Lewis Retirement: One fight early, or one fight late?

Hey guys, just thought I would throw something out there that as a casual fan I have been thinking about for a while.

It is pretty much agreed that Lennox Lewis retired at the right time, whilst he was on top of the world, and didn't get carried away into continuing boxing for too long. My question is that did he do this one fight too early, or one fight too late?

Before his fight with Vitali, Lewis had beaten all the opponents he had faced. He had won his mega fights with Tyson, and gone 1 win, 1 draw with Holyfield, albeit neither of them being at their, and I loathe to use thw word, "prime". He had avenged his two losses, and beaten decent level, if not great opponents in Golota and Tua. The one obvious gap in his CV was Bowe, but that was not down to any of Lennox's doing after the infamous "bin dumping". So should Lewis have got out after Tyson? Would people be questioning him now for not fighting Vitali because of what Vitali has gone on to do, or would we remember that at the time Vitali was labelled as "Quitschko" after retiring on his stool against Chris Byrd and deemed by most people not of true great qualities like Lewis. However, as Lennox did go on to fight Vitali and win on cuts whilst being down on the cards, should he have gone on to re-match Klitschko, as that was the least Vitali deserved.

So, finally, my question is when would have been the best time for Lennox Lewis to retire for optimum legacy? Would he have the legacy he has now if he never faced Vitali, was he right to retire after the first fight, or should he have re-matched Vitali and would this have increased his legacy enough to warrant the risk he was taking?

Personally I think he retired at just the right time, at his age Vitali was never going to be an easy nights work because at 38-39 he wasn't getting any better whilst Vitali was in all likelihood was going to improve so win or lose have to think the second fight would have left as many questions as it answered and he was at no age to be getting involved in a trilogy against a decent fighter.

For me he went out with a perfectly legitimate win over the best of the next generation, you can't ask for a lot more than that from any fighter.

It is pretty much agreed that Lennox Lewis retired at the right time,
***********************************************************
If that's the case, it can't have been too late or too early can it?

One further fight with Vitali could well have gone the wrong way. He retired bang on time. Split Vitali's face to shreds - clear win.

definitely retired at the right time, rightly or wrongly peeeeopel rate vitali as one of his top wins; so retiring a fight earlier would've reduced his legacy and one fight later he may have lost

DAVE667 wrote:It is pretty much agreed that Lennox Lewis retired at the right time,
***********************************************************
If that's the case, it can't have been too late or too early can it?

Well, about the right time. What I mean was he hasn't gone and done either extreme like Holyfield or Haye (Claims that he will anyway). Have mercy, and ease off with being so pedantic! First time post! You hurt me!

I think Lewis knew the score.....He basically lost to Vitali..knew there would be a rematch and legged it....

Good fighter that knew his time was up

So are you only giving us the option of Lewis retiring too late or too early cos that's not fair either is it?


As Jeff says, even after a year's activity he still managed to pull off a legitimate win against the man whose gone on to be considered the best of his generation so he can't have gone on too long but apart from a rematch with Vitali there was absolutely NO-ONE out there for Lewis to consider facing. He'd have only had one more fight maxiumum before he hung them up anyway and, as he'd already beaten Vitali, he was justified in saying he had nothing left to prove.


I think Lewis knew the score.....He basically lost to Vitali
**********************************************************
Possibly the stupidest thing thing you've ever said. Basically lost? You mean by being declared the winner? This was no highway robbery. Lewis had shaken off the lethargy, found his rhythm and was being to catch Vitali with hurtful shots. It COULD have gone either way but I believe the momentum was with Lewis and the stoppage was a correct one.

Basically lost

Spinks lost the second Holmes fight but jobbed Holmes and ran....Every magazine had Holmes ahead by a mile...

HBO and consensus had Vitali ahead......

Entitled to my opinion and I know something about the sport unlike you

Go and play with your dolls.

Difference being that LEWIS WON by stoppage, how is that basically losing

Won by stoppage...........

Kind of a joke that line really.....Vitali was incapacitated and luckily so..

Lewis didn't fancy Vitali 2.....

He was behind by consensus...

I am asking if you thought he retired too early or too late Dave. By all means have your opinion that retiring after the Vitali was much better than retiring before or after, but it could be argued that at the time he had nothing to prove by fighting Vitali and that win is only rated as well as it is now because of what VK has gone on to do so if LL had chosen to go before that fight then surely no-one could level ducking accusations at him?!

Hearns was ahead against Leonard first time but he was stopped does that mean he basically won, Taylor was ahead against Froch does that mean he basically won?

Did I miss the meeting when stoppages ceased being legitimate victories

Lewis was behind BUT WON

Cuts happen Truss and if they are created by punches and their severity is increased by further punches that is legitimate. Had the cut come around by a headbutt or clash could see where Vitali could be considered unlucky but as this was not the case this is a legitimate win for Lewis, and mention of the cards is irrelevant as it is in all fights that don't go the distance.

I said he basically lost............

Don't put words in my mouth........

Or being American am I just better educated.

Still don't understand how he basically lost, being behind on the cards at the time of a stoppage is not basically losing it is WINNING

HBO and consensus had Vitali ahead......
************************************************************
Irrelevant when the stoppage on cuts was a legitimate one. Doesn't matter what HBO think son, cause who had his hand raised by the referee and who was declared the winner is all that matters and that was LEWIS

Had this been a disgraceful decision as per the DLH/Sturm fight, you, for once, may have had a valid point but as it wasn't, you don't.

Course you're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine...

Vitali was incapacitated and luckily so..don't you mean "nearly decapitated"

Course Vietnam "basically lost" against the Americans as well!

I'm not suggesting he didn't win on a technicality but he saw which way the wind was blowing.....HBO and most publications had Vitali ahead and as we all know he can fight all night and Lewis was much older....

He didn't fancy anymore after that...

He basically lost the war but got lucky in the fight.

It's not irrelevant because he won so contentiously that a rematch was almost certain and he fled the scene of the crash........

Relevant because he knew he couldn't take a young hungry fighter in a more legitimate way..

Is that why Vitali was starting to struggle and was visibly tiring quite quickly too?

He didn't get lucky in any way, i've not seen many fights where one guy has been left looking like that he's been in a car wreck and it's safe to say that Lewis knew he had little left to offer and got out. Or should he have carried on knowing he would probably lose?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not suggesting he didn't win on a technicality but he saw which way the wind was blowing.....HBO and most publications had Vitali ahead and as we all know he can fight all night and Lewis was much older....

He didn't fancy anymore after that...

He basically lost the war but got lucky in the fight.

Careful, if you're going to hit reverse that hard you'll need wing mirrors and could suffer a nasty case of whiplash.


It's not irrelevant because he won so contentiously
*******************************************************
Nope, he won because PUNCHES opened up a cut on Vitali that the ringside doctor deemed too severe for him to continue safely. You don't accidentally put over fifty stiches in a guy's face if you're not hitting him accurately and regularly. Many people admit that whilst Lewis may have been behind, he was starting to build up some momentum and there was every likelihood that the punches which had Vitali hanging on were starting to take their toll.

Seems fighters aren't allowed to come from behind these days. Funny old game innit?

Definitely the right time. He was out of shape and past his best against vitali, but still managed to score a legit - if slightly flukey - win over the next dominant champion. If he'd got himself into good shape for vitali II he probably wouldve won, but I doubt he had the motivation. It was the right time for him to retire, not too early not too late.

Notice you didn't come back on the relevancy issue..

Not reversed anything I said he basically lost the fight.....he won on a technicality...

I know you're determined to beat me in an argument before you die but please be more fair minded.

A stoppage win because your face has been cut to shreds isn't a technicality

If it was caused by a headbutt and went to the cards then that would be a technicality, sure I don't need to explain these things to you

technical stoppage...........end of..

Your place is to argue with the less knowledgeable types on here..

It's a stoppage and was stopped because Vitali was unable to continue

Must be why im arguing with you, cant get much less knowledgable than you

When you say you're well educated, does this cover the ability to read because the response is there for all to see (except you obviously)

However, for those of us who were too busy trying to look clever, I've copied it out for you again.

It's not irrelevant because he won so contentiously
*******************************************************
Nope, he won because PUNCHES opened up a cut on Vitali that the ringside doctor deemed too severe for him to continue safely. You don't accidentally put over fifty stiches in a guy's face if you're not hitting him accurately and regularly. Many people admit that whilst Lewis may have been behind, he was starting to build up some momentum and there was every likelihood that the punches which had Vitali hanging on were starting to take their toll.

Seems fighters aren't allowed to come from behind these days. Funny old game innit?



"Not reversed anything I said he basically lost the fight.....he won on a technicality..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beep Beep mind your backs please...extremely large/overweight vehicle reversing" Sorry chunky monkey but saying he basically lost...then later adding the comment that he won BUT WON ON A TECHNICALITY (which we've already taken issue with) is to those of us who can actually read, you just saying the opposite of what you originally said or going back on what you said...or, as I like to call it, REVERSING.

Had Vitali fallen and badly sprained his ankle thus rendering him unable to continue, then I'm sure we'd all concede that Lewis won on a technicality but whilst he might be deemed unworthy of that win.....he'd still have won the fight!

Already beaten you in several arguments son. Don't even have to try to do it here. You reversed your original statment by later adding the "he won" caveat but are too dumb/arrogant to see that you're wrong.

Yep.......I guess you can't get much lower than me..

But believe me you need to try!

I think it depends if you think he would have beaten Vitali Klitschko in a rematch. If the answer to that is yes, then I think he should have obliged Vitali and had he won more convincingly it woud have removed any doubts.

If you think he would have lost to Vitali Klitschko in a rematch then he retired at the right time as losing a rematch would have made his original win seem more of a fluke.

I tend to think Lewis himself felt that a Vitali rematch was too big a job and didnt fancy it so decided to get out while the going is good. Try as he might, he has never managed to convince everyone the first fight was decisive and left no room for doubt. The fight was and still is heavily debated so for Lewis to rematch Vitali and win convincingly would have left no doubts.

As it is there is still something of a lingering "what if" and doubts over the fight.

I think i'm scraping the bottom of the barrel with you Truss

I said he basically lost the fight........If I would have meant he lost the actual fight I would have left out basic..

Basically your not worth bothering with but I still bother with you from time to time....

The emphasis is on the "BASIC" dear boy....and If you misinterpret it it's your problem....

No reversal...........The basic is very "RELEVANT"

Honestly let's just leave it ghosty I've seen enough of your stuff to realise that debating with you would be like debating with one of the inmates in one flew over the cuckoos nest..

Basically I would have to disagree

Oooh I've been put in my place..

Oh dear, the use of the word "basic "emphasises your belief that when you strip everything back to the bare bones (or "the basics" if you like) that Lewis LOST THE FIGHT.

However, the basic facts are this...Lewis fought Vitali and Lewis was declared the winner.

That dear boy is BASICALLY what happened. What you believe, whilst seemingly all-important to you, is in fact irrelevant when dealing with the basics.

You said he lost, then you said he won albeit on a technicality. You saying the opposite of what you originally said constitutes a reversal. The fact he won on a technicality is irrelevant. The fact he won the fight is all that matters when deconstructing your pitiful excuse for an argument.

Basically, you're wrong.



Oooh I've been put in my place..
__________________________________________
Basically, you're right!

Basically means he lost in all but name.....

Basically = essentially.....He essentially lost the fight but got a joke win on a technically..

Simple...like yourself.

i loved that fight i remeber thinking omg omg omg vitalis gna win
then lewis was clearly turning it in his favour if the doc hadnt stopped it it woulda been like texas chain saw massacar at end( wether that be a lewis ko win or lewis points win) he was behind at the time agreed, but he had vitalis number by then and had turned the corner.
great fight and lewis retired at just the right time .
to this day hes the only guy to have stopped vitaly i believe ?

I didn't realise you so much notice of what the scorecards say after 6 rounds, if it was stopped in the 12th you may have a point but as it is you clearly dont, hence why you've resorted to such immature behaviour.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Basically means he lost in all but name.....

Basically = essentially.....He essentially lost the fight but got a joke win on a technically..

Simple...like yourself.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************Now now Truss, a joke win on a technicality!!

Half his face was hanging off.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Basically means he lost in all but name...

Basically = essentially.....He essentially lost the fight but got a joke win on a technically..

Simple...like yourself.

Basically = simply ...as in, he quite simply, all hyperbole aside, won the fight

Easy....like proving you wrong time and time again!

The OP should have entitled this thread "Trussman retirement...one article too early or one too late!"

Basically, you should have stayed away son cos YOU'RE the joke around here!

Yeah, retired at the right time-fought the best of the older generation ,and then the best of the new-sorta sums LL's predicament up really as he fought in a fairly week era and was not viewed as "the man" for quite a while(by Yanks anyhow).
din't think he needed the fight ,at the time, but it's one of his best with the benefit of hindsight. He could have gotten fit enough to rematch him,but he was smart enough to see that his legacy could not really be bettered.With a "W" next to the result he had every right to walk away from the fight.

I had it 4 rounds to 2 in vitalis favour at the time of the stoppage. Lewis was poor in the first two rounds and lost them both, but after that it was basically even so it's impossible to say who would have won had the fight gone the distance. It was clear that Lewis was landing the bigger shots and appearing to take a bit if control at the time of the stoppage, with vitali looking tired.

At the start of round 3 Lewis jumps on vitali as soon as they come out. He lands a jab and a straight right. It's clear that this straight right causes the cut on vitalis left eye. They clinch straight after and you can see the blood starting to pour. Lewis attacks the eye with his jab fir the rest of the fight, making a bad cut absolutely horrendous. Vitali had o er 50 stitches and plastic surgery I believe. Had he fought another 6 rounds his whole career could have been ruined, in the long term they did him a favour by stopping it.

Just because Lewis lost the first couple of rounds before things evened out doesn't mean he was lucky. This fight was not one sided, that a myth, rounds 3,4,5 & 6 were very even. But vitali was stopped so the cards are irrelevant. To suggest it wasn't a legit win fir Lewis, technically or otherwise is folly. Who else made vitalis face look like it'd been hit with an axe?

I totally agree with Sugar Boy and many others on this forum Lewis did start slowly and deserved to be behind on the judge's cards,but he isn't the first fighter to come from behind to clinch a victory and he won't be the last.The longer the fight went the worse the damage to Vitali's eye would have been and I'm sure Lewis would have put him away within the next couple of rounds.The stoppage was in my mind the correct thing to do.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Or being American am I just better educated.

Oh wait, he's serious

There are many problems which can arise when we practise revisionist history, ( not the least of which is that if we ' change ' one result then we must logically change all other results in the chain, or at the very least, re evaluate them, ) but there's a much simpler one which is relevant to this thread.

A fighter is defined, at least to some extent, by the quality of his opposition. If Lennox Lewis had kayoed every opponent in a round and had then done the same thing to Klitschko everybody would assume that Lewis' success was founded on fighting lousy opposition.

Just about every great fighter who fought his share of decent opposition had uncomfortable moments during his career, and the very fact that Lewis, slightly over the hill and finding himself in a fight which was tougher than expected, still managed to prevail, helps to define both his and Klitschko's places in history.

Of course the ending to the fight was unsatisfactory, but there was enough action in the rounds which were completed to see that both men were quality operators and that neither was going to quit until he'd been to Hell and back.

Each to his own, but I prefer to remember it as an exciting and competitive fight which might have gone either way and was a credit to both men.

However, in your opinion Windy, did Lewis "basically lose" the fight as TRUSSMAN seems to believe?

DAVE667 wrote:However, in your opinion Windy, did Lewis "basically lose" the fight as TRUSSMAN seems to believe?

Not unless Jeffries lost to Fitz in their second fight, Dave, or Dempsey to Firpo, Tunney to Dempsey, ( second fight, ) Schmeling to Sharkey, ( first fight, ) Sharkey to Schmeling, ( second fight, ) Louis to Conn, Marciano to Walcott, ( first fight, ) Frazier to Bonavena, ( first fight, ) Ali to Lyle, Byrd to Klitschko, and about a thousand others from the lower divisions.

Unless we see an out and out robbery, such as Ellis v Patterson, I believe that history evens itself out when it comes to close fights. Sugar Ray Robinson said to his manager, after losing a tight one, words to the effect : " We shouldn't complain. We've had the roll of the dice a few times in the past. "

There are a few points with the fight that generally seem to be ignored. One is that Lewis extra weight I think actually helped him in this fight, especially on the inside with a fighter of Vitalis size. Most people seem to follow the belief that Lewis was heavy and out of shap and a much lighter Lewis would have dominated. I dont really agree. Lewis was never much good at inside fighting and his extra bulk I think prevented him from getting manhandled by Klitschko on the inside as well as being an effective tool used to tire Klitschko in the clinches.

I also think the win wasnt really decisive. Its the sort of outcome that cries out for a rematch. For several reasons - Vitali was ahead. Had Lewis been dominating the fight and the stoppage came I dont think there would be any doubts. But this wasnt the case. Another is that Vitali had stood up up to Lewis' best shots and appeared unfazed. People sometimes say things like Lewis was beggining to take over, Vitali was starting to tire and so on. I dont really agree. I saw it as very much in the balance. When the stoppage was announced Vitali certainly did not sem like a fighter that had had enough or was tired out. His reaction speaks volumes. Lewis on the otherhand looked more relieved. Then there is also the fact it was a short notice fight. Many would have been interested to see both fighters rematch under proper conditions.

The stoppage was a coorect one as Vitali was not fit to continue. But there was not a conclusive air about the win. For whatever reason, I dont think Lewis fancied a rematch and his insistence that the victory was decisive never really rang true with me. The fight was a good one and with many fans either looking for a rematch or questioning the win then I would have thought Lewis would have motivation enough to remove all doubts via a rematch. The fact he opted for retirement suggests to me that he knew it was a big job he faced and at that stage in his career he didnt fancy it. He had the W in the column, plenty of money and retirement looked an inviting prospect over a highly charged rematch with a guy like Vitali who could walk through fire if nothing else.

Still think lewis smelt the vodka and waltz off into the sunset........

As for revisionist history..history is always being revised..

Kennedy was this great president etc etc..

No he wasn't he didn't have any clout........unlike LBJ..

Lewis got lucky without the cut he was going to lose...otherwise why not grant a deserved rematch.