Lewis v Holyfield I

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:22

I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:23

You're definetly going to be on your own with that one, even the American press slated that decision.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:47

topper123 wrote:I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?

I know Harry Mullan saw nothing wrong with the draw.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:55

I thought Lewis won, but didn't think it was a huge travesty of justice. I could see how the fight was scored a draw or even a close Holyfield win.

Holyfield won the second fight IMO.

Mensa07 · Post by **Mensa07** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:56

pondered this myself once, dont know the round numbers but there was quite a few where Lewis went to sleep and didn't do that much more than Holyfield to push the action. ok Holy did f-all as well but he was always gonna get the benefit of the close rounds at MSG.
In the Sky studio I think it was Gary Mason or even Duke Mc slated Lewis for fighting lazy and said he wasn't surprised at all with the draw. Might watch this one again tonight.

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:01

I have not watched it for a while, but I was outraged when it happened. A pretty clear robbery in my memory. Dont see how you have scored a draw or Holy win.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:17

bennie wrote:
topper123 wrote:I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?
I know Harry Mullan saw nothing wrong with the draw.

As I recall though, the late Mr Mullan wasn't exactly a huge fan of Lewis. He ripped him to shreds during his early fights.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:41

TGhe worst one in this country in the last ten years was Brodie.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:48

boxingchat wrote:TGhe worst one in this country in the last ten years was Brodie.

yeah, that was terrible... worst world title fight... but there have been others as bad or worse 4,6 and 8 rounders

i cannot remember most...
one that does stick out was my friend Ganny getting a real gift against Ossie Duran.... no way he should have won, although it was nice to see him getting a bit of luck.... what most people dont know was that he had sparred 8 rounds in the afternoon and took the fight at a few hours notice!!!!!!

There are plenty more when not a single person in the arena agrees with the referee..... but as they are undercard 4 rounders etc they dont make any headlines...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:50

Brodie really got jobbed badly, and then Jorrin went and got another gift decision in his next defence too.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:51

well, Holyfield didn't seem to win more than three rounds. maybe one or two were even. It was all Lewis the rest of the way, so a clear win.

However, with the exception of rd 5 where Lewis spanked EH, it was a quite negative performance. Lewis nopt doing as much as he should have. You know, soft jabbing instead of ramming the left, not throwing many shots. Still, Lewis semed to outclass him.

It's the kind of stuff that traditionalists don't like to see. Not many spectacular looking shots. But imo Lewis won clearly, though admittedly there was something infuriating in his performance. i had it around 7-3-2 to Lewis, even if it wasn't pretty

as to Harry Mullan, didn't he say Chris Finnegan deserved to beat Conteh I (!) and Kevin Finnegan deserved to beat Minter I and II (!)

I can't see how minorities say that Evander won the second one. that drives me mad. i was an evander nuthugger (not literally) in the early '00s and i was pissed off that he couldn't beat Lewis. i did get some sense and grow into a lewis fan, mind

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:53

john simpson losing to dazzo williams was a shit decision

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:43

Well at least I know i'm not alone for saying i thought it was a good decision. At least after the 1st fight it made Lewis realise that he had to go out and really win rounds in the future.

one other decision i thought was wrong was Billy Hardy v Orlando Canizales I, maybe i'm a bit biased watching it, but i thought Billy deserved the title that night.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 25 Apr 2006, 14:53

Although Brodie clearly beat Jorrin - I did think Kelly's on Friday was a clearer win.

John Simpson "loss" to Williams was a bad one, as was Serats "loss" to Thompson on the Hatton vs Maussa undercard.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:12

i scored lewis-holyfield about a year ago.

i had it 8 rds to 3 with 1 even for lennox lewis.

i was being a bit kind to holyfield as well.

Jack1000 · Post by **Jack1000** » 25 Apr 2006, 15:33

Guys,

Going on memory 116-112 Lennox Lewis. From what I could recall, the only clear round that Holyfield won was the 3rd. I think I also gave him three very close rounds, the 6th, 10th, and 11th. But I can't see him taking more than 4 rounds.

Jeff Ryan of KO Magazine had it a draw and maybe 5 other people in the entire world. But 95% or more had Lewis a clear 4-7 point winner I would say. There was very little action from both, but other than Holyfield's good 3rd round, there was nothing from him. Those three other rounds were about even or Holyfield if you were generous, and I was generous.

The worst decision I have seen in a world title fight and one of the worst verdicts in the history of boxing. I have covered this game for over 30 years, so I am able to speak with some merit of my assesments of the contest.

Jack

PS. BTW. Although the second contest looked closer on paper, I still carded 116-112 Lewis in that one.

rod riddle · Post by **rod riddle** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:45

I rewatched these a couple of months back. Lewis won the first fight clearly, but to his detriment it was still a cagey performance.

The second was closer, only because Holyfield fought much better - it was the same gameplan from Lennox. Too many sleepy periods.

Whichever way you look at it, neither of the Holyfield fights were conclusive statements from Lewis, but I do think he was a slow burner - he proved himself down the stretch as a champion, whatever anyone may think of the quality of opposition, and a good percentage of the opposition at that time would decimate what remains of the heavyweight division today.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:48

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Brodie really got jobbed badly, and then Jorrin went and got another gift decision in his next defence too.

How the hell was Brodie robbed in Manchester as well?

Ain't watched Lewis V Holy for a while like and when I did watch it I didn't know how to score fights at the time.

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 25 Apr 2006, 18:19

topper123 wrote:I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?

Topper by name Topper by nature, how can you say that Holyfield got a draw in that fight is beyond me.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 26 Apr 2006, 05:00

Razor wrote:
topper123 wrote:I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?
Topper by name Topper by nature, how can you say that Holyfield got a draw in that fight is beyond me.

I'm usually pretty good at scoring fights, i guess it shows how some people can score a fight differently.
maybe when i watch the first fight i'm looking for Lewis to do more and when he doesn't counting that against him.

One question, how do people qualify to be a boxing judge?, i'm guessing that to be one in the UK you would need to have been a ref or somehow qualified.

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 26 Apr 2006, 05:02

I thought Lewis won. But afterwards some people said that in America the judges focus even more so on aggression and not just "point scoring jabs", that is why they didn't give Lewis the win.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Apr 2006, 05:16

topper123 wrote:
Razor wrote:
topper123 wrote:I've just read an article on BBN by Frank Maloney, he was quite rightly calling the recent Maludrottu v Kelly a very bad decision.

Maloney said it was the worst decision he'd seen since Lewis v Holyfield draw in their first fight.
Now am i alone in thinking that decision was correct? I've watched that fight a few times and i still can't see what was so outrageous with the result, Lewis seemed to think he was just doing enough to win the rounds, but IMO he lost as many as he won.

anyone agree?
Topper by name Topper by nature, how can you say that Holyfield got a draw in that fight is beyond me.
I'm usually pretty good at scoring fights, i guess it shows how some people can score a fight differently.
maybe when i watch the first fight i'm looking for Lewis to do more and when he doesn't counting that against him.

One question, how do people qualify to be a boxing judge?, i'm guessing that to be one in the UK you would need to have been a ref or somehow qualified.

I have been looking into this myself, as it's something I am interested in.

I went to the bbbofc website, and they have information on how to become a referee, but none on how to become a judge. I'm unsure as to how you become a judge as there doesn't seem to be any info. I emailed the BBBofC and will let you know any reply I get.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 26 Apr 2006, 05:24

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

I have been looking into this myself, as it's something I am interested in.

I went to the bbbofc website, and they have information on how to become a referee, but none on how to become a judge. I'm unsure as to how you become a judge as there doesn't seem to be any info. I emailed the BBBofC and will let you know any reply I get.

cheers, going by the standerd of juding in other countries i'd have to say that the UK is still pretty good at calling fights correctly.

Some of the judges that they have for big fights in the US i've never heard of before, then you never hear of them again.

can a boxer complain over a judges appointment before a fight, I've often heard of boxers not wanting a certain ref, and they can put in a protest to the ruling body for this, but does that count for judges as well? As they are the fine line between winning and losing when a fight goes to points.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:01

Holyfield won the second fight IMO.

I agree with you, but there was no way Evander was going to get the decision in the 2nd fight, because of the decision in the 1st bout!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:10

topper123 wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:

I have been looking into this myself, as it's something I am interested in.

I went to the bbbofc website, and they have information on how to become a referee, but none on how to become a judge. I'm unsure as to how you become a judge as there doesn't seem to be any info. I emailed the BBBofC and will let you know any reply I get.
cheers, going by the standerd of juding in other countries i'd have to say that the UK is still pretty good at calling fights correctly.

Some of the judges that they have for big fights in the US i've never heard of before, then you never hear of them again.

can a boxer complain over a judges appointment before a fight, I've often heard of boxers not wanting a certain ref, and they can put in a protest to the ruling body for this, but does that count for judges as well? As they are the fine line between winning and losing when a fight goes to points.

fighters can lodge an appeal against a certain referee or judge, but it's if the promoter complains that it carries more weight as far as I can tell. A sanctioning body

There's an interesting note on the WBA website, pointing out how certain commissions will only allow referee's who are based within their jurisdiction to referee a fight even if it is a world title fight, which, rightly, as they point out, reduces the WBA's ability to guarantee the impartiality of the judging. My guess would be that this is the case in some of the smaller commissions, as certainly the likes of the Nevada commission don't insist on all the judges being from their locale. I can imagine this happening in somewhere like Minnesota or Utah state, where they want to protect the investment of a promoter who brings a fight to a small town so that they will get the opportunity again.

Still heard zip from the BBBofC.

Lewis v Holyfield I

Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I

Re: Lewis v Holyfield I