boxing technique), Gibbons would do to beat Mercer. Against Mercer Gibbons is going to get hit, hes going to get leaned on, hes going to get pushed around, hes going to get tied up when Mercer wants to take a rest, and he isnt going to hurt Mercer. Combine that with the fact that Gibbons was economical and had a bit of frontrunner in him as seen in his bouts with Dempsey, Tunney, Greb, and McCormick, and I think hes in trouble against a guy like Mercer, again, it all depends on whether Mercer shows up in shape and to fight. I think the best Mercer beats the best Gibbons.

 

Mercer was 20-40 pounds heavier than Dempsey because he was lugging around a load of lard.

Lots of excuse-making for Mercer's several mediocre performances. Truth is, he was rather mediocre. He couldn't really box, not a devastating puncher, but was tough and strong. He won the 1988 Olympics that set him up to be well managed in the pros. He was a tough US marine, 27 or 28 years-old, and the Cubans did not attend that games. He beat up a Korean in the final if I remember rightly.

He was one of those guys who just soaked up punches and gets a lot of credit for having a granite chin.
A tough fighter. Not much of a boxer.

 

Unless Gibbons has a huge nose like Damiani did, and happens to take a big uppercut right on its tip, I see him winning on points.

 

LOL. Mercer may not have been svelt but he wasnt exactly hauling around lard. He weighed 225 for Morrison, 30 pounds more than Dempsey and 45 pounds more than Gibbons best weight and he sure as hell wasnt fat.

[url]https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/J2aztiIyd7c/hqdefault.jpg[/url]

[url]http://roundbyroundboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Tommy-Morrison-Ray-Mercer-2-Getty-Images.jpg[/url]

He was just a naturally bigger guy than either Dempsey or especially Gibbons by far.

The Mercer that walked through Morrison's best punches and smashed him would have either stopped Gibbons or gained a very wide decision.