BoxRec

Its going the distance, for sure. Either one could win on any given night imo

overhand_right wrote:

He also doesn't have any of the embarrassing losses that Mercer had.

Are you sure? His losses to Bruno and Lennox looked pretty damn embarrassing to me, not to mention he had 5 or 6 losses before he even won a title.

Are you sure? If you can't recognise the difference in levels, losing to Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in world title fights and losing to Marion Wilson and Jesse Ferguson in the prime of his career, maybe you should start from the beginning and try learn something about boxing?

Oh and as for McCalls losses when he was up and coming, are you talking about the debatable split decisions to world champions Tony Tucker or Orlin Norris? Or points loss to Buster Douglas who became undisputed champion in his very next fight?

Real embarrassing, those losses. . .

overhand_right wrote:Are you sure? If you can't recognise the difference in levels, losing to Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in world title fights and losing to Marion Wilson and Jesse Ferguson in the prime of his career, maybe you should start from the beginning and try learn something about boxing?

Oh and as for McCalls losses when he was up and coming, are you talking about the debatable split decisions to world champions Tony Tucker or Orlin Norris? Or points loss to Buster Douglas who became undisputed champion in his very next fight?

Real embarrassing, those losses. . .

So let me get this straight, the second Ferguson fight and the Wilson fight were losses for Mercer, the Damiani win was a lucky punch and Mercer was embarrassed by Holmes and Ferguson. McCall on the other hand practically won against Tucker and Norris, steam rolled Ferguson and Holmes, looked fine against Bruno and his drug induced breakdown against Lewis was not embarrassing at all.

Not exactly what I would call a balanced analysis. I guess McCalls less than stellar split decision over trial horse Sedreck Fields or his loss to Mike Hunter never actually happened and his knockout of Lewis was, unlike Mercers knockout of Damiani, not a lucky punch ?

My2Sense wrote:

overhand_right wrote:

He also doesn't have any of the embarrassing losses that Mercer had.

Are you sure? His losses to Bruno and Lennox looked pretty damn embarrassing to me, not to mention he had 5 or 6 losses before he even won a title.

He lost to Lennox, fair enough.

His loss to Bruno should not be seen in a different Light. Bruno is very very under-rate and was certainly someone who deserved to be HW Champion. He could cause problems to every opponent. His only problem was himself, where he would become akward and end up getting hit by the KO Punch. Other than that was he was veryt skilled.

Both have Iron chins. Mcall has wins over Samil Sam, Lewis, Akinwandbe, Maskaev, robbed v Tucker.

Mercer went the distance with Lewis, Holyfield. Then again Mcall beat Lewis.

Both are inconsistent another nineties fight that never happened.

Bruno, "very skilled!?" Bruno had some talent, but calling him, "very skilled" positively reeks of using him as a tool to talk up Tyson.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Bruno, "very skilled!?" Bruno had some talent, but calling him, "very skilled" positively reeks of using him as a tool to talk up Tyson.

I retrospect I think Brunos boxing skills are a little underrated. Also, Bruno fought some good fighters but only one of them walked through him like he was nothing

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Bruno, "very skilled!?" Bruno had some talent, but calling him, "very skilled" positively reeks of using him as a tool to talk up Tyson.

Ok he was not in the leagues as the ATG.
But he is treated like a journeyman here.

His win over Oliver Mccall should not take anything away from Mccall, Since Bruno was a very good champion imo.

hhaehre wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Bruno, "very skilled!?" Bruno had some talent, but calling him, "very skilled" positively reeks of using him as a tool to talk up Tyson.

I retrospect I think Brunos boxing skills are a little underrated. Also, Bruno fought some good fighters but only one of them walked through him like he was nothing

Underrated, perhaps, but never can he reasonably be classified as a very skilled fighter. That's patently absurd.

Bruno could fight. He was good. He was no journeyman, as Observer notes. He may be undersold. Even so, he was a decent contender, but nothing more. Tyson, also, didn't walk through him like he was nothing in their first meeting. Tyson wasn't in serious danger during that fight, but it wasn't easy-money. The rematch was different.

Of course, by 1989, Mike Tyson was, "past his prime."

Note: Bruno was a titleist (who hasn't been since the 80's?), but never a champion in any legitimate, meaningful sense of the word (linear/clearly recognised as division-best).

hhaehre wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Are you sure? If you can't recognise the difference in levels, losing to Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in world title fights and losing to Marion Wilson and Jesse Ferguson in the prime of his career, maybe you should start from the beginning and try learn something about boxing?

Oh and as for McCalls losses when he was up and coming, are you talking about the debatable split decisions to world champions Tony Tucker or Orlin Norris? Or points loss to Buster Douglas who became undisputed champion in his very next fight?

Real embarrassing, those losses. . .

So let me get this straight, the second Ferguson fight and the Wilson fight were losses for Mercer, the Damiani win was a lucky punch and Mercer was embarrassed by Holmes and Ferguson. McCall on the other hand practically won against Tucker and Norris, steam rolled Ferguson and Holmes, looked fine against Bruno and his drug induced breakdown against Lewis was not embarrassing at all.

Not exactly what I would call a balanced analysis. I guess McCalls less than stellar split decision over trial horse Sedreck Fields or his loss to Mike Hunter never actually happened and his knockout of Lewis was, unlike Mercers knockout of Damiani, not a lucky punch ?

LOL, couldn't have said it better myself.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

hhaehre wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Bruno, "very skilled!?" Bruno had some talent, but calling him, "very skilled" positively reeks of using him as a tool to talk up Tyson.

I retrospect I think Brunos boxing skills are a little underrated. Also, Bruno fought some good fighters but only one of them walked through him like he was nothing

Underrated, perhaps, but never can he reasonably be classified as a very skilled fighter. That's patently absurd.

Bruno could fight. He was good. He was no journeyman, as Observer notes. He may be undersold. Even so, he was a decent contender, but nothing more. Tyson, also, didn't walk through him like he was nothing in their first meeting. Tyson wasn't in serious danger during that fight, but it wasn't easy-money. The rematch was different.

Of course, by 1989, Mike Tyson was, "past his prime."

Note: Bruno was a titleist (who hasn't been since the 80's?), but never a champion in any legitimate, meaningful sense of the word (linear/clearly recognised as division-best).

Bruno was as legit as any other alphabet champ. He was never going to be champion for any length of time as he had some serious chinks in his armour but for pure boxing ability he was a lot better than he has ever been given credit for. He is however mostly remembered as a gallant loser and that is never the mark of a great fighter.
Btw. Buno was steamrolled in the first Tyson fight imo, not as bad as the second fight but still..

No arguments from me that Bruno was as good as most, maybe all, the alphabet titleists (I'm reserved about the phrase, "champion," what can I say?) but we will simply have to disagree on two points...

1) "Bruno's boxing ability is a lot better than given credit for..."

Slightly better than credited, perhaps. However, no one is taking a lot of note of that, "boxing ability" for good reason. He was, in fact, quite limited.

2) "Tyson steam-rolled Bruno first time out..."

That's not the fight I saw. Their initial meeting was competitive, if only for a time. Tyson had it won by the fourth, & sealed it in five. Rounds one-through-three, however, Bruno gave Tyson some measure of legitimate trouble. Not fight-risking trouble, mind you, but I simply don't see any steam-rolling effort from Tyson in that bout.

hhaehre wrote: So let me get this straight, the second Ferguson fight and the Wilson fight were losses for Mercer, the Damiani win was a lucky punch and Mercer was embarrassed by Holmes and Ferguson.

Yes, both losses to Ferguson II and Wilson. Watch the fights. Read the reports in Boxing Illustrated and Boxing Monthly.

I said Mercer lost 8 rds to Damiani & needed a hail mary punch to save himself in the 9th. Watch the fight if in doubt. Read the write up in Boxing Illustrated.

Mercer embarrassed by Holmes & Ferguson? Well, i never said that, but that was the sentiment at the time.

hhaehre wrote: McCall on the other hand practically won against Tucker and Norris, steam rolled Ferguson and Holmes, looked fine against Bruno and his drug induced breakdown against Lewis was not embarrassing at all.

Not exactly what I would call a balanced analysis.

Here we go. Lets start putting words in peoples mouths!! Always a give away sign of a man whose onto a losing argument. At what point did i say he steam rolled Ferguson or Holmes? I said he handled them both better than Mercer, which he did, as the video clearly shows.

His loss to Lewis... Well as you said, "drug induced". Key words here.

hhaehre wrote: I guess McCalls less than stellar split decision over trial horse Sedreck Fields or his loss to Mike Hunter never actually happened and his knockout of Lewis was, unlike Mercers knockout of Damiani, not a lucky punch ?

Erm, have you ever seen the McCall/Fields fight? I'll quote what Boxrec stated under the result for some five years "uncontroversial decision".

As for your suggestion that McCall/Lewis was 'lucky'... if you followed the previews at the time, you'd know that McCall knocked out Lennox in the exact fashion that he said he would. He stated in print that he would counter Lewis long lazy right hand with his own inside right hand.

Now, did Mercer plan to recieve a one-sided boxing lesson for 8 rds by Damiani? Erm...

overhand_right wrote:
Yes, both losses to Ferguson II and Wilson. Watch the fights. Read the reports in Boxing Illustrated and Boxing Monthly.

I said Mercer lost 8 rds to Damiani & needed a hail mary punch to save himself in the 9th. Watch the fight if in doubt. Read the write up in Boxing Illustrated.

I have seen both the Ferguson II fight and the Wilson fight and while Mercer looked like shit in both fights I hardly think the decisions were that controversial. Both fights were close imo.

As for the Daminai fight, yes Mercer was behind although not by 8 points imo, nor did the judges see it that lopsided. He did however take care of business in the 9th and won the WBO title against an undefeated champion. That is not a bad effort. If a come from behind win against a credible opponent is so bad, how about McCalls win against Seldon ? Seldon was clearly winning that fight until he ran out of gas and got knocked out. Akinwande was also leading on the cards against McCall when he ran into a right hand in the last minute of the fight. Should both of these wins count against McCall ?

overhand_right wrote: Here we go. Lets start putting words in peoples mouths!! Always a give away sign of a man whose onto a losing argument. At what point did i say he steam rolled Ferguson or Holmes? I said he handled them both better than Mercer, which he did, as the video clearly shows.

Fair enough, you never said steam rolled but you have to admit that both the Holmes fight and the Ferguson fight were hard fought and close wins for McCall. McCall did not look good against Holmes and I believe that the younger and better conditioned Holmes that beat Mercer would have beaten McCall.

overhand_right wrote: His loss to Lewis... Well as you said, "drug induced". Key words here.

So what ? Is that an excuse ? Most of Mercers bad nights materialized because he was fat and lazy. I guess Mercer must be excused as well then for not bothering to get in shape.

overhand_right wrote: As for your suggestion that McCall/Lewis was 'lucky'... if you followed the previews at the time, you'd know that McCall knocked out Lennox in the exact fashion that he said he would. He stated in print that he would counter Lewis long lazy right hand with his own inside right hand.

Every fighter say they are going to win. McCall predicting the right hand is hardly surprising, it's his best punch and everybody knew Lewis was open for it.
The punch it self was thrown eyes closed, it was every bit as lucky as Mercers uppercut vs. Damiani.

overhand_right wrote: Now, did Mercer plan to recieve a one-sided boxing lesson for 8 rds by Damiani? Erm...

Probably not but I quess McCall did not plan to leave it to the last minute against Akinwande either.

Anyway, I asume the original post was prime vs. prime. I know full well that McCall would beat the fat and lazy version of Mercer as would Mercer beat strung out McCall. Prime vs. prime I would go for Mercer, simple as that.