How important is a re-match? I ask the board to ponder this question. If Lewis never got a re-match from Rahman and McCall, how many slots down do you move him in a ranking sense?
Well he wouldn't be justified to be in the top 10. There would always be questions on whether the fights were flukes or if they had "exposed" him. I'd have him around 15-20.
If you avenge a loss it should count for something. If you beat up somebody you already beat up, well, you proved already you were the better man.
He'd move down a few slots I suspect - but he'd still be considerably above everyone else he fought and beat. Hurts doesn't it :yep
Not this again. The circumstances are different. Lewis was the champion when he lost to McCall and Rahman. He had to wait over two years for McCall - and there was doubts until the first bell went over whether the fight would take place...... and as for Rahman, Lennox's team had to threaten to sue Rahman for failing to fulfill a contractual clause, in order to get the rematch. Vitali was a challenger, one who lost fair and square, against a guy who decided his heart wasn't in it anymore. It's nearly seven years ago, I suggest you deal with it.
I really can picture Mendoza in 50 years sitting in front of a PC and grumple "and Vitali would have KOed him in the 7th."
Well, Weaver improved greatly from his 1st fight with Holmes and the rematch would have been interesting especially after Weaver picked up a title. Holmes never rematched him. Also Witherspoon and Williams but Holmes was older.l When you want an example look at Joe Louis, who always rematched a tough fight. Also Marciano. Ali rematched but most of the time it was to his benefit...Frazier,Norton,Spinks...the rematched enhanced his legasy as he lost the 1st match. also Leonard and Duran rematched although it did not always work to there benefit Duran/Leonard 2 Hearns/Leonard 2
I do think this is overblown - even without rematches, would anyone really think those fights were anything but a loss of focus on Lewis' part? It's not like McCall or Rahman particularly distinguished themselves afterward and the McCall rematch was a joke anyway. Rahman served some purpose in a "facing a demon" sense, but really... it's still "just Rahman" whose best win at the time was Corrie Sanders and who was losing on all 3 cards when he got lucky.
Agreed. What if Frazier never re-matched Ali? What if Ingo never re-matched Patterson. In Lewis case Vitali was his greatest win, yet he was down on all three cards 4-2, and won on a cut. While Tyson and Holyfield were bigger media names, Iron Mike was done, and Holyfield had seen much better days. This is why I say Vitali was Lewis best win. In a close fight, with a guranted mega purse, the onus is on the winner to give a re-match to see if the result was a fluke.
The difference between a fan boy... ( not saying you ) like the British types who cling to Lewis even though his paretns were Jamaican, and represented Canada twice in the Olympics is, I am talking about facts as they happen here. If wanting a re-match in an exciting or close fight equates to being a fan boy in your eyes, you better stay away from boxing or start batting for the other team.