Lennox Lewis InThis Month's Ring

The offer is alleged in Gavin Evans' biography on Lewis (Mama's Boy - Lennox Lewis and the Heavyweight Crown) and a news article, which was given relatively wide distribution, at the time, talked about the July date having been agreed with Ruiz. One article even mentions Panos Eliades having booked Earls Court Arena for July 15th. Another quotes Patrick English as reiterating the offer to Ruiz. All this occurring as the court proceedings approached.

I have no reason to doubt the offer for several more reasons, which revolve around the order of events and the nature of the clause in the contract, that King pursued with vigor.

The crux of my particular point is that a newly crowned/strapped Champion would typically have a year to face his mandatory challengers. But this was interfered with, due to a clause originally designed to ensure Akinwande got another go, after Lewis/Holyfield I.

For some bizarre reason, this clause, which went far beyond ensuring Akinwande was next in line, remained in the contract for the Holyfield/Lewis rematch. In short, the clause meant that, legally, Lewis could not fight anyone, other than the WBA's "leading available contender" in his next fight.

In very real terms, "leading available contender" meant whoever is nearest the top of the WBA's rankings and ready to make a deal.

Akinwande came down with Hep B. but maintained his number 1 status. This meant he was at the top but unavailable.

Akwinwande, still unfit to compete, led to Ruiz being installed as the WBA's Number 1, in February 2000. Bear in mind also that Ruiz, at about roughly the same time, was in talks with and would soon signed to fight Holyfield, that same month. This meant that he was legally unavailable too, at that stage.

It is also worth noting that Ruiz had competed more recently than Holyfield and Lewis (December '99), which leads me to believe that he was genuinely not ready to fight until mid-to-late the following year. He would, ultimately, not fight Holyfield until August, 2000.

Strictly speaking, Lewis should have gone to the next boxer down the list of the WBA's rankings. This was effectively what King won his case on, and it was a no-brainer, as to what the judgement would lead to by April 29th. However, it seems odd to me that while the clause required a judge to interpret it that way, there was no mention of who was responsible for determining the 'next' available leading contender and informing Lewis of the same (this is just one problem I had with the way the case was handled).

That whole episode was a lot of things; commercial ineptitude; the legal team equivalent of the Keystone Cops; contractual technicalities and the WBA being weak and bent, as ever. This culmination might have forced Lewis' hand, but it was not Lewis being in the "wrong". There is a big difference between legality and morality and, at worse, it was the Lewis team that left him legally hamstrung. Lewis was prepared to fight Ruiz. That was his only moral obligation and even that extended beyond the original intent of the contracted clause.

That King pursued his case so avidly, even after the WBA sanctioned the Lewis/Grant bout, on condition that the winner faced Ruiz (or whoever the leading available contender was at that time), shows me that he was only interested in having Lewis stripped of the WBA title. Matching two of his own fighters for the vacant strap, ensuring he would retain a portion of the championship again, whatever the result, made it quite obvious. This, to me, is unreasonable behavior.

 

Did Lewis sue Tyson when a rematch didn't emerge?

 

he downplay the opponents a little too much, which has to do in his losses to McCall and Rahman. Moorer was too small and Byrd also, I agree with him. And Ibeabuchi? Outclassing? I don't know. I think Ibeabuchi had a chance to beat him. Vlad? I think Lennox beats him. Bowe would be stopped by Lennox.

 

Emanuel was one of the smartest trainers who ever was. He had a sense about fights and knew exactly what was going on. About Ike, when I read what Lennox said , I tend to think he might have since Ike did not seem to be too flexible and might be in the path of some punches, but Ike was so strong and took a good punch. Although I thought Tua would give Lennox a better fight and he went into a shell and Lennox won the decision. So I wonder if Ike might do the same thing.. Bowe vs. Lewis was a natural fight. I wish it would have happen. I still have Lennox voice in my head calling Bowe ChickenBowe.

 

Quite probably - But, so what if it had been? Ruiz didn't become the leading contender until the January ratings came out in February. Prior to that, Akinwande had been allowed to maintain his number 1 ranking but was, of course, not a viable challenger due to health reasons.

Lewis was in his rights to make a deal with another challenger and take his mandatory within the stipulated year. This, to my mind, is particularly the case, given that the WBA's Number 1 for December '99 and Jan '00 was unfit.

King's interests were already being served with the offer to fight Ruiz, in July 2000. This wasn't enough for him. He needed Lewis out of the picture, because every man and his dog knows that Ruiz would have been paneled by Lewis.

My initial objection was that Ruiz was considered a career 'miss' for Lewis, which is clearly not the case.

My objection to King's behavior, I have also made clear. Simply put, Ruiz, when he finally became the WBA's Number 1 contender was offered a deal. King sought to splinter the then Unified Championship again, regardless of Lewis' offering the deal.

Your view of Lewis' dealings appear to be a little twisted. Lewis had been stepped on and forced to step aside for 10 years, by the likes of Rock Newman, Riddick Bowe, Don King, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson et al.

I find it somewhat of a poetic irony that in their own ways, their treatment of Lewis ultimately became their own undoing.

 

I think the Lewis team went after Don King for illegally interfering with the contract.

 

But don't you think Lewis' suing the relics of Tyson to make the 2nd fight was disgraceful move?

It's like Holmes suing Ali or Marciano suing Louis after that beatings just to earn some money in a meaningless mismatch#2.

I personally think it was the most disgusting move in Lewis' career.

Fortunately, the fight didn't get made and Tyson successfully got knocked out/stopped by jorneymen Danny Williams and Kevin McGride shortly thereafter.

 

Why don't you try reading up a bit before making ignorant claims about who did what?

 

I've read your full post but you seem to be a too big Lewis fan and defend all his moves and decisions.

You are claiming that Lewis sued Don King and didn't sue Tyson, while in reality he sued both.

From The Los Angeles Times' article:

"According to Thursday's lawsuit, Lewis lost $10 million by Tyson's refusal to fight at Staples and $25 million when Tyson refused to honor the rematch contract."

Source - http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/09/sports/sp-boxing9

I'm giving you actual proofs, while all you posting here are just you thoughts and things like "I remember it was in the some article of the some newspaper back then". Why don't you give us any reliable sources to back up your words?

 

I didn't claim that Lewis didn't sue Tyson, did I? Again - try reading.

And, thanks for letting me know something I already knew.

The more serious case was against King for interfering with the contract.

Tyson signed a deal, which involved the Lewis/Tyson double header on June 21st 2003. This cost Lewis money, as promoter of the event. Him pulling out was a clear breach of contract. So, of course he was going to get sued.

 

Ah ok.

 

Would anyone have paid see Lewis vs an unknown John Ruiz. A guy who's biggest victories were Jimmy Thunder and a shot Tony Tucker.

 

Tyson was named as co-defendant and sued on a separate count of breaching their original agreement for a second fight.

My understanding (although I'd be prepared to be corrected) is that Tyson had not only signed a contract with a rematch clause, which involved different parameters for each boxer, in the event of a respective win, but had also effectively activated the clause, 4 days after Lewis had KO'd him.

The intention of Camp Tyson seems to be supported by an article in the telegraph...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/o...14/Boxing-Tyson-wants-rematch-with-Lewis.html

(Note, also, the reference to Lewis contemplating retirement at this stage...)


The point is that, when you agree to a rematch clause, that fight has, in effect, already been made in advance. What’s more, is that talks between the two camps had agreed that Tyson didn't need to fight him immediately. So, both teams had relaxed their stance on the rematch clause and this is how the 21st of June 2003 event had been conceived, as a Tyson/Lewis double-header.

So, Tyson would have had a run-up before the rematch - during which anything might have happened and the fight could have been derailed along the way, in any case.