Do you consider Lewis-Holyfield to be a fair decision?

It looked very close to me.
I think some of those rounds could have gone either way though, and depends on personal interpetation of how to score a fight. The consensus is Lewis won on work-rate, and I think that's probably correct, but even some of his busiest rounds were perhaps evened up by Holyfield due to sharper, harder, more solid counter-punching.
117-111 is definitely too wide.

I think one win and one draw isn't too far off what Lewis deserved in 1999 against Holyfield.
The way they had it was wrong though.

 

I've scored the fight numerous times and always come up with 7-5 rounds to Lewis every time. It was competitive but Holyfield just didn't do enough in enough rounds to deserve the decision.

 

In his second encounter with Holyfield, Lewis won the majority of the rounds - so it was a fair decision. However, this was one of the less inspired performances from Lewis, while Holyfield looked to have done better than in their previous meeting.

I think any 'subconscious' impact on the judges' (and other observers') perspective was as likely to have been derived from (and have favored) Holyfield's better than expected showing.

 

Given that Lewis/Holyfield 1 resulted in one of the worst decisions in Heavyweight Boxing history, it would be rather cavalier to shrug it off as not requiring any criticism, just because things seemed to even out (only to those who believe Holyfield deserved the nod in their second meeting).

 

There might be an issue that Lewis had to fight less safety first than he wanted to, because he was afraid that he would be robbed again, and that this might have contributed to Holyfield doing better.

 

Actually I think they BOTH did better in the second fight.
I disagree with the claim that it was a "less inspired" effort by Lewis. I think it was a better performance. It's just that Holyfield showed up with a very good performance rather than the poor one he's had in the first fight.

Both of them fought a more intense fight. They used more tools, did more quality work.

 

I don't see it that way, at all.

Sure, Holyfield turned up with renewed vigor, along with his experience from their first meeting but in no way did Lewis outdo his performance in the first bout.

A key yardstick for comparison is the Lewis jab; consistent throughout their first fight; setting up the power shots - it was at times non-existent, in the second bout. Lewis looked in poor condition too - appearing weary by the end of the 5th (he more or less took round 6 off). Save for Lewis discovering/rediscovering his right uppercut, things might have gone badly wrong for him in this rematch.

Add to his that both Steward and Lewis himself were disappointed with this showing and I think it's more than just a 'claim' of the performance being less inspired. It is something that was actually seen and corroborated by close observers.

 

I too have seen this fight numerous times and with 8-4 or 7-5 for Lewis is what l got. At 7-5 you are given all the close rounds to Holyfield.

 

Agreed.

Lewis won at any rate for mine.

 

bob sheridan version i score it for holyfield ..kingvision
hbo i score it 116 to 113
silent i score it 116 to 113
....

 

Holyfield was ROBBED it was a clear victory for Holyfield. I read in the British Boxing magazine Boxing Monthly, that 43 of 48 ringside reporters had Holyfield the clear winner. I have watched the fight a dozen times over the years, and always have Holyfield the clear winner 8-4 or 7-5

 

Back then I was a Holyfield fan, but have to admit he lost both fights. He did much better the second time, but that doesn't mean he won.