The Dragon Slayers, Part 1: Hasim Rahman

By Cheekay Brandon on January 18, 2012
The Dragon Slayers, Part 1: Hasim Rahman
Rahman’s career is purely a tale of determination, preparation and courage (Robert Ecksel)

Their storylines can include a David and Goliath, reluctant heroes, tales of redemption, good/evil and old school/new school dichotomies…

(This is the first of a five-part series examining modern boxing upsets)

Major upsets in boxing are arguably the most magnificent of sports miracles, with the combative nature of prizefighting lending to a very unique and special kind of drama. As the acts through which underdogs defeat their favored counterparts are violent in nature, analogies to “dragon slaying,” the mythical act whereby a mortal (usually human) warrior fights and kills a large and intimidating beast, are sometimes appropriate.  Boxing has a mythology of its own that can make fighters appear superhuman and unbeatable. When these fighters are defeated the events can carry a supernatural aura, like something very special or magical has occurred.

The most famous “dragon slaying” events are memorable both because of the inside-the-ring exploits and because of the life context in which they play out. They can be viewed from various perspectives: psychology, philosophy, preparation and luck. Their storylines can include a David and Goliath, reluctant heroes, tales of redemption, good/evil and old school/new school dichotomies. Boxing stories come in all flavors.

In February 2010, boxing celebrated the 20th anniversary of what many believe to be the greatest boxing upset of the last generation: James “Buster” Douglas’ defeat of “Iron” Mike Tyson in 1990.

The Tyson-Douglas upset was the product of perfect storm of factors: Tyson’s reduced focus after the death of Cus D’Amato; Tyson’s diminished motivation secondary to a lack of competition; poor preparation; Douglas’ personal demons; and Douglas’ height and underappreciated boxing skills. There was also a questionable long count from the referee that gave Douglas a second lease on life.

The story was about the rise and fall of Buster Douglas that followed that victory; it was about the fall and rise of Tyson that followed his defeat.

Unfortunately, the Tyson-Douglas upset might still receive attention at the expense of other recent upsets in the heavyweight division that are equally as compelling case studies in “dragon slaying,” namely, Hasim “Rock” Rahman’s 2001 defeat of then world champion Lennox Lewis

At the time, Lewis was dominating the heavyweight division as thoroughly as anyone had in over a decade. Unlike a young Mike Tyson, whose excellence was a combination of intimidation and a unique style, Lewis overwhelmed foes with a very ostensible, classical measurable set of skills: size, athleticism, a powerful right hand and a high boxing IQ for a heavyweight. He appeared primed to clean the heavyweight division out in spectacular fashion. The fight with Hasim Rahman (in South Africa) looked to be part-championship fight, part-boxing diplomacy mission and Lewis looked to make short work of the unheralded American. Instead, he ran into a combination of counterpunching and power that was to hand Lewis his first loss in almost seven years. 

Despite the examinations that tell us otherwise, many can’t escape the suspicion that Douglas’ defeat of Tyson was a fluke, the product of a lucky punch. Douglas’ rapid demise after the Tyson fight supports this suspicion: the barrage of punches that slayed Tyson were arguably the only significant punches that Douglas ever landed and Tyson was the only truly notable fighter that Douglas ever defeated. Douglas was never a heavyweight contender after his knockout loss to Evander Holyfield and soon spiraled into obscurity. 

The same cannot be said for Hasim Rahman, a two-time champion who claimed world titles five years apart. 

Their differences are reflected in their beginnings: while both Douglas and Rahman started boxing fairly late, Rahman’s beginnings were probably more inauspicious. Unlike Douglas, Rahman had no notable athletic pedigree and earned his fighting reputation as an enforcer for drug dealers in Baltimore, MD. Douglas, alternatively, was a prep basketball star in Columbus, OH. A boxing trainer had more reason to believe that a former basketball player could be developed into a professional boxer than a 20-year-old street enforcer weighing almost 300 lbs. 

Looking back on their respective careers tells two completely different stories: while Douglas’ is a story about untapped potential, poor preparation and wavering motivation, Rahman’s career is purely a tale of determination, preparation and courage. 

And while it’s clear that Lennox Lewis didn’t take the first Rahman fight seriously enough, Rahman certainly deserves some tactical credit for his performance. An analysis of the decisive fifth round in Lewis-Rahman I actually shows that Rahman was setting traps for Lewis, who plodded forward with his hands low, underestimating Rahman’s length and explosive punching. During the fifth round, Rahman moved laterally, jabbed well and landed several chopping right hands, including one at the 1:25 mark that momentarily stunned Lewis. This was a preview of the one that would end the fight at 0:39, a stiff right hand after Rahman had backed Lewis into the ropes with a collection of effective jabs. 
Rahman’s grip on the heavyweight title was short-lived after losing the immediate rematch to Lewis by fourth round knockout seven months later. Rahman simply lacked Lewis’ gifts, physical and technical, and there was little doubt that the rematch would end as it did. 

And yet, there is triumph in Rahman’s story. For one, Rahman occupies a interesting space in modern American boxing history: he is probably the best American heavyweight of the 2001-2010 era, which is notable even if the modern era is defined by a lack of talent among American heavyweights. Rahman remained a relevant figure far longer than his pedigree and natural gifts would have you believe, and unlike John Ruiz, Rahman’s resume includes a career-defining victory over an elite foe and few regrettable defeats.

Before the first Lewis fight, Rahman’s career was nothing to sneeze at: only two defeats in over 30 professional fights. In the cruel game of professional boxing this is irrelevant without a defining victory, as a single loss can send a promising career into a tailspin. On that April day in South Africa, Rahman landed a right hand that would change his life forever. Unlike James “Buster” Douglas over 10 years before, Rahman used his surprise victory as a springboard to building a long, successful career as a rugged American heavyweight who fought courageously, held world titles and earned his place among the modern era’s great “dragon slayers.”

Follow us on Twitter@boxing_com to continue the discussion

Discuss this in our forums

Related Articles

Comments

This is a place to express and/or debate your boxing views. It is not a place to offend anyone. If we feel comments are offensive, the post will be deleted and continuing offenders will be blocked from the site. Please keep it clean and civil! We want to have fun. We want some salty language and good-natured exchanges. But let's keep our punches above the belt...
  1. Rashad 01:39am, 01/24/2012

    he will be champ one day! in his next fight! he will then be better than Lenox Lewis!

  2. Cheekay Brandon 01:24pm, 01/19/2012

    Don—thanks and no hard feelings, just good debate. You obviously know your stuff and thanks for the dialogue.


    Irish Frankie—Definitely a strong case for that….Douglas was an underrated fighter and he punched *really* well.

  3. Irish Frankie Crawford Beat Saijo 12:13pm, 01/19/2012

    Great article…as an aside I would add this…Buster’s finishing combo at the end of that brutal struggle was an absolute thing of beauty. To me, it was far more impressive than the fight ending shots that McCall and Hasim landed on Lennox.

  4. Don From Prov 10:33am, 01/19/2012

    Okay, maybe it’s a matter of semantics: I didn’t see one lucky punch but a full fight’s worth of beatdown, so I’m confused too.

    No big deal.
    The article was a good read.

  5. Cheekay Brandon 03:22pm, 01/18/2012

    Thanks for your comments and feedback, Don.


    You say: “I have personally never met a knowledgeable boxing fan who thought the Douglas win was the result of a ‘lucky punch’—which one?”


    Well, now we’re talking about the definition of what a “knowledgeable” boxing fan is and what their opinion should be, which is nonsensical because plenty of intelligent people disagree about the very basics all the time. I’ve disagreed with writers on this site (all highly intelligent and knowledgeable) about opinions that are astonishingly obvious to me.


    And we all know that “lucky punch” is used in the symbolic sense; even the one punch that Rahman landed wasn’t solely responsible for the knockout. 


    Same with Breidis Prescott and Amir Khan (it was a series of punches, not one).  Khan has called it a “lucky punch.”


    Same with most big upsets: its usually more than one punch. We use “lucky punch” as a figure of speech to mean “overall luck.”


    But that’s also not the point, since I suggested that you didn’t read the article (incorrectly, according to you) because you attributed *my* option as being the “lucky punch” variety when I clearly stated it as an alternative and not *my* opinion.


    You say you agree with Rahman going on to have a fuller career but that “is a different article than the one written.”


    How about this:


    “Douglas was never a heavyweight contender after his knockout loss to Evander Holyfield and soon spiraled into obscurity.”

    “The same cannot be said for Hasim Rahman, a two-time champion who claimed world titles five years apart. “


    “Looking back on their respective careers tells two completely different stories: while Douglas’ is a story about untapped potential, poor preparation and wavering motivation, Rahman’s career is purely a tale of determination, preparation and courage.”


    “Unlike James “Buster” Douglas over 10 years before, Rahman used his surprise victory as a springboard to building a long, successful career as a rugged American heavyweight who fought courageously, held world titles and earned his place among the modern era’s great ‘dragon slayers.’”


    I’m honestly confused.  I directly compared them several times and made the point that Rahman’s legacy is important when reflecting on the legitimacy of the knockout of Lewis.  He deserves credit for using the knockout of Lewis as a career springboard. Douglas did not.  There are plenty of ways/reasons to disagree, but you haven’t really given me any.


    Regarding Ali/Foreman:


    This is another reason I decided to focus on Rahman and not Tyson/Douglas or Foreman/Ali: The latter two have been covered to absolute death, while Lewis/Rahman I has received little coverage at all. 


    No one’s complaining about the coverage, but I’d argue that the Rahman/Lewis upset is just as dramatic and interesting (from either a boxing or a life perspective) as many upsets that get far more attention. 


    That was also part of the point that I stated in the article:


    “Unfortunately, the Tyson-Douglas upset might still receive attention at the expense of other recent upsets in the heavyweight division that are equally as compelling case studies in “dragon slaying,” namely, Hasim “Rock” Rahman’s 2001 defeat of then world champion Lennox Lewis.”

  6. Don from Prov 02:26pm, 01/18/2012

    Actually, I didn’t skim the article: I read it, but I have personally never met a knowledgeable boxing fan who thought the Douglas win was the result of a “lucky punch”—which one?  He hit Tyson with an awful lot of them—and with an unnerving regularity.  Also, I’m not sure I set forth any “logic” by which we could discredit anyone who wins an upset.  I set forward the fact that Lewis was fat, out of shape, and at the end of his career when he lost to Rahman.  And yes, I suppose a lot of folks who lose upset matches do so because they underrate an opponent, don’t train properly, or are simply finished: I’ve also watched enough boxing to know that taking advantage of someone who’s not prepared is part of the game, so I don’t discredit Rahman’s win or offer any excuses for Lewis—not by any stretch of the imagination (his fault he wasn’t ready), but the rematch certainly showed what a motivated Lewis could do with him.  As for Rahman going on to have the fuller career than Douglas did (who’d pretty much already had what career he was going to have and immediately lost HIS title when HE was fat and out of shape), agreed, but that is a different article than the one written.

    P.S. I’d say there was nothing wrong with Foreman when he lost to Ali except too much Ali, but that too is another article, no?

  7. the thresher 09:12am, 01/18/2012

    Lewis agianst Rahman was bit like Tyson against Buster. He totally underestimated him and undertrained for him.


    I think you notion of a “perfect storm” is a sound one.

  8. Cheekay Brandon 06:40am, 01/18/2012

    Thresher-

    Thank you, much appreciated.  Yeah, Douglas’ boxing talent was underappreciated. He was quite an athlete, jabbed well and had the makings of a good heavyweight.  This is what makes it odd and puzzling that he fizzled out so quickly.

  9. Cheekay Brandon 06:38am, 01/18/2012

    Thanks for the comments, however, I think you only skimmed the article.


    I didn’t say that the Douglas victory was the product of a lucky punch or a fluke. I said that there is ample suspicion from “many”  that this is the case and the fact that Douglas did nothing after the Tyson fight is fodder for this suspicion. This isn’t debatable. Its a fact. Many do believe this.


    I outlined *my* opinion of the Douglas-Tyson upset here:


    “The Tyson-Douglas upset was the product of perfect storm of factors: Tyson’s reduced focus after the death of Cus D’Amato; Tyson’s diminished motivation secondary to a lack of competition; poor preparation; Douglas’ personal demons; and Douglas’ height and underappreciated boxing skills. There was also a questionable long count from the referee that gave Douglas a second lease on life.”


    As far as Rahman—he had nowhere near the “physical or technical gifts” as Lennox Lewis, and everyone knew/knows that.  We also know that Lewis wasn’t particularly active during Lewis-Rahman I and certainly didn’t appear to be in great condition. Those fact don’t, however, change the legitimacy of the victory.


    By your logic, we can discredit every winner in an upset victory if the loser wasn’t prepared properly. Part of being a good fighter is taking advantage of others who aren’t in shape/didn’t prepare properly.


    Cassius Clay fought and defeated an out-of-shape Sonny Liston in 1964. 


    George Foreman wasn’t quite himself the night of the ‘Rumble in the Jungle’. 


    Neither of those facts diminish the significance of the Clay/Ali victories. 


    Same goes for most upsets.


    We are not taking about golf; this is boxing and ultimately there are no excuses for an arse whooping (pardon my french).  Its what makes the sport great.


    Rahman’s knockout of Lewis appears in the record book the *same* as Lewis’ knockout of Rahman.  The record books don’t make excuses for Lennox Lewis and neither should we. 


    What I argue is that Rahman’s exploits *after* the fight should change how we view his defeat of Lewis relative to Douglas’ defeat of Tyson: Douglas *immediately* became irrelevant.  He vanished from the scene, coming back almost 5 years later before fizzling again. 


    Rahman (with less natural gifts than Buster Douglas even) went on to become a world champion again en route to being the best American Heavyweight of the decade. 


    There’s no comparison in regards to their overall boxing accomplishments and Rahman’s continued relevance implores me (and should implore you) to give him more credit.  Few heavyweights did more with less.


    That’s the point.

  10. the thresher 06:27am, 01/18/2012

    Buster fought a perfect fight against Tyson. On that particular night in Japan, he was the baddest man in the Solar System and no living human being could have beaten him (though King tried). He was inspired.

  11. the thresher 06:25am, 01/18/2012

    Cheekay Brandon, thanks for posting this most interesting article, mate.

  12. Don from Prov 06:06am, 01/18/2012

    Interesting article, but I can’t agree with much of it.  The Douglas win had nothing to do with a lucky punch, nor was it a fluke.  The Douglas win, like many an upset, may have found genesis in his opponent’s negatives on a particular night, but had more (IMO) to do with a fighter living up to his potential—and bringing it all together—for one bout.  The beatdown and boxing lesson that Douglas perpetrated on Tyson was masterful.  There are also questions of style and some overrating of Tyson, but I’ll leave that for others.  Rahman, on the other hand, was clearly proven in the rematch with Lewis to have been the recipient of facing a fat, out of shape, and poorly motivated opponent.  I’ve always felt that the “legend” of Vitali Klit started for the exact same reasons. Lewis was pretty much done with boxing—and it showed in two fights when he was ill prepared.

Leave a comment