BoxRec

It's been 8 years. Lewis became the undisputed champion by beating Holyfield by a unanimous decision by three American judges.
Holyfield would later dispute the decision, saying that "everyone who watched it knows I won the fight".





Did Holyfield won that fight ? I think he did.

I had it for Lewis by two. I don't think it's fair to call it a robbery. Lewis should be pretty ashamed of how close he came to losing to a 37-year-old Holyfield though. He's plainly a better fighter than that.

But, in truth, Lewis won. Narrowly.

Its funny you should bring this up, as I only just re watched this fight and scored it. After I first watched the fight I had it for Holyfield.

Though after watching it some months ago and sitting down with pen and paper, I had it as a draw, as controversial that is.

Though I clearly had Lewis ahead in the first fight.

Kym

"This was a much better fight than we saw in the Garden [in their first fight in March]. Both guys gave it all they had, and what we had this time that we didn't have last time, is that both guys were hurt in this fight. You can't ask for more in a heavyweight fight. It wasn't a great fight, but in the seventh round clearly Lennox Lewis was on the verge of getting knocked out. In the ninth round it looked like Evander Holyfield was badly hurt. So given what happened it March, we'll take it."

The scoring by the judges was Chuck Giampa 116-112, Bill Graham 117-111 and Jerry Roth 115-113.

"It [the decision for Lewis] sure surprised me, because I had Evander Holyfield winning the fight by a point. A six-point win for Lennox Lewis seems almost as ridiculous as some of the scores that we had from the Garden. I don't think it was a one-sided fight. Will there be enough controversy to bring the fans to call for a third fight? It's very possible."

-Steve Farhood, CNN/SI Boxing Analyst

My views on this fight have been stated numerous times. I had it a very close win for Commander Vander 6-5-1. In an odd twist of fate the official record (D 12, W 12 Lewis) is not really inaccurate . . .the dates are simply mixed up.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I had it for Lewis by two.

Lewis - 2, 8, 10 i 11.
Holyfield - 5, 6, 7, 12.
The rest of the rounds were even.

After the fight Holyfield said:
"I haven't felt this good after a fight since I was a cruiserweight,"
"It makes me think I should have fought a little harder against Lennox.
"Maybe I'd be sore and sick, but I'd have the victory."

Holyfield headbutted Lewis about 20-30 times during those 12 rounds.
It was crazy. Holyfield was a great boxer but that headbutting... dirty tactics.
The ref warned Holyfield in the first round but...

Rahman also felt Holyfield head.
After the fight with Holyfield. Jesus Christ...



"He must have a metal plate in his head. I've never seen anyone
do this much damage with a punch, much less his head.
I should have prepared for the head-butting better" — Hasim Rahman

"I didn't think he could do so much damage with his head'' Rahman said.
"He must have a metal plate in there or something.''

In the 2nd fight, Holyfield would fight in spurts. Lewis didn't do hardly do anything but throw a pawing jab with nothing on it all night, which looks great on punch stats but doesn't really do anything. I thought Holyfield won it (or more like Lewis lost it ) 7-5. The scoring by one judge of 9-3 (117-111) for Lewis is flat out ridiculaus.

The ironic thing about their two fights is that it's Lewis who came out out ahead on the scoring of the two fights. If the judges would have scored both fights correctly, Lewis would have been 1-1 against Holyfield instead of 1-0-1.

The 2nd fight was clearly a "makeup call" for the first fight. Holyfield was going to have to win by a large margin to get the decision in the 2nd fight.

Lederman's scoring and the HBO broadcast team were so pro Lennox it wasn't funny. After all of the ballyhoo about the "worst decision in boxing history" (and while it was bad, it was FAR from the worst) and Holyfield being the Showtime fighter, there was no way they were going to claim a Holyfield victory in the rematch unless Evander knocked Lewis around from pillar to post. Lederamn and co. were calling out Lennox shots that were either being slipped,parried, or not even landing at all.

HBO biased in favor of fighters that they have have exclusive contracts with? Never!
Next you are going to say they favored Roy Jones and Wladimir Klitschko.
Actually, Foreman didn't seem to be biased. However, Lampley was blatantly pro Lewis. He kept going on how Lewis was in control when he wasn't. Late in the fight he even said something like "I bet the judges have the fight much closer than it is". (Implying that Lewis should be way ahead on the scorecards.) Well the judges should have had Lewis losing, since he wasn't doing very much, except for one uppercut which HBO kept showing highlights of.

It's funny, Lampley and Lederman seem like decent guys but they certainly have their favorites.

Ambling Alp wrote:HBO biased in favor of fighters that they have have exclusive contracts with? Never!
Next you are going to say they favored Roy Jones and Wladimir Klitschko.
Actually, Foreman didn't seem to be biased. However, Lampley was blatantly pro Lewis. He kept going on how Lewis was in control when he wasn't. Late in the fight he even said something like "I bet the judges have the fight much closer than it is". (Implying that Lewis should be way ahead on the scorecards.) Well the judges should have had Lewis losing, since he wasn't doing very much, except for one uppercut which HBO kept showing highlights of.

It's funny, Lampley and Lederman seem like decent guys but they certainly have their favorites.

You're right. Foreman was basically hinting that he saw Holyfield as the winner, but didn't go out and say it outright.

When I watched it live here in Australia, Bob Sheridan and Carl King were commentating for the telecast I had and they made Holyfield the winner
by nearly every round it seemed while watching it that first time.

I have since seen the HBO broadcast version, and its funny how watching the same fight, but by listening the fight you get a differing view.

Kym

Worth checking to see if we all still hjave the same opinions

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... d&start=25

I stick by my score.

My honest opinions is that Lewis won the first fight easily, and the second fight was very close, Lewis probably edged it, but it would have been fair to score a close decision either way. People who call it a robbery are just plain biased, but fact is, the scorecards were clearly biased to Lewis. Nowhere near as bad a decision as the first fight, but just as bad scoring. Here's how I rate the scores in the fights from best to worst:

1. FIGHT 1 - 116:113 Lewis
2. FIGHT 2 - 115:113 Lewis
3. FIGHT 2- 116:112 Lewis
4. FIGHT 1 - 114:114 even
5= FIGHTS 1 and 2 115:113 Holyfield and 117:111 Lewis. Equally hideous scores.

Here are my scores.

When I saw it 1999
Holyfield 115
Lewis 113

After re-watching the fight a few months ago.
Holyfield 114
Lewis 114

Kym

I had Holyfield winning their rematch by 2pts (115-113) I believe - I likewise happened to rewatch this fight sometime last year....and came away more convinced that Holyfield won it.....

Reality to me is a 37 year old Holyfield simply couldn't apply enough pressure (or sustain it)....if he could have (i.e. a younger/prime Holyfield) stops Lennox....

Lennox won their first match.....Holyfield won the rematch......Judges F'ed both of them up.......

I agree a slightly younger Holyfield beats that Lewis by decison.

And I think if the two met in 1991 or there abouts I think Holyfield would have the goods to stop Lewis.

Kym