You know what i'm asking for and you cannot produce it. Tells its own story about you as a poster.
You do realise that most "ringside observers" has Lewis winning clearly, including AP, who had it 116-113?
You do realise that Holyfield was an American hero and that Lewis was fighting in a foriegn country?
You do realise that Lewis landed no fewer than sixty
more punches than Holyfield by compubox?
Again, i'm completely unsurprised that you are saying Holyfield beat Lewis in the second fight because you're incapable of seeing it any other way.
"We all knew it"
Then why did "we" tune in in record numbers? Why did "we" demand the fight happen?
Of course Tyson was not prime. But, for the third time, he was ranked #2 in the world, the boxing public absolutely demanded it and for it not to happen would have been almost unthinkable. But you don't consider all of that because you like to cherry pick your facts.
I have no idea why you have a personal prejudice but it is absolutely blatant, as blatant as any i've seen on here.
And it is not what you take into account, but the possibilities you exclude that paint you as ridiculous.
Consider this: lots of people telling you you are a troll. It's likely.
Yeah, they had a prejudice. The press always
has a prejudice against "boxing" heavyweight champions rather than sluggers. This has been true of Tunney, Ali, Holmes, Lewis and now Wlad.
But I don't mind. Show me the one-hundred articles please.
"Other people" don't take this attitude to Lewis. Yours is the most extreme viewpoint i've come across, ever.
These aren't links - you're just typing titles
Bet these magazines have seen a lot of "action" though.