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

First topic message reminder :

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?

Dear oh dear I feel guilty and I haven't done anything......

Wow.......think people do tend to look at all Tyson's bad points when rating him as opposed to the fearsome warrior he was....

Easy to assume lewis stands his ground in 87 but no one else had the bottle too...including Larry..

The only version of Tyson that is relevant to Lewis is the version between 95 and 02, before that they were never going to face off, basically he didn't have the opportunity to beat the best of him so how you can credit him for something he didn't do is beyond me.

Tyson does tend to be pigeonholed from 1994 onwards.....maybe because posters didn't see the 86-89 version.....

Different beast..

I tend to think that Lewis would have beaten Tyson had the fight come off in 1996 when it was first touted. The Holyfield fights highlighted some alarming holes in Tyson's arsenal. Whichever one out of Holyfield or Lewis he chose to face off against in late '96, he was still doing so on the back of just eight rounds boxed (and not all of them completed!) in the past five years - hardly any kind of preparation, really.

The ease with which he powered past the more or less hand picked Bruno and Seldon probably covered up those holes to a certain degree, but I think Lewis in 1996 would have done just about the same to Tyson as Evander did.

Tyson of '88 against the Lewis of, say, '00 is a different matter, of course. Can't say with any great conviction which way it would have gone. Had their primes fallen in to the same era I can see Tyson starting as favourite, but I do think Lewis had the tools to unlock him. I don't see an easy night either way.

I think Tyson from 94 onwards was a poor imitation of the pre-incarceration Mike...

The fact that a twice beaten by Bowe Holy took him...lends credence to Lewis having a great chance....

However the fact Holy had done it twice already takes the gloss somewhat off a Lewis win.....

Never my intention to destroy Lewis achievements just to point out that his record is open to interpretation and to give some balance..

Beat a guy called Tyson......not Iron Mike.

88Chris05 wrote:I tend to think that Lewis would have beaten Tyson had the fight come off in 1996 when it was first touted. The Holyfield fights highlighted some alarming holes in Tyson's arsenal. Whichever one out of Holyfield or Lewis he chose to face off against in late '96, he was still doing so on the back of just eight rounds boxed (and not all of them completed!) in the past five years - hardly any kind of preparation, really.

The ease with which he powered past the more or less hand picked Bruno and Seldon probably covered up those holes to a certain degree, but I think Lewis in 1996 would have done just about the same to Tyson as Evander did.

Tyson of '88 against the Lewis of, say, '00 is a different matter, of course. Can't say with any great conviction which way it would have gone. Had their primes fallen in to the same era I can see Tyson starting as favourite, but I do think Lewis had the tools to unlock him. I don't see an easy night either way.

Agree fully with this post. In 96 I would probably make Lewis a favourite. Tyson was well past his best, not training properly and hadn't been in a competitive fight since 1990. Obviously the 96 version of Lewis wasn't the finished article and would certainly give Tyson a decent chance of scoring the KO, but generally I would see it 65-35 in Lewis's favour at that time.

Lewis' prime was late 90's early 00's whereas Tysons was mid to late 80's. Prime for prime it is a real 50/50 pick 'em, 86-89 Lewis gets splattered, 94-98 35-65 in Lewis's favour, 98 onwards Tyson gets dominated (as he did in 02). It's basically just a case of 2 fighters who operated during the same era but whose primes did not cross.

Lewis victory over Tyson has to be seen in that context.

I dont think too many people would take issue with Lewis being made a favourite over Tyson in 1996, even those who would pick Tyson. But I think the point most were trying to get at was that it cant really be credited as an actual win or fact for Lewis on the basis that he beat Tyson some 6 years later when the deck was stacked massively in favour of Lewis.

I actually think in 1996 Lewis would have started as an underdog with bookies, probably incorrectly. Tyson was still seen as formidable until post Holyfield while Lewis had yet to really establish dominance and was coming off a fairly unconvincing win against Mercer.