Did Tyson really duck Lewis in 96?

So if Lewis refused the mandated split why was the WBC threatening to strip Bowe

 

exactly yes, these guys still have a lot to learn.

 

If Lewis refused the mandated split then the WBC would give the mandatory to the next ranked fighter this doesn’t explain why Bowe would throw the belt in the trash as he wouldn’t have to fight Lewis anyway

 

11 pages of discussion and I'm still repeating this difficult issue - why was Tyson afraid of Lewis in 1996 and not afraid of him in 2002? did the fights with McCall I and Mercer scare him so much and did Rahman II calm him down? Has he become so stronger after these 6 years that he decided to take a risk?
Is Tyson's duck in 1996 different from Lewis's 3 ducks with Byrd, Klitschko, Ruiz?

 

Tyson of all people paying Lewis step aside money then dropping the WBC title rather than face him was one of the lowest points of the decade.

 

can you explain why? Lewis did the same thing 3 times, what's the difference?

 

Keep grinding that axe brah. You'll be the RockyJim of Lennox Lewis topics soon.

I know, i know, it's therapeutic for you.

 

just answer why is it difficult?

 

I didn't even properly read what you wrote. I didn't have to. Same old same old.

 

It’s really not that difficult to comprehend:

1) Tyson (and King) had a lot to lose in 1996. If he makes his mandatory against Lennox and gets beat, he’s no longer a cash cow. He’s the previous generation passing the torch.

2) In 2002, Tyson had nothing to lose. He needed money, a LOT of money, and Lewis was the biggest purse opportunity out there for him. He was in debt to the IRS for unpaid back texas, had previously had a lien on his mansion, owed money to lawyers, etc. So $20M was a step toward solvency (and he still had to file for bankruptcy the next year).

So in the first situation, he’s got years of high earning potential ahead and losing to Lewis would severely impact that; in the other, he’s in massive debt and needs money … which is why most people go to work. Taking his whupping because basically he had to, as he had no other avenues of that level of earning.

Every decision isn’t based on ‘oh I’m afraid of the guy, he might hurt me.’ It’s based on economic reality. Money is the answer.

 

ok, thank you Saintpat. We have a big difference of opinion, but I respect that you answer substantively.
But why is economics called a duck? and what considerations did you think Lennox had when he gave the belt to Byrd, Ruiz and Klitschko? I'm asking very seriously and best regards

 

Why is economics called a duck?

Well in this case, it seems the reason to not fight Lewis was to keep Mike winning and not risk a loss that would derail him while he’s the biggest attraction in boxing — so if avoiding a fighter not to risk losing to him isn’t a duck, what is?

Likewise, economics have been the reasoning behind lots of instances where people judge that fighters have ducked another: Case in point, Larry Holmes giving up a belt to make more money fighting Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank rather than fighting Greg Page (I think it was) for less. Larry’s history shows (at least to me) that he was all about the money — if the money was greater to fight Page, I’m sure he would have taken it … but there was more money to fight two relative ‘lightweights’ so he gave up the belt, accepted the IBF title and went that route. But people still say he ducked Page (even though he fought Bey, who beat Page).

So why hold Tyson to a different standard?

I’d argue in this case that the incentive to avoid Lewis was to not risk a loss, which would later impact his earnings — not because he’d make a lot less money for the actual fight with Lewis. If it went to purse bids, Don King/Showtime were free to bid as much as they could muster to assure Tyson got a huge payday (with Lewis getting his percentage) … and probably even more with HBO backing a bid to keep Lewis on its network. Competition in a bidding process drives purses up, not down — each side is incentivized to throw whatever money it would have taken to get that fight, whereas if King is making the deal based on what he decides to say Lennox is worth, then there’s no competitor saying ‘we’ll pay more than that.’

Look at it this way: King/Showtime were willing to throw a pretty hefty amount of cash Lennox’s way to NOT fight him while Tyson instead took THREE other fights. That tells me they wanted to stay away from him as long as possible, and not because a fight with Bruce Freaking Seldon was going to line everyone’s pockets with enough money to start their own bank, haha.

As for Lennox, I don’t off the top of my head have enough info on Byrd/Ruiz/Klitschko … I’m not sure what you mean about the latter, as he fought Vitali, who was his mandatory. He retired after that. I’m sure all that is out there, but have no idea what it has to do with Mike ducking Lennox except ‘whatabout-ism.’

EDIT: I had Wlad as the Klitschko he fought, not Vitali. I fixed that.