It wasn't A cut. There were multiple jagged cuts on his eyelid. A jagged cut on his eyebrow. A jagged cut under his eye. A jagged cut on his cheek. His upper lip was cut and swollen. His lower lip was also busted up. He needed 60 STITCHES to close the cuts on his face and mouth. That's not A CUT. Are you new to this? https://images.welt.de/676a760c5137...3dcd/ci2x3l-w1200/klitschko-after-lewis-fight
Whaddya mean am I new to this? I have followed boxing for decades. I could not see the origins of the cut, & when watching the highlights recently, I again could not notice more than one cut. Although I did hear more recently there were several opened up (before you just wrote it above). I-like many people-just disagree that it is impressive to open up cuts. You meant not that it was not a cut, but it became much more. And I prefer not to have someone's face falling off, athough we all make our peace (sometimes too much) with a violent sport.
he may not have used it as much as he should have, but Lewis had an absolutely vicious right uppercut.
There are several answers that are hard to argue with. I personally would pick Rahman 2 also. There were fights in which I felt that Lennox was perhaps a bit too tentative/cautious (see Holyfield for one example) but that was his prerogative and he got the job done most times anyway. He retired on a sterling record with all those wins that included the comprehensive avenging of his 2 KO losses. The man is also now wealthy, happily retired with all his marbles. so that's a win-win in both professional and personal terms. As to my own reasoning for selecting Rahman 2. Well, the prior KO he suffered against Rahman had to be traumatic. No mean thing to get past such a loss and get back fully in the saddle. I was actually a bit nervous for Lewis in the rematch. I thought he might take in a good measure of timidity that might've been ultimately self-defeating. Instead, I watched a singularly minded, super pro-active and supremely confident Lewis who, for better or worse, put on a terrifically technical and aggressive display before securing an ATG KO. Absolutely no hint of any undue caution or reluctance to let his hands go which I thought he might've had even before the fact of the Rahman KO loss and which might've been even worse due to the KO loss itself. Instead, that KO loss released the completely undiluted version and true inner beast in Lewis.
Great post. One of the old boxing adages was......if a guy knocks you out the first time, odds are he will knock you out quicker the second. It does ring true a lot, tho far from overwhelmingly. Coming back hard after being KO'd by someone takes a special kind of self belief and intestinal fortitude. Even more impressively, Lewis did it stright up, no warm ups or confidence rebuilders.
Cheers mate. We know zero losses are treated as such an overinflated, big deal in current times - so much so, fighters often protect themselves from more stern challenges and it’s no secret that is exactly what they’re doing. Losses can happen to the best of them especially when the best of them actually take on their most pressing comp. without fear or favour. Losses can also set up for otherwise unavailable scenarios in which the fighters proven ability to come back, including avenging said losses can serve to further enhance their rep in overall net terms. Some might give Lewis greater credit if he hadn’t lost to Rahman and McCall in the first instances. I see it differently, and feel that Lewis enhanced his rep by coming back from those losses the way he did. So, basically for me, I wouldn’t have his resume read in any other way. In a similar way, Louis’ loss to Schmeling was simply something that can happen and it still still lent itself to The Bomber’s ultimate evolvement. And, again, who’d want to see Louis’ terrific win in the return match against Schmeling suddenly and consequentially disappear due to some Time Machine shenanigans that saw his first loss to Schmeling magically wiped from the slate.? Certainly not me.