The Riddick Bowe who beat Holyfield in their first fight vs Lennox Lewis who beat

Only thing Bowe in the olympics felt was Lewis' right-hand, lucky he had headgear. In the pros he would have been down hard.
Bowe just surfed on the american media's bias and ignorance of Lewis, able to safely avoid the guy who stopped him, who was his obvious rival, and fight Jesse Ferguson instead.

If Bowe really thought he could beat Lewis then why didnt he chase revenge on the guy who knocked him out for the gold medal? The Bowe/Lewis matchup had everything going for it, it was down to Bowe and Rock Newman not wanting it

 

Being that Lewis was considered a very good fighter, wouldnt you think the fight would always be there for Bowe? Coming off of a tough win with Holyfield, would it be stupid to take a couple easier fights to make some money? What fighter in the history of the sport only took the toughest fights? I know if I trained my entire life and reached the top where I had a bit of control, I would try and make as much money as possible. Being that Lewis at that time was not a huge name in the US, the fight would have only gotten bigger, especially if Lewis was able to hold onto the WBC belt and a unification fight could have been made of it down the line.
Lewis gave up the WBA belt to fight Tyson and the IBF belt to face Kirk Johnson. Tyson vacated to fight Holyfield and on and on. They all do it.

 

First of all it wasn't decided who was the best, that was the point of the tournament pitting Bowe-Holyfield and Lewis -Ruddock, to find out who was, and secondly, if someone pissed you off and you thought you got a raw deal, and could market the hell out of this angle and get revenge at the same time, why wouldn't you take such a dream opportunity to active all three things at the same time? Namely that you're an attraction, that the win by Lewis was a fluke and that you truly are the best in the division. Why would you pass up such an opportunity.

Sorry, I find your response extremely weak given the circumstances because yes he did have to prove he was the best, that was the purpose of the tournament. Can you think of one other sport or one other athlete who can just deem himself to be the best without completing a competition? That would be like Ali not fighting Frazier and still claiming he was the best..totally ridiculous.

 

Don't the words "signed contract" mean anything to you? Not fighting a contractually agreed fight, is different then simply giving up a belt. You of all people, who keep bantering about boxing being a business should know this. Nobody is denying boxings not a business, it is, but once you sign a contract to fight someone you give up the option of simply refusing to honor the contract just because you don't feel like it. What exactly is business if it's not honoring agreed upon business terms?

 

No. There's no telling what can happen in a year or so time, as we've seen countless times in boxing. Lewis clearly deserved the shot, and should've gotten it when he deserved it.

Yes. He had entered into an agreement when he signed to fight Holy that the winner would defend against the winner of the Lewis-Ruddock fight. It was stupid to enter into an agreement that he had no intention of following through on.

There's been plenty of instances in which a challenger was contractually mandated to fight a particular contender should he win the title. That's nothing new.

And unless they take on a bigger fight in its place, they all get rightfully criticized for it as well.

 

Good point.

 

I agree with your points.

I just don't understand vacating a title to avoid someone at all.

By avoiding you lose your credibility, make no money, and still lose the title!

Why not fight and at least give yourself a chance? And even if you lose, you will still have made money and retained your honor.

 

Okay, that contention is just that .. your contention. Unfortunately, it's wrong in the context of that time. While it is absolutely reasonable, understandable, and fair for a Lennox Lewis fan to believe (wholeheartedly) that he was superior or not below Bowe (even then) there can be no disputing that when you have multiple belts (alphabet titles) it can often come down to the individual negotiating position of the respective parties in determining a practical ranking or pecking order of what should or could have been viewed as "equivalents" in standing (even overriding what could or should be the more obvious secondarily supportive determinants of a relative ranking such as common opponents or substantive other victories and accomplishments).

The heavyweight division in these years (ignoring the past which was more of the same) had been a highway long running through the USA. From Tyson's domination and celebrity, to Douglas' shocker, Holyfield's move up to the top, and then culminating with Bowe picking up 3 of the belts with his victory, the marketing power, publicity, and positioning all spoke to Bowe being UNEQUIVOCALLY on top as '92 ended.

It is irrelevant that Lewis was a great fighter that may well have been able to dethrone Holyfield or Bowe. It is irrelevant that Lewis had a victory in the Olympics. It is irrelevant that Lewis' supporters knew who he was and believed in their fighter. Lewis was a NOBODY to the US public. He didn't become known over here for another three years and some would actually say six years.

Lewis was a national champion and won his eliminator over Ruddock in LONDON. Unfortunately, the heavyweight division during this era didn't run through Europe and general US sport fans weren't following Lennox's career - AT ALL.

So, it may not be right but it is the truth that Bowe and his management could rightly believe that they were in a position to dictate as well as determine what fights would be taken and/or when.

Sometimes champions in multi-belted eras can act independently of its competition as we've seen. Ottke was able to stick to his position as IBF then IBF & WBA SMW champ and never faced Calzaghe. Joe effectively did the same thing. No one's bargaining power was so substantial to dictate anything to the other. [In the US, no one cared or thought anything of either fighter, PERIOD.]

Bowe didn't need to come to Lennox to prove ANYTHING from a business perspective - nor an athletic one as the audience he performed for didn't know anything about the man he is being accused of ducking and it was never an issue over here. What his longer term intentions may or may not have been regarding an indeterminable length of reign as heavyweight champ and how Lewis (or any other fighter) was viewed in his team's planning is beyond the scope of anybody on an internet sport site to definitively know.

We all can take shots at fighters when we see their careers cross or overlap over careers and yet they never managed to find a way into the ring together. Some things appear obvious and we grasp on to them as it suits our aggregate opinion of certain fighters. It can be especially annoying when one arguably good/great fighter only decides to face an indisputably great fighter who is old, worn, and at the end of a career. The point is we often do not get what we want. The related point is we never have enough information to know the minds of those involved.

When push comes to shove I feel it is fair game to state what we think but that is far removed from meaning there exists ANY ability here to reach a definitive determination when only those respective parties can speak to the issues involved in any negotiation and the factors and considerations that were on the table for discussion.

You keep bleating a rather basic business tenet as if a simplification can substitute for knowing the minds of the people involved. That is insufficient.

I don't dismiss your desire for that to be a sufficient argument in and of itself. I was a tax accountant for Arthur Andersen & Co., auditor for Coopers&Lybrand (PriceWaterhouseCoopers), and an accounting manager and later divisional controller for a Fortune 200 company in my relative youth. However, just as one participant could tell you something supportive of your view - without the other, it remains rather unreliable.

You believe that the perfect fight was possible and the marketing of it was essentially a promoter's dream come true. You can't imagine a possible reason for it not coming about with the exception of Bowe being afraid of Lennox Lewis. I think that is the "extremely weak" response to the match that didn't happen (but we all wish had happened). There are too many fights that didn't happen or didn't happen at the most competitive moment possible to believe that Bowe is somehow more responsible than all of the fighters past and present who have effectively experienced the same occurrence.

It is easy to say that a real athlete would desire to test himself against the best to prove his merit. In the gym, with no ancillary baggage of coaches, promoters, investors, lawyers, accountants, administrators, organizations, etc., etc. we might expect the truly great athletes to welcome any opportunity to set the record straight. I don't believe great athletes fear competition. But, when it becomes a business and your very livelihood is at stake there are other considerations.

You said, "Can you think of one other sport or one other athlete who can just deem himself to be the best without completing a competition? That would be like Ali not fighting Frazier and still claiming he was the best..totally ridiculous."

Actually, this happens fairly regularly in boxing in the linearity of time. Decisions are always made that seem to indicate a disdain for another and a categorization of one as "not ready", "not at my level", and "not deserving" of an opportunity, yet. Lennox didn't fight Byrd, as an example.

Eventually, the stars align and the fight gets made. Or, at least, in many cases. Did the fighters actually change in some material sense from when they couldn't reach an agreement previously?

There is also the impact of success and the normal vagaries of life itself. Bowe may well have enjoyed the incredible level of success accorded to the heavyweight champ to the detriment of his career. It doesn't always take a long time partaking of a certain lifestyle to cause a detrimental result. Is a great athlete less of a great athlete if he demonstrates it for only a brief period or for a comparatively brief period? Is a great athlete less of a great athlete if he stays too long and takes a bunch of losses in his old age?

I think it is safe to say, that no one here can state to anyone's satisfaction what motivations were involved except to another willing believer.

 

So when given the chance to erase that and show who's best, you chicken out by fighting washed up former contenders?

 

Well I dont know if it was a contract or an agreement with the sanctioning bodies (which I believe was the case). Also Holyfield did the same thing with Ruddock, so nobody followed whatever agreement was in place.
I can assure you if it was in fact a contract Lewis would have sued Bowe inside and out, because fighting Bowe would have meant a lot more monetarily than fighting an old Tony Tucker.

 

^ This is an obvious and ridiculously biased account of the two fighters in question.

Firstly, Tony Tubbs had only lost TWICE in 32 fights. Once by KO to a absolute prime Mike Tyson. And once to a 28 year-old Tim Witherspoon on a razor-close 15-round decision in a WBA title fight.

Also, he had outboxed the very good and very slick genuine contender Orlin Norris (who was rated in RING magazine's top 10) in November 1989, 17 months prior to fighting Bowe. The decision had been officially voided when Tubbs failed a drugs test for recreational drugs (ie. traces of cocaine use).

Tubbs, known for being flabby, was lighter for the Bowe fight by 4 pounds than he'd been for Tyson, lighter by 10 pounds than he'd been for Witherspoon.

What happened after he fought Bowe is only marginally relevant, but, yes, he was KO'd by Butler in late '92 (**** happens), and within 6 months after that defeat he'd rebounded with 3 straight wins over Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson and Alexander Polkin !

Ray Mercer, far from "always been seen as a top prospect", had serious blemishes on his record far more so than Tubbs.

Since beating Tommy Morrison in October 1991 (almost 5 years before the Lewis fight), Mercer had :

* been completely outboxed by a 42-year-old Larry Holmes

* had been similarly embarrassed in losing a 10-rounder to Jesse Ferguson (who was coming off a clear lost to a post-Bowe post-Butler Tony Tubbs),

* had barely beaten Ferguson in a no-excuses rematch

* had been fortunate to get a "draw" with Marion Wilson, who sported an impressive 7-9-2 record, in his outing prior to Holyfield.

Yes, he looked good against Holyfield (in fact better than he looked against Lewis), and the Holyfield-Lewis-Witherspoon fights do represent an upward swing in Mercer's career (all close fights), esp. considering the crappiness that has preceded them.
But he was 14 pounds heavier for Lewis, noticeably fatter, and Witherspoon was still decent but was almost 39-years old and not as good as he'd been 10 years prior. Holyfield was already past his prime too.

Mercer was NOT better prime-for-prime. Tubbs would have outboxed him easily, IMO.
The "most" who would consider him better prime-for-prime need to explain how and why. Maybe because "Lennox is top 5 heavyweight of all-time"

"Far nearer his prime" is controversial with regards to Mercer because he didn't really get himself a prime. He was raw and a bit crude in 1990-'91, then just a second-rater at best '92 -'94, and in '95-'96 showed he could box a bit.
Tubbs career wasn't great either, he lacked discipline and activity and didn't get enough big fights, but he was schooling second-raters and young prospects on the regular right into the 1990s, and not losing to the Jesse Fergusons of this world. Tubbs 1991 didn't have the flakey record Mercer had by 1996.

 

This is a goading statement, and your antagonistic question has been answered already in the previous pages.
Funny how you praise Ray Mercer as being such a proven warrior, but he couldnt even get past the "washed up former contender" Jesse Ferguson to secure his shot against Bowe.

 

Jesse Ferguson who was coming off back-to-back losses to Tony Tubbs and Michael Dokes no less.

I guess Bowe should have struggled with Mercer instead.

 

No telling, your right. Lewis could have been knocked out by crackhead thus derailing the showdown.
So fighting Kirk Johnson was more of a risk to Lewis than fighting Chris Byrd?? What about Byrd he deserved his shot too. Doesnt matter if it turned into a Klitschko fight, the contracts were signed for Lewis to face Johnson in Canada for a money fight. But Lewis was already an established fighter at the end of his career so he gets a pass right?
Please name me an scenario where a new champion might have to go into another tough fight right after winning the title with comparable fighters?
There was no doubt Lewis was a great fighter, but in the immortal words of Mike Tyson Lewis doesnt draw flies to a fight, and just like Mayweather not wanting to fight Margarito for the very same reason, it was too much risk for too little reward at that time.
It worked out to Lewis advantage anyway. Lewis would have most likely been knocked out. Whatever Mcall, Mercer and Bruno could do to expose Lewis, Bowe could do it ten times better, and he had just as good of a boxing mind in his corner as Oliver Mcall did that night he starched Lennox and in reality Lewis was not prepared to face the Riddick Bowe that beat Evander Holyfield in the first fight. He just had too many holes in his game.
The fight would have been far more competitive and huge if it happened in 95.

 

Yeah but he beat the #1 contender to get that shot. Bowe would have been criticised for fighting Mercer who couldnt beat Ferguson anyway, so he'll never catch a break on this board.