Holyfield vs Lewis II

I have seen this fight 3 times and everytime I gave it to Holyfield. The rounds were very close and I feel Holyfield rallied the rounds in the final seconds of each round. I just can't see how Lewis wins this fight. It was a bullshit decision to compensate for the errors in the first fight. I also think that a younger Holyfield would have won the fight more convincing. He was 37 when he fought Lewis. Also, he was piling up losses after his fight with Lewis. What do you guys think?

 

Lewis won the fight, but it was probably the worst performance of his career bar Rahman and McCall. He looked terrible.

 

I would hate to ever see you in a judges chair if you think even remotely that Holyfield won this fight.

Holyfield did better then he did the first time around, but he was not actually winning many rounds.

 

Lewis looked terrible in both Holyfield fights IMO. I think Evander got to him psychologically with all this talk of knocking him out in 3 rounds before the first fight. Lewis fought scared in both fights.

 

Yeah, I agree. Fighting like he was scared to fuck up. Lewis really should have knocked Holyfield out both times, and if he'd fought like he was capable he would have.

 

I agree with Rainmaker, two wrongs do not make a right. Evander won the rematch clearly.

 

Lewis won the first fight 117-111, the second fight 115-113.

 

Rainmaker has opened this same bullshit topic like five times. Lewis won clearly, about 116-112 and just the fact that headbutter did better than he was supposed to doesn't change anything

 

Lewis outlanded him over 2-1 in both fights. Lewis hits harder.

Holyfield won perhaps 3 rounds in both fights.

 

Two wrongs = one right.

It's simple physics.

 

I wouldn't call it exciting or compelling, but I thought his performance in the first fight was impressive in the sense he absolutely shut down Holyfield. I mean, the story of that fight has to be how shitty Holyfield looked. And it would've been had it not been for the corrupt scoring.

I haven't watched the second fight in a while, so I can't have a detailed discussion about it yet. But I recall coming away convinced Lewis had won, with it apparent he'd compromised his dominance in order to make for a more watchable fight. And that for this reason, Holyfield managed to give a much better account of himself (albeit a losing one) than he had in his horrific performance the first time.

What's hard to figure, as with the Lara/Williams result, is that one or more of the judges involved in the Lewis/Holy I fight were disciplined or suspended, with an implicit admission the scores weren't just, but that somehow, it was seen fit for the result not to be changed.

 

Anyone who scored the fight for Lewis is either biased or needs a pair of glasses.

 

Exactly. Lewis won the first clearly and Holyfield won the second.

 

You are clearly insane!

 

Only a keyboard warrior who has never laced 'em up could say that

 

And what is your excuse for the whipping he took from Ray Mercer?

 

You're the one who makes a thread about the decision being a bad one, but finds it necessary to bring up your totally unrelated opinion that in his prime Holyfield would've whooped him.

You're clearly bothered by the reality that Holyfield is on record as losing to Lewis.

 

I think Holyfield lost the first time and he deserved the decision in the second fight. I am not bothered about Holy losing. I just think that injustice has been done.

 

There must be footage somewhere of Lewis taking on 2 Kangal dogs, Orion style.

It's the only explanation for Rainmakers biased disdain for the man.

 

Yes I must be insane. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Just keep trying to convince yourself that Lewis beat Holy in the rematch.

 

It really wasn't even as close as some people are suggesting, if you watch it subjectively.

 

id rather watch it objectively as i always do. holyfield w12

 

:giggle:

 

I was going to play it off like I did it on purpose,...................but I didn't.

::


I'll leave this thread now, in disgrace. :scared2:

 

Lewis/Holyfield II, given Lewis/Holyfield I, appears as one fighter, who's clearly superior, making it closer than it needs to be, in order to appease viewers, and in response to corrupt judging which failed to recognize that in fact, he'd already defeated this fighter unequivocally (I've yet to run into anyone who thinks Holyfield actually deserved a draw in the first fight).

Holyfield, in the first fight, could've done everything he managed to do in the second fight, had Lewis allowed him to, as he did in the second fight. This much is clear.

 

I think it's a good counter argument.

"Objectively perhaps, but if you watch it subjectively ..." ::

 

How about a more transparent approach of simply scoring it incorrectly?

 

I'm watching the fight right now.

Four rounds in, it's either 3-1 or 4-0 Lewis. Lewis was dominated the 3rd but Holyfield landed a nice big showy punch with about one minute to go, so I imagine many would score that for Holyfield.

 

No one has every made even a half-way decent argument for actually giving the second fight to Holyfield in the years since the match concluded. Not to me at least. Holyfield did very good, his jabs to the chest gave Lennox much more trouble, and Lennox was trying to be more crowd pleasing while not making a mistake and getting caught, probably the worst kind of strategy for a fighter with his skillset.

Holyfield did much better than the first fight, but still fell short imo. Lennox outlanded him and landed the harder shots throughout imo. Round 7 was Holyfield's best punch, and while it was probably the most damaging of the whole fight, Lennox landed the better punches throughout the course of the whole fight imo. a clear 7-5 or 8-4 victory for Lennox.

I'd be open to a round by round scoring sometime. This should have been a fight in our "weekly" fight scoring thread haha. that sure died quickly. very bad idea to let me spearhead that campaign hehe.

 

Try not to let yourself imagine how Holyfield fans would score it. Keep it real. ::