In the first round Larry practically tackled Michael to the ground. I wonder if that biased the judges against him from the jump.
Revisitng decisions when you know the outcome is a mug's game. That being said when you look at the fight as a piece Larry won. Lederman, Merchant, and Leonard surely thought he did.
Holmes comments about the judges drinking before fights may have moved the needle against him a little. Yea Holmes won that one close but clear.
The thing that stuck with me about that match was the verdict, which was controversial in my opinion. I think Holmes won, by a narrow but clear margin.
I thought Holmes looked like the better fighter, the punch stat was almost dead even with both connecting on approximately forty percent of their punches. Two posters have said it was close, maybe a bad decision but not a robbery.
In my opinion this is a controversial verdict, Holmes had indeed won narrowly but clearly. The big thefts are elsewhere, GGG vs Canelo 1, Lewis vs Holyfield 1, and Martinez vs Cintron, to name a few. In terms of a controversial verdict I think Holmes vs Spinks 2 is like Wright vs Vargas or De La Hoya vs Mosley 2, a clear but narrow victory for one fighter, but the judges' verdict goes to the other.
I recall watching this at the time with my dad and scoring it on paper. We both had Holmes winning the rematch, close.