Was Hatton/Witter the biggest British fight not to happen?

[oliverfennell]

As for a Bruno-Lewis return. Of course it would be bigger. Bruno was a title-holder and Lewis a former holder of the same title who had now lost and was slowly beginning to thaw the British public's perception of him. A return would have taken place in London and blown the lid offa fight one, which was historical but was seen as Lewis's going in. Fight II would have been perceived differently due to Frank's big win, not to mention his increased balletic brilliance.

Good shout on this rematch. I think most of us weren't considering rematches, but this is very valid. The first fight was pretty big despite Lewis not yet being as good/accepted as he would go on to be, plus it was seen as a bit of a mismatch. Bruno did much better than expected and of course went on to beat Lewis' conqueror to win the title. With a not-insignificant number of people having picked Bruno to beat Tyson, I could quite imagine a Bruno-Lewis rematch, with Bruno as defending champ, being seen as close to 50-50 - in perception, if not reality. Thus it would have been a very big fight, and bigger than the first one. And, yes, bigger than Hatton-Witter.

[oliverfennell]

How was the step aside money a necessity, and what would have happened had Lewis not taken it? Perfectly valid questions I think.

IMO, Lewis clearly wanted Tyson in 1996/1997 - who could blame him and I would argue wanted this more than Bruno or the WBC title. I don't think taking a step aside money was the right way about going for a title as soon as possible. It was the right way (in theory, didn't transpire) to get Tyson early - but upon realising King/Tyson wanted no part of Lenny, Lewis prevent the step aside scenerio going further and Mike got stripped.

Although, I do not see what the WBC did so corrupt. Tyson wasn't installed as the mandatory for Bruno. Lewis was the #1 contender. Tyson didn't leap frog Lewis in the rankings, yes he got his shot before cause Lewis accepted the reward and it was on the basis that Tyson would have to defend against him. What would have happened had Lewis gone to courts, not taken step aside money, at that stage - who knows. ONLY in that scenerio and with that decision could we say as a fact if the WBC were acting corruptly on this occasion.

Would love to hear FTM take on this and to uncover the truth behind it all.

Lewis took the step-aside money when Tyson was champ, not Bruno. Otherwise if step-aside money was an option in the Bruno v Lewis or Tyson equation, it would have been Bruno to pay as champ, not Tyson as contender.

As for "How was the step aside money a necessity" - well, it wasn't a necessity, but think about it - if you were offered $4m to NOT work, what would you do?? Anyway, surely the man who's prepared to pay millions to avoid fighting someone should come in for greater criticism than the one who accepts the offer? But Lewis is often criticised for this situation, rather than Tyson.

[stujones]

How did Lewis take the Step aside money when Tyson was champ? Soon after beating Bruno he got stripped (before the Seldon fight). You scenario is highlighting then that Lewis took the cash (cause we are all in agreement that Lewis did get some dough, yes?) and also got his shot at the vacant title.... so really then DK wasted those millions, cause it didn't keep him the WBC title.

Questions Questions Questions before it gets written that I am making accusations.

I think why the general public were anti Lewis in this mess was cause it was possibly preventing a 1 - Unified champion. It was widely anticipated that had Tyson beaten Holyfield it would have been Moorer next and then Akinwande (possibly). DK's plans went a little pair shape when Lewis got the WBC title - tried to get one of his fighters win the belt, and in the process lost the WBO one. It kind of messed up the division untill 1999.

[oliverfennell]

How did Lewis take the Step aside money when Tyson was champ? Soon after beating Bruno he got stripped (before the Seldon fight). You scenario is highlighting then that Lewis took the cash (cause we are all in agreement that Lewis did get some dough, yes?) and also got his shot at the vacant title.... so really then DK wasted those millions, cause it didn't keep him the WBC title.

Questions Questions Questions before it gets written that I am making accusations.

I think why the general public were anti Lewis in this mess was cause it was possibly preventing a 1 - Unified champion. It was widely anticipated that had Tyson beaten Holyfield it would have been Moorer next and then Akinwande (possibly). DK's plans went a little pair shape when Lewis got the WBC title - tried to get one of his fighters win the belt, and in the process lost the WBO one. It kind of messed up the division untill 1999.

Yes, I know he dropped the WBC anyway so that he could fight Seldon, which made it even more conspicuous on Tyson's behalf.

Think about it - why would Tyson (the challenger) pay step-aside money on Bruno's behalf? In these instances, it's the champ in question who has to settle the issue.

[mickey1975]

witter and big are not 2 names i would associate.

bruno vs mason would have been bigger.

mason was higher profile than witter.

and bruno was probably the one british fighter who was more popular than ricky has been.

Frank was probably more popular with the public due to terrestrial t.v,adverts,game shows,Barrymore,etc.When it comes to the ticket buying public,Ricky wins hands down.Wembley was nowhere near full for either of Bruno's title shots there and neither was Cardiff.Ricky,facing either Witter or Khan,would have sold out the new Wembley,guaranteed.

[palooka]

Michael Ayres v Billy Schwer would've been British fight of the year

[T.M.K]

How did Lewis take the Step aside money when Tyson was champ? Soon after beating Bruno he got stripped (before the Seldon fight). You scenario is highlighting then that Lewis took the cash (cause we are all in agreement that Lewis did get some dough, yes?) and also got his shot at the vacant title.... so really then DK wasted those millions, cause it didn't keep him the WBC title.

Questions Questions Questions before it gets written that I am making accusations.

I think why the general public were anti Lewis in this mess was cause it was possibly preventing a 1 - Unified champion. It was widely anticipated that had Tyson beaten Holyfield it would have been Moorer next and then Akinwande (possibly). DK's plans went a little pair shape when Lewis got the WBC title - tried to get one of his fighters win the belt, and in the process lost the WBO one. It kind of messed up the division untill 1999.

Yes, I know he dropped the WBC anyway so that he could fight Seldon, which made it even more conspicuous on Tyson's behalf.

Think about it - why would Tyson (the challenger) pay step-aside money on Bruno's behalf? In these instances, it's the champ in question who has to settle the issue.

Tyson vs Seldon was WBC champ vs WBA champ, but only the WBA title was on the line. As soon as Tyson had unified the two belts he discarded the WBC and arranged to fight Holyfield, leaving Lewis and McCall to contest the vacant belt in early 1997.

"T.M.K"