This is all true. Do we know if Lewis's promoters and TV-backers were willing to promote his challenge to Tyson with no conditions or options on the golden goose ? King was in the position to operate like that, and not without some justification. Traditionally the man who holds the title and is by far the bigger draw is in position to take the upper hand in negotiations. I doubt it ever got down to the nitty-gritty of what the conditions would be though, because Lewis was against any sort of clauses with King, and because he knew Tyson would stripped and be placed in the match for the vacant crown.
Im sure the negotiations didnt get past a phone call between the two promoters. What I dont understand is why did they pay Lewis to step aside and not fight him anyway? They could have just gotten stripped and paid nothing.
Perhaps because they would have had to pay him something for the costs of court stuff he was engaging in. They had to pay to set up the Seldon fight, which was originally scheduled for July. I guess they also hoped as a distant possibility that Lewis would get himself another fight and LOSE, thus allowing them to keep the WBC title.
Apollogise for mis-interprating your original post and yes you're right, LL's my boy, the only guy I draw both barrels for. What Lefthook31 posted is how I saw the situation, it was a control move from King. Btw even though blatantly pro Lewis I have nor would I ever claim Tyson dodged Lewis. All I can add is this snippet from wiki: While Lewis had the No. 1 contender's slot in the WBC rankings, he defeated Olympic gold medallist Ray Mercer by a close majority decision and contender Tommy Morrison. Lewis successfully sued to try and force Tyson to make a mandatory defense of the WBC title against him or force Tyson to give up the title, winning a four million dollar settlement from promoter Don King. Rather than fight Lewis, Tyson relinquished the WBC belt to fight Evander Holyfield, and the title was declared vacant.
Yeah it was a strange move. I guess King's influence with the WBC made it a worthwhile gamble to try and retain the title..... rather than just vacating. Had Tyson beaten Holyfield I reckon the fight would have happened early '97, and been a massive event. As it turned out Tyson was hammered, then fouled himself out in the rematch and was out of the picture for some time, whilst Lewis was at his absolute peak in the run up to the fights with Evander.
Tyson was going to fight Moorer and then Morrison had he won all the titles. I dont think King ever intended on including Lewis until he milked all his fighters first. Holyfield bitched King stole from him and that his manager Jim Thomas was in cahoots with King all along, so it was just part of the control factor that King liked. When he controlled the promotion he usually got the manager of the fighter to join him in stealing as much as he could from the fighters.
No worries. I posted this thread knowing it might inflame some of LL's biggest defenders. But I didn't purposefully hide the facts. The truth is most important, of course. I do think Lewis and his camp sometimes get taken as being the pure victim too much though. When really they were power-players too. Lefthook's posts were spot on though ...... .... yeah. And that's how King got where he got. Tyson obviously being his trump card, he's bound to demand some sort of compromise on Lewis's part. Fair enough. :good
I guess the reason I get bitter on these subjects is because I'm a firm believer no version of Tyson post Rooney could beat Lewis. So as you can imagine whenever I hear Lewis didn't do this or that I'm thinking the man wanted Tyson while he still had something, 1997 Tyson fits that bill. Then there's Bowe. I've always maintained Bowe mentally was 'Golota' like when it came to Lewis. So essentially Lewis tried hard to get Bowe in 93 and Tyson in 97. I believe he would have won and those wins would take away all ammunition from his detractors putting Lewis ahead of Holmes into 3rd spot on my ATG HW list. Imagine that resume, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield, Klitschko. And people wonder why I get so wound up about Lewis.
but even then, you would have needed him to fight a rematch with klitschko, something which lewis declined, seeing is how the frist fight ended prematurely.
I generally cut Lewis some slack there. The man had been hinting at retirement since 2000. Let's say for arguments sake Lewis of the Vitali fight was equal to Lewis of Rahman I. That Lewis had the ability to pull his head out of his arse and get back into great shape. I just don't believe 03 Lewis could do that, the desire was gone. And in no way would I want to see Lewis getting back into the ring in that condition.
I have never held Lewis not rematching Vitali against him. It was just a necessary strategy for Lewis to defeat him, but exactly what needed to be done, and was carried out in just six rounds. It was the same strategy used on Briggs, Grant and Golota, only Vitali stood up better than expected because of his awkwardness. I do however hold ducking Ruiz and Byrd against him. :yep:hey
understandable, then in that case, you cant consider that fight as one of his premier fights on his resume, even if lewis had fought and won bouts with tyson and bowe in the 90's.
What happen with Lewis against McCall and Rahman though ? He tried hard, except he wouldn't sign with Don King. Well, Holyfield actually did beat Bowe in 1993, and he beat Tyson in 1996 and '97. But people would make excuses, like they do with Holyfield. Post-prison Tyson was shot. Bowe went to **** after he won the title. I think Lewis is given a fair deal on this board. More than a fair deal.
WInd up merchant But I will oblige. Rahman - Trained for two weeks for a fight at 5,500 ft, worst Lewis ever, worse than Tyson of the Douglas fight. McCall - I take nothing away from McCall. He knew exactly what he was doing, a great clean knock out, but that was Lewis pre Manny (Like Tyson without Cus/Rooney). Not signing with King moved him up in my estimation, give that man a medal! If he got his fights history would have been different. The fight with Bowe would have been in early-mid 93 after Holyfield I. The Tyson fight would have been after Morrison, early 96 before Holyfield. People will always make excuses, I'm sure there's a few who'll think I am after reading this thread. He is, but those who put him down would be far fewer in numbers.
I agree about the Rahman defeat. I dont necessarily agree that Lewis was better with Steward. In some ways, yes, and it's true that Steward probably got Lewis to be a bit more careful not to leave the opening he himself worked with McCall to exploit. But I think some of Lewis's best performances came pre-Steward, and some of his sloppy ones came after. Yeah, and I'm just sating that Holyfield got those fights instead and scored the victories. But I dont see many people being forced to rate Holyfield high off of them. Many people make excuse surrounding the conditions of both men, and maybe some of those excuses are valid.