Vitali Klitschko's power.

You're right with Tyson activating the rematch clause. But as quoted:

"Under the contract, Lewis is required to fight Tyson again – but allowed an interim bout, which could be a mandatory defense of his IBF belt against No. 1 contender Chris Byrd."

So Lewis had an opportunity to fight his mandatory contender who was considered a Top 3 HW in the world. Not fighting him and dropping the belt when he wasn't force to do it is still a duck.

Byrd didn't have a commercial appeal, that's true, but it's not a reason not to fight a worthy contender. Lewis went Holmes route and chose the more lucrative option of chasing the Tyson rematch straight off without the interim fight. It's his choice, but it's still a duck.

Lewis flip flopped regarding the retirement a few times during that period, so it's not an excuse for dropping the IBF belt, since he still held other versions of the title and was clearly exploring other options.

Vitali wasn't the WBC mandatory when Lewis dropped the belt. You originally claimed that Lewis did it cause he wanted to focus on his other mandatory. But he didn't - he was focused on the rematch with Tyson and then took an interim bout against Kirk Johnson.

Wlad was way more popular in 2002 that Vitali. Networks weren't really interested in the older brother. They didn't even broadcast any of his fights between Byrd and Lewis. He had no value with the networks. Wlad on the other hand was HBO second biggest heavyweight attraction. If you claim that he was "couple of fights away from being in the mix", then Vitali was like 10 fights away from being in the mix, commercial-wise. Commercial and boxing wise, cause he was seen as a worse brother at the time and still was considered a quitter. Vitali was as much marketable as Byrd at the time. Which was - not much.

 

Is there an actual evidence that the K2 contracts were ever written that way? It seems like an urban legend that started with Valuev's claims and peole just ran with it.

 

This content is protected

 

Its well documented that David Haye complained of this also and disproportionate wages..

 

Good lord, where is that from?

 

Wages are a completely different thing. But regarding Haye - it would go against what his promoters said - they advised him against fighting Wlad, cause they thought Vitali would be an easier fight for him. If they were aware of those clauses, then it wouldn't matter, as he would have to face Wlad anyway.

 

From what I hear Wlad Haye was 50-50 spilt purse.

 

I don’t really see how he hits as hard as any of them. All of them fought better opponents/have more impressive knockouts/usually finish their fights sooner. Compare Vitali’s performance against Byrd to Ike Ibeabuchi‘s and I’d say there’s a pretty clear gulf in power.

 

This is two fighters complaining of the same thing. Seems a little far-fetched both would say the same thing and it not be true.

• The Three-Fight Demand (2009): Haye claimed the Klitschkos tried to force him to sign a three-fight deal where he would have to fight both brothers (Vitali and Wladimir) in whatever order they chose. He stated this was a dealbreaker that would have required massive compromises. [1]

• Unfair Clauses (2011): Haye alleged the brothers demanded "crazy" rematch clauses and restrictions. He claimed these stipulations essentially gave them options over his future career. [1, 2, 3]

 

It was in 2011 after Haye refused the initial contracts and fought Valuev instead after 2009 negotiations collapsed.

 

Ok your not on about wages. I have heard about the brother clause thing. Wouldn't surprise me if that was true.

 

Nah, there are always disagreements about purse splits, it common. What isn't common are the unending rematch clauses. I will say i never heard of these issues with Wlad, only Vits. My feeling is K2 was afraid of Vits losing more than Wlad. I of course have no proof of that. Just my gut feeling.

 

Vitali was never a one shot guy but a massive accumulation guy ... still, the injuries definitely impacted his power ..

 

Joe Louis at #5. Okay. That's rational.

 

Lol, I found that odd myself.