BoxRec

exactly, just not this, but this and others

jamamb wrote:so i guess you think gilgamesh lacks discernment?

No, just a little generous is all

jamamb wrote:exactly, just not this, but this and others

Hahah

Counter-puncher wrote:

jamamb wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I didn't remember that many people getting it wrong

do you think maybe such a split, from ppl who watched in different ways, with respectable scorers having it differently, suggests it may not have been some dominant jmm win?.

I can't really explain other people's folly other than to say it's folly, I'm normally much more of a '5 clear rounds one way 4 clear rounds the other way with 3 swing rounds so 115-113 or 113-115 or in between is fine by me' sort of bloke but this is one I simply think people got wrong. My guess is a lot of people expected Manny to win easily, and in a close tactical fight without too much happening, they scored rounds to Manny as a default or simply a lack of discernment over what they were watching. Same goes
For the judges.

Yup, I'd add that they were desperate for Floyd/Pac too. I think I had it 9-3.

thechump wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:

thechump wrote: My mind is fine pal

Your mind might be fine but you can't score a fight......you should go get a job in Nevada, you'd fit in perfectly there

Same could be said about you then if you think lewis clearly won the 2nd fight,it could of gone either way. Jobs as a judge in vegas pal got your name wrote all over it

Mate you can't use exactly the same joke and expect to be taken seriously.....LOL...get your own stuff!

lurkyshaka wrote:

thechump wrote:

lurkyshaka wrote:
Your mind might be fine but you can't score a fight......you should go get a job in Nevada, you'd fit in perfectly there

Same could be said about you then if you think lewis clearly won the 2nd fight,it could of gone either way. Jobs as a judge in vegas pal got your name wrote all over it

Mate you can't use exactly the same joke and expect to be taken seriously.....LOL...get your own stuff!

LOL

A sizeable portion of the press had Holyfield winning the rematch. I had him winning it too.

After the dull horrible draw we got a pretty poor rematch which Lewis just about squeaked. I do remember a few stateside newspapers shouting robbery for Holyfield but nothing that seemed to stick.

A weird sort of match up. They just seemed too durable for eachother, the fights were draining to watch and didn't help the sport. What might have helped was if the fight had been put together following the spectacular wins over Golota / Moorer. Instead we got a pair of pointless, momentum-killing matches against Zeljko Mavrovic / Vaughn Bean just to help erase those recent knockouts from our memories as we began the journey to hype central.

dirk2686 wrote: Regarding Holyfield Valuev there was an interesting piece from Ron Lewis at the time about that fight. He was ringside and confirmed there was no real issue with the result; fight was a bit of a stinker, hard to call, both men landing precious little. American reporters at the venue had no real issue. It was only when he got back to Britain and saw that American TV covering the fight from the States had screamed robbery that he was made aware how 'everyone' felt about the fight.

I formed the opinion that Holyfield was robbed against Valuev by watching him easily outbox the giant 10 rds to 2.

Counter-puncher wrote:

jamamb wrote:so i guess you think gilgamesh lacks discernment?

No, just a little generous is all

scoring the fight to Pacquiao would be 'lacking discernment'

I think everyone had Lennox winning the first fight but because the rematch was a bit closer the sympathy got reversed. I rewatched both recently and still thought LL 9-3 then 8-4 in the rematch.

I always was a Lennox fan boy though.

Holyfield certainly won the rematch clearly but was jobbed because of the first match.