BoxRec

Both noted for been durable and tough in their primes. Who do you take in this one?

The Mercer that just lost to Lewis beats the McCall who knocked him out by UD in my opinion with his better jab and skills.

For sure there is no chance of a stoppage here

Mercer's jab was laid to waste via neglect so often, though. If he turns it on, that alone should be enough to beat McCall. Mercer was much the better fighter, but no more consistent, really.

Mercer easy, ud of course as no one could stop McCall. In my humble opinion McCall is vastly overrated these days. Granite chin but limited skills. Mercer was better at everything.

Ray Mercer would destroy him....end of story.

It'd have its moments though it would not be as exciting as
Mercer-Witherspoon. McCall lands his right enough to entertain
but should Mercer keep the pressure on and stay in McCall's face
he gets the nod.

Mercer coming out as he did versus Fergusson would drop the
decision..though Fergusson did fight a good hard fight those
two nights.

ALot of people here under-rate Mccall. He certainly had the tools to surprise and hold his own against anyone.

Would be a lot closer imo

Mercer would bully and outwork him to a UD IMO.

I love how McCall is being underestimated here.

Who ever bullied McCall?

Larry Holmes boxed Ray Mercer silly. He tried the same tricks on McCall, but McCall beat him, neary turned the old timer into dust in the 9th rd.

Mercer lost 8 rds to Francesco Damiani and saved himself with a hail mary uppercut in the 9th -- Damiani was never in it with McCall, got dominated, turned into a bloody mess & turned his back and literally walked away to save himself from a bludgeoning.

Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson, came back in shape and still needed a gift to get the 'win' over Ferguson. McCall beat Ferguson first time around, no probs.

Mercer landed shots on Lewis all night and couldn't put him down -- McCall iced him with one right hand.

You guys are really forgetting how dangerous McCall was in the mood. His form line is better than Mercers.

(PS i f#cking LOVE Ray Mercer)

I do agree that McCall gets over looked.

In regards to Holmes=McCall...that Holmes was a bit past it
in 1995 compared to his 1991 upset over Mercer.

Holmes was no more past in in Apr 95 v McCall than he was Feb 92 v Mercer. He beat Mercer easily, spoiled his way to the final bell v Holyfield, then embarked on a string of relatively easy wins on the USA Network leading to his McCall challenge. There wasn't any punishment or obvious deterioation, similar to Foreman -- was he more past it v Moorer than he was v Holyfield?

Who can say??

Both these guys were freaks who developed styles that let them roll on through most of the 90s.

I think Holmes was naturally a bit better for his Mercer-Holyfield fighst than he
was thereafter. Though he was in damned good shape and held his own against
McCall.

I have to be honest I have only seen McCall in the Holmes, Douglas and two Lewis fights...
I do have some more of his fights in my pile of goodies that I shall watch.

I have watched a great deal of Mercer's fights so I suppose my opinion is biased by
that. Just rewatched Witherspoon-Mercer...what a great and under rated fight.

Well then before even participating in a thread like this you need to see McCall fight Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson, Tony Tucker, Francesco Damiani, Oleg Maskaev and Henry Akinwande!!

overhand_right wrote:Well then before even participating in a thread like this you need to see McCall fight Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson, Tony Tucker, Francesco Damiani, Oleg Maskaev and Henry Akinwande!!

He was not that impressive against Ferguson, in this thread it is made to look like he steam rolled Ferguson but that was not the case. Also I think Holmes would have beaten him if he had been in the same shape for McCall as he was for Mercer. As it were McCall just squeezed by Holmes and did not look very impressive imo. While we are in the process of reviewing McCalls career, why not bring up the Bruno fight ? He looked like shit for most of that fight.
All in all McCall was a solid fighter with some good wins but against another immovable object like Mercer it comes down to boxing skills and I feel Mercer has McCall beat in most departments.

Well if we're going to judge fighters worth by their off nights then how can we look past Mercer being gifted a draw against Marion Wilson when he clearly lost? Or losing rds 2 through 12 to a 42 year old Larry Holmes? Or twice losing to Jesse Ferguson, or looking like sh#t versus Mark Wills?

Hey! It works both ways!!

overhand_right wrote:Well if we're going to judge fighters worth by their off nights then how can we look past Mercer being gifted a draw against Marion Wilson when he clearly lost? Or losing rds 2 through 12 to a 42 year old Larry Holmes? Or twice losing to Jesse Ferguson, or looking like sh#t versus Mark Wills?

Hey! It works both ways!!

You are right about the Mercer fights above, especially the Wilson fight was bad. I guess you could argue that Mercer was worse on his off nights than McCall was on his but when they were both on, I think Mercer was the better fighter. Also I would not really say that McCall was off against Bruno or Holmes, he merely struggled against technically superior boxers, just like I feel he would against Mercer

McCall was visibly not as up or motivated for his fights with Holmes or Bruno as he was for his first Lennox Lewis fight.

Manny Steward ensured McCall had a real preperation for the Lewis fight, whereas after that people have said he went back to his coke-fuelled party ways.

Bottom line is . . . .BOTH ARE OVER-RATED

In an era of a bunch of tall jab and grabbers and seemingly one HW fighter after another getting their chin exposed, Mercer and McCall, two granite jawed 'tough' guys who could punch have gotten their overall abilities over-rated over time.

Both had great chins but CRAP defenses. I mean, they were just bad. Both had poor footwork. Both were not great counter-punchers, McCall's right hand vs Lennox withstanding. McCall was always in great shape but his punch output was horrid. Mercer, who let his conditioning get worse and worse as the 90s progressed, usually let it out early and was gasping for air by the late rounds.

I think this is a pick'em fight really. If Mercer is weighing 220 or below and is motivated he should win with the jab and extra output but really we never saw that Ray Mercer. A pity b/c I had him beating Lennox in a close match but he could've sealed the deal with a KO or clear UD if he hadn't come into the fight at 238 lbs.
If Mercer teeters late Oliver can close strong to eek out a decision.

overhand_right wrote:Well then before even participating in a thread like this you need to see McCall fight Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson, Tony Tucker, Francesco Damiani, Oleg Maskaev and Henry Akinwande!!

I just like to be honest with what I have and have not watched. I dont claim to
be an expert like many here :P Boxing version of the Trekkie, as my GF puts it.

overhand_right wrote:Well if we're going to judge fighters worth by their off nights then how can we look past Mercer being gifted a draw against Marion Wilson when he clearly lost? Or losing rds 2 through 12 to a 42 year old Larry Holmes? Or twice losing to Jesse Ferguson, or looking like sh#t versus Mark Wills?

You already did bring those up, though.

In fact, in a previous post you compared Mercer's worst performances to some of McCall's better ones.

Whether we compare them at their best or their worst, Mercer is still the more aggressive and more well-rounded fighter. McCall might hit harder with one punch, but that isn't going to be a deciding factor given Mercer's chin. McCall isn't any kind of a boxer that can outbox Mercer, and if he can't knock him out, what does he do to beat him?

overhand_right wrote:There wasn't any punishment or obvious deterioation, similar to Foreman -- was he more past it v Moorer than he was v Holyfield?

Yes.

My2Sense wrote: In fact, in a previous post you compared Mercer's worst performances to some of McCall's better ones.

Wrong, i was comparing McCalls form against Mercers form against their common opponents -- and Mercer struggles and/or loses to men McCall has beaten easily.

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

McCall obviously comes out on top.

overhand_right wrote:

My2Sense wrote: In fact, in a previous post you compared Mercer's worst performances to some of McCall's better ones.

Wrong, i was comparing McCalls form against Mercers form against their common opponents -- and Mercer struggles and/or loses to men McCall has beaten easily.

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

McCall obviously comes out on top.

Did McCall look good against Holmes and Ferguson ? Did he beat them easily ? Imo the answers are no and no.

Ah but did McCall lose to them? No and no.

Did Mercer lose to them? Yes and yes (yes again for the Ferguson rematch)

Did McCall dominate Francesco Damiani til he was drenched in blood and turned away & quit? Yes. Did he knock out Lennox Lewis in two rounds? Yes. Mercer had tough close scrapes with both these men.

McCall had the better overall record, to deny this is to ignore whats right in front of you.

overhand_right wrote:Ah but did McCall lose to them? No and no.

Did Mercer lose to them? Yes and yes (yes again for the Ferguson rematch)

Did McCall dominate Francesco Damiani til he was drenched in blood and turned away & quit? Yes. Did he knock out Lennox Lewis in two rounds? Yes. Mercer had tough close scrapes with both these men.

McCall had the better overall record, to deny this is to ignore whats right in front of you.

I don't think McCall has got the better record. His best win (Lewis) is of course better that Mercers best win (Morrison) but apart from that I really don't think McCall beat better fighters than Mercer. McCall also lost his share of fights, more losses than Mercer actually. Anyway, my arument is that a prime Mercer beats a prime McCall. Come to think of it I would pick a fat lazy Mercer to beat a drugged out McCall also.