The first fight was razor thin and hotly contested. Afterward, Mercer keeps beats Tim Witherspoon and then can't land any fights. Lennox picks up the WBC belt over a mentally broken Oliver McCall. The two's paths never crossed again and title shots were given to guys like Briggs, Golota, Mavrovic, and Akinwande instead. It seems odd that Lennox always got a rematch when he lost or drew, yet never gave one to a fighter he held a close win over. In your mind, should there have been a Lewis-Mercer II?
bump...c'mon, we can get 80 pages of redundant rubbish about Vitali-Lewis, but not a single comment about Lewis-Mercer? Mercer was actually outjabbing Lennox in this fight, despite being old and only 6'1. The decision could've went either way. Yet, it seems like this fight is simply pushed under the rug or ignored by people who do nothing but claim Lennox KO's any heavyweight within 6. Should Lennox have cleaned up the old business with Mercer instead of going after guys like Akinwande, Mavrovic, and Golota (coming off the Bowe debacles)? I don't see why not. Instead, we all hear about how he's avenged all his losses, yet he never gave those who fought him competitively the same chance at redemption.
I thought Mercer won but its been a long time since I watched it. So yes Lennox should have given him a rematch.
