Yep, "a terrible day at the office" Sheer laziness. Amateurish mistakes. Rahman wasn't even anything special, as you know.
I would point out that The Ring had Rahman as their #9 at the time...maybe not 'special', but not exactly chopped liver.
Yeah, he was a contender. But Lewis is supposed to be an ALL-TIME GREAT, so Rahman's position is relatively inferior by some margin.
Well FWIW, he definately paid the price for his lacKadaisical approach, as many a fan and boxing historians have punished him severely for this laps in judgement, in terms of their ATG ratings. And of course it gives Zakman a platform to work with..lol Me personally, while I do downgrade him on the loss, I also give him props for his impressive KO victory, especially coming off a KO loss, cause psychologically it has to be hard to get into the ring with a guy who KO'd you the last time you met.
Most of the greats have had losses that they shouldnt have really had. Telling me ali should have lost to Spinks, or Tyson should have lost to douglas... Its hos you comeback from the losses to prove that you are still the dogs bollocks. lennox showed who the better man was in the rematch. Also Rahman went onto compete at the highest level after Lewis knocked him out. Rahman is no legend but he is no 'tomato can' either.
I criticize Ali heavily for losing to Spinks. Things like that make me doubt he was "The Greatest". I dont rate Tyson as highly as some do, and I would cite his beatdown by Douglas as a primary reason to exclude him from an all-time top 10. He might sneak into the top 15. Not really. I dont understand that logic. A decider match would break the tie. 1-1 is even. Maybe all those guys Lewis only beat ONCE could argue he hasn't proved who the better man is ?! If not, then Rahman could have refused a rematch and he could boast he's the better man. Lewis winning the rematch can only draw him level, head-to-head. It's fair to say Lewis REVERSED his defeat, but 1-1 is no proof of head-to-head superiority. Rahman went on to get punched and butted by a 40 year old Holyfield, and didn't look too hot to me. Still, he was some sort of contender, and not a "tomato can".
This fight, with this result did not have to happen. If Lewis had prepared for this fight, and not dabbled in making movies, in other words, if he had come into this fight ice cold and serious, then Rahman would have never gotten lucky, and would have never become champion. Same hold true for McCall, in that if Lewis had been on his game for that fight, that freak ko would have never happened either, and Lewis would have retired undefeated from boxing.
Generally, he did a lot of pawing, leaning, and pushing, so I wasn't ruling out a safety-first "jab and grab" attempt in the Rahman rematch.
Whilst technically you're correct I would say that the manner of the win for Lewis in the rematch underlines his head-to-head superiority over Rahman. Rahman was in shape for both fights whilst Lewis clearly wasn't for the first. The 2nd fight was a far more accurate yardstick of the true measure of both fighters in relation to each other.
Lewis was just over confidant we have seen it before and we will see it again, it is not held against other all time greats these sort of defeats so why hold it against Lewis.
When it comes to rating the greats, we have to take these things into account. You say "these sorts of defeats", but which other great heavyweight just stood there all skewed-legged and got knocked out by one punch that any decent defensive fighter would have avoided ? People here seem to be almost admiring his "overconfidence", as if it proves his superiority. What I see is very poor boxing in this instance. This is actually a far more severe technical error than the one that cost him against McCall, where Ollie at least had to time his shot when Lewis was launching his own right. Fighters that do this often are ordinary fighters. Lewis's record proves he was no ordinary fighter, but this one instance alone has to affect his standing to some degree surely.