Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The WBA didn't strip Lennox Lewis

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The WBA didn't strip Lennox Lewis

    The reason for Lewis' forced vacation of the WBA belt is misunderstood. Using the wayback machine I have found the 6th March 2000 resolution granting an exception to fight Michael Grant (WBA #5) who was HBO's favoured next opponent for Lewis.

    Lewis was ultimately forced to vacate the belt by court order after he unsuccessfully argued that the step aside clause in the Holyfield rematch contract specified Akinwande as the opponent (who was dropped from the rankings due to illness) rather than the WBA #1 who ended up being John Ruiz.

    This was a pivotal moment in heavyweight history for a number of reasons:
    1. It initiated a series of uninteresting fights between Holyfield and Ruiz for that particular belt.
    2. The WBA implemented their despised 'super champion' (two-tier belt) policy soon after.
    3. The WBA heavyweight title never really regained credibility until Klitschko won it from Haye in 2011.
    Bronson66 Bronson66 likes this.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Coverdale View Post
    The reason for Lewis' forced vacation of the WBA belt is misunderstood. Using the wayback machine I have found the 6th March 2000 resolution granting an exception to fight Michael Grant (WBA #5) who was HBO's favoured next opponent for Lewis.

    Lewis was ultimately forced to vacate the belt by court order after he unsuccessfully argued that the step aside clause in the Holyfield rematch contract specified Akinwande as the opponent (who was dropped from the rankings due to illness) rather than the WBA #1 who ended up being John Ruiz.

    This was a pivotal moment in heavyweight history for a number of reasons:
    1. It initiated a series of uninteresting fights between Holyfield and Ruiz for that particular belt.
    2. The WBA implemented their despised 'super champion' (two-tier belt) policy soon after.
    3. The WBA heavyweight title never really regained credibility until Klitschko won it from Haye in 2011.
    One also has to understand how fans felt at the time. Ruiz could have been a boxing prodigy that was uninteresting to watch but very good... he wasn't. In fact Ruiz was a very poor opponent who had no fan appeal to boot. He was durable enough to not get destroyed and occasionally win. Lewis would have destroyed Ruiz on his worse day. Ruiz did not have the punch, the engine, or the intelligence to threaten Lewis and the fans knew it.

    Grant was considered a juggernaut. His last fight before Lewis he showed cracks but he had power, was big and every chauvanist Larry Merchant type wanted Grant to become the next American heavyweight, whatever that means. Lewis probably figured out Grant was beatable, but more to the point he wanted to fight the opponent that was recognized as the best by the fans.

    Now those in the know knew Grant was no Juggernaut. But Grant was still much more of a threat than Ruiz.
    Coverdale Coverdale likes this.

    Comment


    • #3
      They all know.

      Comment


      • #4
        Boxrec makes itself useless for WBA research.

        I wonder why they recognize the other belts but not the WBA?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
          Boxrec makes itself useless for WBA research.

          I wonder why they recognize the other belts but not the WBA?
          Apparently Boxrec charges a fee to see any WBA information. They ambroiled in a fued with the WBA because the or is working with Fightfax, a rival site. Just would I could gather with a quick search.
          Willie Pep 229 Willie Pep 229 likes this.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's funny bro, not only does every single seasoned historical fan know all about how forced into stripping the WBA was, they still mostly blame the WBA.


            Lennox Lewis is the greatest salesman boxing has ever seen. Selling you KO losses as resume wins and dropping belts for money as fighting the authority for glory.


            They know the deets, they do not care, they disagree. I say they because it is consensus not hurl veiled insults. Veiled isn't really my style.



            Keep using that wayback and you'll find the presser for when LL and the WBA were just hypothetically making a reg belt. These dudes know all about it, the Reg belt is still greedy bodies not LL's doing.



            So, if you're gonna head down that rabbit hole be prepared for a whole lot of "I know and you're wrong" even though you see it, it was totes a judge, Lewis's greed, and nothing the WBA could control. Still their fault. Corrupt, Don King, some other buzzwords, oh the atomsphere at the time. Because "But Grant were a hypejob doe!" is an excuse for LL.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Marchegiano View Post
              It's funny bro, not only does every single seasoned historical fan know all about how forced into stripping the WBA was, they still mostly blame the WBA.


              Lennox Lewis is the greatest salesman boxing has ever seen. Selling you KO losses as resume wins and dropping belts for money as fighting the authority for glory.


              They know the deets, they do not care, they disagree. I say they because it is consensus not hurl veiled insults. Veiled isn't really my style.



              Keep using that wayback and you'll find the presser for when LL and the WBA were just hypothetically making a reg belt. These dudes know all about it, the Reg belt is still greedy bodies not LL's doing.



              So, if you're gonna head down that rabbit hole be prepared for a whole lot of "I know and you're wrong" even though you see it, it was totes a judge, Lewis's greed, and nothing the WBA could control. Still their fault. Corrupt, Don King, some other buzzwords, oh the atomsphere at the time. Because "But Grant were a hypejob doe!" is an excuse for LL.
              My intention wasn't to make a moral judgement on LL or the WBA here, just give an accurate description of what happened.

              But if you're going to ask me to pick between LL and the WBA, I'm going to go with the entity that actually gets in the ring and fights.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Coverdale View Post

                My intention wasn't to make a moral judgement on LL or the WBA here, just give an accurate description of what happened.

                But if you're going to ask me to pick between LL and the WBA, I'm going to go with the entity that actually gets in the ring and fights.
                Super beside the point actually but I can tighten up:

                Consensus says the WBA stripped Lewis regardless of being fully aware of the situation. The judge has been deemed an invalid excuse.
                Coverdale Coverdale likes this.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Coverdale View Post

                  My intention wasn't to make a moral judgement on LL or the WBA here, just give an accurate description of what happened.

                  But if you're going to ask me to pick between LL and the WBA, I'm going to go with the entity that actually gets in the ring and fights.
                  I'm a little confused here,when did the WBA award their title to Lewis?

                  I don't see the WBA title in his resume,surely he would have to hold it before he could be stripped of it?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bronson66 View Post

                    I'm a little confused here,when did the WBA award their title to Lewis?

                    I don't see the WBA title in his resume,surely he would have to hold it before he could be stripped of it?
                    Uh, when he beat Holyfield bud. 1999

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP