Point the first: Lewis is the best opponent Vitali has ever faced. By running him down you make Vitali look bad, since Vitali couldn't beat this guy your shitting on. Point the second: Lewis did not "rely on a crack withdrawl attack to claim back a title" against McCall. He was not responsible for McCall's personal life and he did not pick McCall out as an opponent. He could only fight what was put in front of him and the WBC chose McCall, and King refused to find a replacement when McCall's mental fitness for the fight was questioned in December 1996. Point the third: McCall and Rahman did beat Lewis with one punch, so what's Vitali's excuse for failing to do the same? Here's Vitali - a world class fighter, arguably one of the division's greatest ever with a KO ratio that's one of the two best in the division's history - and he couldn't achieve what - journeymen/gatekeepers - McCall and Rahman could. Does that make Vitali look good? I dont think so.
1 - prove it. 2 - so what? Unless the referee penalizes the fighter on the night it doesn't matter how dirty a fight they fought, its still a legitimate win. If that wasn't the case then many of Hopkins fights would be NC's, DQ's or whatever. If Vitali couldn't handle Lewis fighting dirty then its just another example of Vitali's inadequacies.
:deal People arguing that Vitali was gonna win need to bear in mind that Solis was also going to outbox him to a UD :deal
Lewis quit against Byrd even before stepping into the ring. Byrd took Lewis to court to force the fight and Lewis dropped IBF belt to avoid Byrd.