BoxRec

Post your round-by-round scores if you know them. If not, your final tally will do nicely.

1st Fight
Jezzamundo's scorecard: Lewis wins 117-113
Glen McRory's scorecard: Lewis wins 117-113
Harold Lederman's scorecard: Lewis wins 117-111
I gave Lewis rounds 1,2,5,6,7,8&12; Holyfield rounds 3,9&10; rounds 4&11 even.

2nd Fight
Jezzamundo's scorecard: Lewis wins 117-113
Glen McRory's scorecard: Lewis wins 116-113
Harold Lederman's scorecard: Lewis wins 116-112
I gave Lewis rounds 1,2,3,4,8,10&11; Holyfield rounds 6,7&12; rounds 5&9 even.

Long story short, anyone who scored either fight a draw or a win to Holyfield are just plain deluded.

First fight: 117-111 Lewis
Second fight: 115-113 Lewis

jezzamundo wrote:Long story short, anyone who scored either fight a draw or a win to Holyfield are just plain deluded.

Tell that to dempseyfire.

Tell that to dempseyfire

I have a lot of respect for dempseyfire, and I hope he sees this thread and makes comment on it.

While I scored both fights the same, there is no doubt that the second was a far closer fight. In the second fight Holyfield hurt Lewis worse than Lewis hurt Holyfield, but still did not do enough to win enough rounds on any sane judges scorecards.

I don't have them on me right now, but I will post my round by round scorecards for both fights. I have both fights on DVD and have watched them several times, and I am very confident in saying that Holyfield was the clear winnner in just three rounds for each fight. I understand and agree with people who say Lewis should have put in a bigger effort fighting for the undisputed, unified title, but that should not make a difference on the scorecards. You don't give an even round to the champ just because he is the champ, that is bias and shouldn't be allowed.

I think that the judges got it right in the second fight, except for the one who scored it 117-111, which is too big a margin, but still a far more realistic scorecard than that of Eugenia Williams in the first fight.

jezzamundo wrote:

Tell that to dempseyfire

I have a lot of respect for dempseyfire, and I hope he sees this thread and makes comment on it.

While I scored both fights the same, there is no doubt that the second was a far closer fight. In the second fight Holyfield hurt Lewis worse than Lewis hurt Holyfield, but still did not do enough to win enough rounds on any sane judges scorecards.

I don't have them on me right now, but I will post my round by round scorecards for both fights. I have both fights on DVD and have watched them several times, and I am very confident in saying that Holyfield was the clear winnner in just three rounds for each fight. I understand and agree with people who say Lewis should have put in a bigger effort fighting for the undisputed, unified title, but that should not make a difference on the scorecards. You don't give an even round to the champ just because he is the champ, that is bias and shouldn't be allowed.

I think that the judges got it right in the second fight, except for the one who scored it 117-111, which is too big a margin, but still a far more realistic scorecard than that of Eugenia Williams in the first fight.

I hope dempseyfire doesn't mind but I'll simply quote what he has written before about the fight.

dempseyfire wrote:All I got to say is, watch the fight again. Evander pressed the whole fight. The only time Lewis pressed the action was in the 7th and that's when he got countered and hurt. Holyfield through most of the fight not only was the agressor, but landed the better and crisper punches. I'm afraid a Lewis job catching Evander's glove or glancing Holyfield's head due to a side-step don't count as clean shots. Lewis threw more punches, but Evander won the fight by landing the better punches and by simply outboxing Lewis via body shots and countering.

I had Holyfield winning rds 3,5,6,7,9,12 with rd 1 even

You don't win rounds for pressing the action though, or at least you shouldn't.

It depends what you go for, a guy going backwards in his shell jabbing rather timidly or a guy coming forward throwing punches.
Persoanlly I thought both fights were close and that the draw verdict in the first bout was actually quite fair. Lewis was far too cautious for me, I like to see the art of boxing but Lewis looked gunshy.
In many ways it was a heavyweight version of Hagler vs Leonard... it was not the clear cut robbery many seem to think.
Jabbing and that is fine but I think the fighter coming forward and trying to make a fight of it should gain some credit for his positive work.

I dont remember exactly how I scored but I felt Lewis won the first fight fairly easily but should have lost the second fight via close decision.

[quote="long story short, anyone who scored either fight a draw or a win to Holyfield are just plain deluded.[/quote]

Get out of town - Holyfield won the second fight and by far the majority of people "at ringside" all said this - (most boxing press people all said this after the second fight) - Hell even Emanual Stewert has said this (up here in the Detroit papers) while discussing his long career in a two part story in the Detroit Freepress (or it might have been the Detroit News) - Stewert said Holyfield could have easily got the nod in the second fight (this is Lewis OWN trainer......that means he thinks Holy won!).

First fight I had Lennox winning 116-113

Second Fight I had Holyfield winning 116-112 ( Evander set the pace of the fight, was on the only one trying to make a fight, shook up Lewis twice during it....just didn't have the youth to put him away....Holyfield was never even close to be rocked..... Bottom line is if Holyfield was younger (had legs still) he runs Lewis out of the ring inside of 9 rounds.

Lennox (because of his size and style of not wanting to fight) would always be a bad matchup for Holyfield.....However, in their second fight...an OLD Holyfield still did enough to win ....and that says volumes about what a young Holyfield would have done to him.

But again, the NY Times or Post had a complete story the day after their second fight....it polled all ringside boxing scribes...and Holyfield carried like 80% of them (they thought Holyfield won). - The commentators on TV (and silly compu-box scores) are what led those watching on TV to think Lewis won -

Lewis won the first fight by a large margin and holyfield won the second!

Yep, Lewis won the first fight but I thought that was a lot closer than some people think.

I thought Holyfield won the second fight though.

This is why I HATE decision wins.

I think people just have a very different way of scoring fights.

Seriously though, Lewis-Holyfield II was no where near as close as Lewis-Mercer. I score that 97-96 to Lewis, who wins rounds 2,3,7 and 8, Mercer wins 1,6 and 9, and rounds 4 and 5 even. I would have been very happy to see that fight scored a draw.

Holyfield was far better in the second fight, but still did not do enough to win any more than 3 rounds on my card. Does anyone know the punch-stat numbers for that fight? I don't but it would favour Lewis by a long way I'm sure, in terms of both total punches and power punches.

Oh yes, and most American fight writers were very biased against Lewis (because his style bored them, and he gave some frustrating performances) anyway, so I have very little respect for their reports.

jezzamundo wrote:I think people just have a very different way of scoring fights.

Seriously though, Lewis-Holyfield II was no where near as close as Lewis-Mercer. I score that 97-96 to Lewis, who wins rounds 2,3,7 and 8, Mercer wins 1,6 and 9, and rounds 4 and 5 even. I would have been very happy to see that fight scored a draw.

Holyfield was far better in the second fight, but still did not do enough to win any more than 3 rounds on my card. Does anyone know the punch-stat numbers for that fight? I don't but it would favour Lewis by a long way I'm sure, in terms of both total punches and power punches.

Oh yes, and most American fight writers were very biased against Lewis (because his style bored them, and he gave some frustrating performances) anyway, so I have very little respect for their reports.

Seriously, how can you regard a win on points as a legimiate win when you're using words like "on my card" and "in my opinion"? As long as a win on points is disputable, it's not a real win. Had one guy been knocked out, we wouldn't have any discussions six years later about who actually won. No one won. That's my opinion. That statement also applies to hundreds of other decision victories that people continue to bitch about. (Not saying that you're bitching, jezzamundo )

Holyfield once said: "I don't lose fights, I sometimes don't get the decision". (Nevermind the fact that he said this before the Toney fight, but it shows you that a win on points is like a second class win)

As long as a win on points is disputable, it's not a real win

So Tua didn't really lose to Lewis? Boxing as as sport already gives a massive advantage to those with strong chins, short-thick necks and thick skulls, we don't need people saying that you should have to knock the other guy out or beat his face into a pulp in order to truly win.

Lewis outboxed and outworked Holyfield in both fights. He threw more, landed more and landed at a higher percentage in terms of total punches and power punches. I'm not saying he was fantastic or anything like that, he wasn't, given his abilities he should have been more convincing than he was. But he won. I've watched the fight five times now and no one is going to change my mind of that.

Ok, now I am bitching! Sorry :)

jezzamundo wrote:

As long as a win on points is disputable, it's not a real win

So Tua didn't really lose to Lewis? Boxing as as sport already gives a massive advantage to those with strong chins, short-thick necks and thick skulls, we don't need people saying that you should have to knock the other guy out or beat his face into a pulp in order to truly win.

Lewis outboxed and outworked Holyfield in both fights. He threw more, landed more and landed at a higher percentage in terms of total punches and power punches. I'm not saying he was fantastic or anything like that, he wasn't, given his abilities he should have been more convincing than he was. But he won. I've watched the fight five times now and no one is going to change my mind of that.

Ok, now I am bitching! Sorry :)

Well, regarding Lewis vs Tua, you got me there. But when it comes to fights like Lewis vs Holyfield, who actually won is just a matter of opinion which is why I don't see it as a real win. What type of win do you think fighters prefer? Would you have been equally impressed by Holyfield's performance against Tyson if he'd gotten a UD instead of a TKO?

And no, Jezz, you're not bitching. Those who only bitch would've started personal flaming by now

The thing about Holyfield-Lewis 11 is that it was a case of Holyfield being old. He lost the rounds he lost b-c he just didn´t do anything-he wasn´t throwing punches. Look at round 2 for example. Did Lewis ´outbox´ Holyfield or did Evander basically give the round away by not being active. And while Lewis of course gave Evander problems with his reach and power, this is the way Evander fought every fight after the Moorer rematch (and in a few fights before that as well). Years of ring wars and steroid pumping took their toll and the energy machine that fought Foreman and Dokes was just no longer in existence.
The rounds he won were closer fought but he still won them. Clean punching and pressing the action. Lewis threw more but couldn´t control Holyfield with the jab b-c unlike most of the behemoths Lewis faced Holyfield actually used foot movement. Look at how Lewis held on in the 12th . . . that´s not winning the HW championship.

Now for you Lewis fans . . . Lennox was gonna knock Vitali´s ass out!

dempseyfire wrote:The thing about Holyfield-Lewis 11 is that it was a case of Holyfield being old. He lost the rounds he lost b-c he just didn´t do anything-he wasn´t throwing punches. Look at round 2 for example. Did Lewis ´outbox´ Holyfield or did Evander basically give the round away by not being active. And while Lewis of course gave Evander problems with his reach and power, this is the way Evander fought every fight after the Moorer rematch (and in a few fights before that as well). Years of ring wars and steroid pumping took their toll and the energy machine that fought Foreman and Dokes was just no longer in existence.
The rounds he won were closer fought but he still won them. Clean punching and pressing the action. Lewis threw more but couldn´t control Holyfield with the jab b-c unlike most of the behemoths Lewis faced Holyfield actually used foot movement. Look at how Lewis held on in the 12th . . . that´s not winning the HW championship.

Now for you Lewis fans . . . Lennox was gonna knock Vitali´s ass out!

Just curious, how do you know Holy used steroids?

Holyfield was never on steroids (that is bunk) - Silly bunk at that -

As for the second fight with Lewis when Lewis's own trainer Emanuel Stewert says he thought Holyfield could have got the nod ...that says a lot!

Fact is Holyfield won the second fight and Lennox won the first fight - The additional fact is Holyfield was no where near his prime for either of those (and Lennox was in his!!) -

A prime Holyfield beats Lewis without a doubt -

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You don't win rounds for pressing the action though, or at least you shouldn't.

You're wrong, you do get points for aggression, for instigating the action. Lewis was head and shoulders above Holyfiled in height and weight, yet it was always Holyfield who was chasing around Lewis. Not because that was Lewis style either, it was because Lewis was a gutless fornicate and did'nt like the rough going, unless he was doing it to the other guy.

cheers M.O.

Lewis won both fights. the 2nd one was closer but lewis still won. END OF STORY.