A Right Cross + Apathy = Losing Your Titles (Was this the formula to beat Lewis)

Nobody expected Rahman to beat Lewis in their first encounter….but he did. The way Lewis turns on the ropes with his hands low was almost inviting the right hand to follow. Of course, fighters employ such tactics when they have counters in mind, but for Lewis this was just a pure lapse in his concentration. He tried to raise his arms in a vain attempt to shield his chin from the inevitable, but Rahman had already sighted his target. The missile was locked, loaded and delivered with brutal efficiency.

Time and again fighters underestimate their opponents. Lewis didn’t make this mistake the second time around, but it was a lapse in his concentration which cost him his first fight with Rahman.

Lewis always struck me as being innately laid-back, so it’s not surprising that his natural tendencies would occasionally emerge in his style of fighting. Perhaps as he turned on to those ropes, Rahman sensed, on a subconscious level, that Lewis had momentarily slipped into a brief state of apathy and saw this as “his greatest opportunity” to deliver.


In my opinion, a combination of apathy and underestimation cost Lewis his titles against Rahman. His laid-back character - whilst commendable in everyday life - was an Achilles heel for him inside the ring. It was as much about Lewis losing his titles as Rahman winning them.

So this is what I’d like to throw up for discussion:

Lewis, at times, had a tendency towards apathy, which could interfere with his performance inside the ring. A fighter prone to anger, on the other hand, may abandon a tactical game in preference for a slugfest if they let their emotional side come into play. The outcome of this could have mixed results, but it sometimes pays dividends. “He’s not getting beat, he’s getting mad.”

So, put simply, which fighters can’t help but let their natural tendencies come to the fore? Do these tendencies affect the outcomes of their fights in a positive or negative manner?

I think the better opponent Lewis faced the better the performance he gave....

I think he coasted in his defeats...probably because he was so much better than his opponent....Let's face it anybody that saw Douglas-Mccall would hardly have given him a prayer..and Rahman was unheralded!!!

Certainly for me his best, most masterful performance was in Rahman 2...superb 100% owning....

don't dismiss the Steward factor also which plays HUGE!!!

Think Boxing misses him but I do think as I've said before he is rated too highly!!!

Not top 10 for me because a la Terry Norris he beat his most revered opponents on the slide!!!

Although his longevity marks him down for top 15-20 if not slightly higher...

Tyson beaten twice by Holy.........

Holy considered finished before Tyson...Bowe slapped him twice..

Ruddock twice by Tyson.

Vitali was controversial!!!!!

Huge the fact Bowe didn't happen for both them fighters..

A great for sure but rather than prone to anger and apathy...genuinely think his performance level was dependent on the threat itself!!!!!!!!

Lewis for me is an ATG top 10 but I do let personal feelings cloud my judgement. McCall caught him at the right time - although I agree with the sentiment that Lewis should have been allowed to fight on after the knockdown - he was ready to fight and he showed willingness and bravery to get back up. He could have stayed down and until then it was fairly even.

He went back and demolished McCall to the point where he broke down. That was how good he was when he motivated himself.

Against Rahman - he just took him too lightly. He then had to endure this guy parading himself as the next big thing when in reality he knew himself that Rahman just caught him with a lucky shot. He went back and demolished him too.

Lewis for me, was undefeated. He avenged his losses and conducted himself with such integrity outside the ring that he was a superb ambassador for the sport. Truss goes on that Holyfield had been beaten before - but he'd just beaten Mike Tyson, twice. Moorer and Vaughn Bean - he wasn't on the slide at all. He was a great boxer and Lewis for me won both fights rather easily. The first being controversial and anyone who scored it for Holyfield needs to watch the fight more closely.

Then Tyson - Tyson is a year younger than Lewis. If Tyson was on the slide, what was Lewis? Both had similar career lengths, Tyson even paid Lewis "step aside" money so he could fight Holyfield instead. Lewis wanted that fight long before he got it, and when he did, he pulled apart Tyson.

Vitali was a win for Lewis. The referee did the right thing by stopping the fight, as Vitali could have been blinded. He may have been behind on the scorecards but by general consensus, he was getting to Vitali who seemed to be gassing.

I agree his performance depended on the threat, but watch Tyson vs Lewis again and tell me that Tyson didn't go out to smash him up and got outclassed rather than didn't turn up as you alude to.

Fight on after the knockdown???

Wobbling all over the place!!!

Holy beat a blown up Moorer..a garbage Bean and on the slide Tyson...

Foreman knocked Moorer out!! Cooper had him all over the place!!!

Did you see Holy-Bowe 3???

Lewis was undefeated???? Duran never beat Leonard then....

Holy was not the same Holy that trashed Douglas....

Granted though that Bowe beat Holy easier than Lewis did!!!!!!!

So he's better than Lewis right!!

No, because he refused to fight Lewis. Flat out refused. Chickened out.

Styles make fights, results matter. Your way of dissecting careers means only the ones you choose to be selective with will appear to be good.

I'm saying he avenged his losses. There was never a fighter he didn't prove himself to be better than. Duran and Leonard fought each other so much, you could argue that it was a tussle for who was the better boxer but Lewis put that beyond doubt in his return performances.

Sometimes Truss, I don't know if you're a WUM.

Slight one eyed view of things.

Lewis had nothing to do with McCall breaking down, he just happened to be the right man at the right time. Massive fan of Lewis but he did beat Holyfield and Tyson when they were on the downside, don't think there is any denying that.

Well JM, I'm a big fan and admirer of Lewis too, but even I'd have to concede that you're being exceptionally generous to him there, fella!

He can't have any grumbles with the stoppage against McCall. Seems to me as if people are clutching at straws and looking for an excuse so they don't have to face the reality that Lewis got put on his rear end by a fighter who really had no business troubling him in the first place. Lewis was up at six, yes, but very unsteady on his feet. There's nothing in the rule book saying that the referee should give a champion extra benefit of the doubt, and I have to say that my gut feeling is that McCall would have finished Lewis off had it continued. He put it right in the rematch, just as he did against Rahman, but while that remedies those defeats to a degree it doesn't make them write offs.

And come on, Tyson was a shell by the time Lewis fought him. Not Lewis' fault, but hardly a towering victory. Age is deceiving; Cotto is three or four years younger than Floyd, but he's deteriorated more than Floyd has in the last few years. Tyson was a far more diminished force than Lewis in 2002, and all you need to reach that conclusion is a working pair of eyes.

One final quibble, if I may, is this 'Tyson ducked Lewis in 1996' talk. Well, from the outset, that's maybe true. I'm not convinced Tyson ever really fancied the Lewis job the way he did the Holyfield one (even if that one did backfire!). Tyson-Lewis in 1996 was a big fight, but Tyson-Holyfield in 1996 was an absolute mega fight. The majority of boxing fans were more interested in Tyson-Holyfield than they were Tyson-Lewis. I'm not saying that makes it right to vacate a belt which Lewis was the mandatory for, but it does make it a little more understandable, all the same.

Lewis, of course, a genuinely great Heavyweight, and the sport has missed him. But he and his career certainly aren't beyond criticism and scrutiny.

Think Rahman win was lucky but mccall saw a weakness in Lewis technique and bang. Hold the Mccall loss against him but only a little because he didnt get a proper chance to remedy it.

Morales - superb boxer - brawled too much
Meldrick Taylor - no explanation needed.

I'm aware I'm being rather generous mate, Lewis for me is my favourite boxer, I don't deny that he can come under scrutiny - but the way you've done it is slightly different to the way Truss does it. You'd assume Lewis was "just another good heavyweight who only beat boxers who were going downhill" which I don't see as the case.

I agree with you on the first McCall stoppage but I guess it can be questioned whether he could have carried on.

McCall broke down because he wasn't able to have things his own way in my opinion. very strange - but can't not be down in part to Lewis.

Stop calling me a wum..

I don't make up stories about sparring with Hagler when I was back in Boston..


You're young and that's great but we all saw these guys first hand and saw the quality of them...and when they peaked first hand..

Not saying Lewis wasn't the best just that he lacked a defining fight..

Mate you abused me on the thread the other day and got reprimanded for it now you're doing it again..

No offence but after your humiliation you should really calm down a little bit before chucking out words like..WUM okay!!

No that is not the reason McCall broke down at all, he broke down because of things happening outside of the ring, he was a mental mess before the fight even began.

Lewis is a great heavyweight but his two premier wins were against fighters who had seen other days but he more than makes up for that with the extensive record he holds at the weight. Briggs, Grant, Mavrovic, Tua, Mercer, Golota, Ruddock, Botha, Vitali, Morrison, Bruno, Tucker, Weaver, Mason and Tucker is a pretty good win list for a heavyweight, which for me sets him aside from most at the weight. The way in which he could win when motivated is a massive plus as well, he often gets labelled as a safety first fighter but did on various occassions step on the gas early to take his opponent out.

Sorry MC, got a little derailed from your final question, there!

James Toney; lazy outside of boxing by most accounts, but infuriatingly lazy inside the ring at times, too. When the times and opportunities came for him to show just what he could do and ghow good he could be, he just blew it over and over again!

The first Griffin fight was a prime example. Now it shouldn't have mattered given how he'd absolutely strolled through the first nine rounds, but he completely took the last three off and lost by a (poor) decision. The judges shafted him, but he gave them a chance and excuse to do so, to a degree.

I can forgive his lacklustre efforts at Middleweight to a degree, as he was always very, very tight at the weight. But there was no excuse for him being lazy and ill-disciplined enough to be walking around at 200 lb + just three or four weeks before his Super-Middleweight showdown with Jones, and for a man of Toney's build to be, while still only in his twenties, struggling so badly to make Light-Heavyweight not long after is little short of a joke.

Theres a difference between what I did to bring some entertainment and got carried away and deliberately making comments to instigate an argument as you do Truss.

I'm done responding to you.

I wish you'd stop taking me out of context you irritating squirt!!!

When have I ever said Lewis was another good heavy....

You've been exposed as a liar..................cut it out!!

Lewis is a great heavy just never had a defining fight..

Hate liars...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I wish you'd stop taking me out of context you irritating squirt!!!

You've been exposed as a liar..................cut it out!!

Easy on the personal insults. You know you wouldn't say things like that to someones face so don't do it over the internet.

Can't see where else I've lied, openly admitted the Kell Brook thing - if thats all your ammo, I'm sorry but you should change tactic or be more humorous with it instead of malicious.

You don't have a context to be put in so don't get bent out of shape.

How many great heavyweights did have defining fights, Marciano, Dempsey, Holmes and Tyson didn't really have one.

As for the thread itself, Whitaker always seemed content to cruise in his fights which resulted in some dodgy decisions when the judges really shouldn't have needed any excuse to screw him. Got the impression he felt himself so far above his opposition he didn't need to try.

I always find it hard to believe Tyson would have been worried about fighting Lewis in 1996. He had seen Lewis been taken out by McCall and scrape by Ray Mercer by then.

I always think Lewis is viewed with hindsight alot differently to how he was viewed at the time.

It wasnt really until around the 2000 mark after he had put together the good run of Golota, Briggs and culminating in Holyfield that I think he rubber stamped his greatness. But sometimes people seem to treat him as a dominating heavyweight from 1992 onwards when I just dont think he was seen the same way for much of the 1990s. I dont think he was ever actually regarded as the best heavyweight in the 1990s until the decade was over and people reflected back. But the opinions at the time usually had Holyfield or Bowe as the number 1 guys for the majority of it.

ShahenshahG wrote:Think Rahman win was lucky but mccall saw a weakness in Lewis technique and bang. Hold the Mccall loss against him but only a little because he didnt get a proper chance to remedy it.

Rahman wasn't lucky. Lewis backed onto the ropes, dropped his left hand and Rahman smacked him on the chin. No luck involved at all.

He was a lesser fighter, but not a lucky one.

Look I don't want to get into a fight....but I've had plenty of rows on here with the likes of most of the posters above...

What I've never done is completely mis-represent everything they've said and you do it regularly...

Now you came back apparently because "I respect you guys so much I felt the need to write all that guff down to impress you"

Well fair enough but have the respect not to mis-represent what I say or anyone else does on purpose...

You don't want to be put in the same league as Waingro , Steffan and the like..

Not so sure Tysons mind works like everyone elses Manos, he was from all accounts scared stiff of an ancient Foreman when no one else saw any reason for him to be.

Holmes, Dempsey, Marciano etc dominated their eras and didn't lose to the chaff Lewis did.....

Also five guys when on to win the heavy division after Holmes beat them.....

Like I say though Ghosty I have Lewis up there with the top 10-15 etc so he's just a little way behind..these guys anyway...

At no point am I in danger of being put in that category. If you want to put me there, thats your decision. Currently you reside in my mind as somewhat of a hybrid between a good poster with good knowledge and someone like Waingro and Steffan who has one train of thought, unable to be debated with and can be frankly, insulting at times.

If what you write is able to be misrepresented then I suggest you make your point a little more evident within what you say instead of going all over the place.

And just for the record, condescending to a 26 year old is rather a silly thing to do. I don't claim to have the encyclopedic knowledge of some of you guys, but you can't use age as a tool to insult me with - look at Chris, he's forgotten more about boxing than most ever know.

I don't care much for the 80's alphabet champions Truss, especially when none of them could beat either Holmes or Tyson.

Would have to disagree with Dempsey dominating his era as past it or not the best guy he faced beat him twice, aside from which there's not a lot to get excited about, not sure if it's just a fashionable thing to do at the moment but he's rapidly falling down my list.

Holmes was the dominant heavyweight of his era and is above Lewis but that is only because of McCall and Rahman besides which i'd have Lewis marginally ahead.

Guys just shut up.

I'll leave it but i'm sick of this guy lying about what I say.......

He's got form.....If he retracts I'll leave it...

Maybe you can tell me ghosty whenever I've said Lewis was just another good heavy????

I get the same time after time with Az though Truss, he looks for ways to misinterpret things, not a lot you can do about that.

When you summarise your first post with;

'A great for sure but rather than prone to anger and apathy...genuinely think his performance level was dependent on the threat itself!!!!!!!!'

I'll admit i'm not sure how he comes to the conclusion he has.

When I say why Lewis was better than you claiming he only makes a top 15 - 20 and you tell me all the reasons why and they include only beating boxers who were on the slide, without a defining fight - this alludes to the picture you're painting that Lewis:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think Boxing misses him but I do think as I've said before he is rated too highly!!!

Not top 10 for me because a la Terry Norris he beat his most revered opponents on the slide!!!

Which suggests he wasn't all that good. Does it not? Thats why I say why his opponents were better than you give him credit for.

If you were more clear with your posts this type of thing wouldn't happen.

I think that Jones was rated too highly does that mean i'm suggesting he wasn't all that good?

Dear oh dear!!

I think Duran is overrated too for the record...

just another good lightweight..

If you start ripping into his opponents fight by fight claiming that X beat X so X must be better than x then yes, I would suggest you're making out he's not as good as he really is. I'll point to something I said where i said "styles make fights" and that Truss was being deliberately cynical while reviewing Lewis' career.

If you just plain think people get too excited over Jones then thats different, but to then offer more information on his opponents further tearing them down its making out he isn't as good as he was.

" being deliberately cynical"

Mate you've got a terrible habit of telling me what I'm thinking and saying on this thread and others...

Whilst I'll take it from some other people on here you haven't deserved the right to yet!!!!

Cut it out!!!

No it's not, in order to fully gauge a boxers worth you have to be ultra critical, for me Ali gets more credit than he should for Frazier and Liston based on name only, brilliant performances by him for different reasons but not the best versions of either fighter. His victory over Foreman stands above all else because it was the best possible version he could have faced. Holyfield gets more credit for beating Tyson than Lewis does because it was a better version, by highlighting a fighters form you can get a better understanding of how good a victory it was.

Couldn't have written it better myself.....

My problem with Lewis isn't his greatness but the fact his best victories bar Klits....were against exposed fighters..

Not that they weren't worthy of acclaim........

More than meets the criteria of great heavies...but for me lacked the defining fight a BOWE could have given him....

Retract and we'll move on...

But then you deface the career of an even (arguably) better heavyweight by claiming the opponents he faced were better when in reality they fought them at different times. Had Lewis fought Tyson around the time Holyfield did do you honestly see it going any other way other than a Lewis win? Personally I feel Lewis deals with any version of Tyson - he would have upped his game as Truss rightfully mentioned because of the threat offered.

MediaCat wrote:
So, put simply, which fighters can’t help but let their natural tendencies come to the fore? Do these tendencies affect the outcomes of their fights in a positive or negative manner?

Good article MediaCat - when I watched Cotto/Pacman, Cotto was doing well in the first couple of rounds, but when he got caught, the red mist seemed to come down and he would drop his guard and start trading and then it just went badly wrong. Maybe a short fuse?

Point being he beat Tyson in 2002 not 1997, you can only give him credit for the version he actually beat, I tend to think he beats him any time post 1995 but I can't give him credit for something he didn't do.

Upping his game doesn't mean he deals with a fierce Tyson in 86....

Personally think he'd have struggled with both Holy and tyson in their primes....

Tyson was so quick in 86 and had such good head movement for me he beats Holy and Lewis....

But you can't not give him credit for something he wasn't given the chance to do when he says he was willing to fight Tyson at the time. If he'd not said that i'd probably agree with you, but I'm giving him massive credit for the fact he always wanted to fight Tyson, always fought the best he could, never ever ducked anyone and rectified his losses. In my eyes he's a top 7/8 ATG. I might be wearing rose-tinted glasses but as I've said Lewis is one of my favourite boxers of all time.

Truss did say "a great" however I still don't appreciate being spoken to the way he does and his tone is somewhat condescending.

Gets away with too much.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:But then you deface the career of an even (arguably) better heavyweight by claiming the opponents he faced were better when in reality they fought them at different times. Had Lewis fought Tyson around the time Holyfield did do you honestly see it going any other way other than a Lewis win? Personally I feel Lewis deals with any version of Tyson - he would have upped his game as Truss rightfully mentioned because of the threat offered.

Its a much better version of Tyson and a worse version of Lewis at that time so its a different fight.

Tyson was shot to hell when he fought Lewis. Its not an insult to Lewis to say this. Its just the way it was. Saying what would have happened at another time is basically just speculation.

I dont htink the upping his game argument works against fellow greats. Its more a case of he lowered his game against weaker opponents than he upped his game against better ones.

You can't give him credit for something he hasn't done, all well and good saying he wanted to fight Tyson but at the end of the day he didn't, as Manos says it's all speculation as to whether he beats him 1997, you can't give someone a win based on what they say.

Top 7/8 at heavyweight i'm hoping you mean?

"Gets away with too much....."

Mate deliberate mis-representation and hurling words such as "Wum" has all come from you....

Lewis at the time Tyson fought Holyfield had beaten Mercer, Morrison and Golota and McCall. They were impressive performances (Akinwande aside cos that was a silly fight)

Tyson after Douglas until Holyfield doesn't have that sort of resume. I don't see Tyson being too good for Lewis back then. I just can't fathom it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Gets away with too much....."

Mate deliberate mis-representation and hurling words such as "Wum" has all come from you....

Sorry - did I stumble upon where you didn't call me a "irritating squirt", "liar" and allude to the fact my age has anything to do with my posting ability?

Yes, i do mean at HW Ghosty.

Mercer and McCall impressive performances?

It's not a case of who you think wins at that point but you can ultimately only judge a fighter on what he did rather than the potential of what he could do.

I think that Sanchez could potentially have become the greatest boxer of all time but rather unfortunately he couldn't prove that.

Holmes had also beaten Mercer at 42 before and ferguson beat him......The same Larry that got splattered by Tyson in 88...30-27 at the time I believe...

Biggs was unbeaten.....Tucker unbeaten....Bruno less worn....Smith......Tubbs.....Spinks unbeaten.....All better technically than Golota etc..

Tyson spent three years in the slammer.....certainly made a better job on Bruno though...........

Not that it means a great deal but I'm just making another argument..

Easy to go on record kid but as you weren't around 1986-1990 you won't remember how Tyson dominated his era with nine defences....

Shouldn't be forgotten the above as you are shall we say one-sided..

You claim you're not a WUM - but then you go on to call me "kid" and because I wasn't around 86-90 I'm not allowed to have any opinion on the matter?

Done with you. First person to go on my foe list. I have a feeling my time on the board will be filled with a lot less idiocy.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Lewis at the time Tyson fought Holyfield had beaten Mercer, Morrison and Golota and McCall. They were impressive performances (Akinwande aside cos that was a silly fight)

Tyson after Douglas until Holyfield doesn't have that sort of resume. I don't see Tyson being too good for Lewis back then. I just can't fathom it.

Im not sure your dates are correct on that.

Had Lewis not just struggled with Mercer (definately not an impressive performance) when Tyson faced Holyfield?. Part of the reason why Id be surprised if Tyson was unwilling to face him for boing rather than money reasons.

McCall for sure came after because it was for the vacant title and Golota came after that also when Lewis was champion.

Tyson was past his best in the mid 1990s but Lewis had also yet to reach his peak. The McCall fight and Mercer performances were not flukes in my opinion, but indications of real vulnerabilities in Lewis' game that Steward corrected over time.

You're right of course Manos - but the Mercer fight holds sway for me because it was such a war.

I'm a massive Lewis fan. Blinkered if you will.

You're doing it again!!!

I've never said you haven't the right to have an opinion....Just pointing out to someone who wasn't around that Tyson was dominant of his era...

Will you please stop taking me out of context...That's all I ws doing!!

Any consolation Windy has pointed out to me on several occasions what it was like in Foreman's day etc....

Please stick me on your foe list....

I'm wasting my time with this guy..he's very childish.

If he can be dragged into a war by Mercer at that time which many felt he lost doesn't fill me with confidence that he beats Tyson all that comfortably or at all.