Did Holyfield beat Lewis in their 2nd fight? Round by Round Breakdown

****! Hello, all the lennie lickers are arriving :rofl :spliff

 

i always thought so but just like the dlh vs tito fight it doesn't matter now

 

Who gives a **** if he is? The lack of any corrorborating evidence and facts that contradict your obsession shows that any one who spend as much time on the subject as you obviously has some unresolved issues. :deal

 

If you are not interested in boxing or learning anything about it then **** off rascist.

 

Zak,

Still can't handle Lewis beating Holy twice. Lets hear your best of the era - should be good for a laugh at your objectivity. Hypocrisy - your the general of the Holyfield overrating army and complaining about Lewis fans?

Your only point is two losses through complacency - thoroughly negated by every other win over these two and every other man who stepped through the ropes.

 

I had Lewis winning the first fight.

And Holyfield winning the second one.

 

I thought Lewis won by a point or two. Holyfield was trying to steal rounds in the last thirty seconds and in fairness some of them he did, but as far as I'm concerned Lewis won and should by rights be 2-0 against Holyfield.

 

Lewis clearly dominated the first fight, 9 rounds to 3 and I thought he won a close second fight. I can understand people saying they thought Holyfield won the 2nd fight, there were a more than a few really close rounds in that one, but there is no way the 1st fight is anything but a clear, decisive victory for Lewis. No way at all.

 

Who won the majority of the 24 rounds that they fought?

There is your overall winner.



Case closed.

 

OK, Wlad, of course. But this is also a far lesser era. It's not like there are any other candidates who you would even put in the discussion, let alone be able to build a case for their being better.:yep

 

Lewis clearly won the second fight. Look at the punchstats and you will see.

Lewis can beat Holy every time as he is better in every way.

Pity you bitches can't accept it and are still crying about it years later.

Here you are:

This content is protected

 

And while we are on the subject :

Larry Donald L 12
Toney L TKO 9
Chris Byrd L 12
John Ruiz L 12
Lewis L 12
Bowe L KO 8
Moorer L 12
Bowe L 12

Yeah sure he was better than Lewis as a heavyweight.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :yep :yep :yep :hey :hey :hey :hey :rofl :rofl :rofl

And he wasn't Evan Fields.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :yep :yep :yep :hey :hey :hey :hey :rofl :rofl :rofl


You sad pathetic clowns. atsch

 

Sorry mate, each fight is judged on its merits and the 2nd fight is the one in question. The real question is, did the judges award the 2nd fight to Lennox to make up for the botchup scoring of the 1st? A good number of posters on here think that is the case. All this meaning that the 2nd fight ended controversially. For that matter they both did, so we then become the jurors.

 

I agree.

I cant stand the revisionist history that makes Lennox Lewis the most dominant heavyweight of the 1990s, when he was actually most often a huge disappointment up until 1997.
Outside of the brilliant destruction of Razor Ruddock in 1992, Lewis's performances in 1990-96 were not setting the division alight. He was just one of the major players, and rating Bowe and/or Holyfield ahead of him in '93 and '94, '95 and '96 was most REASONABLE.

Admittedly, in the late 90s, ('97 onwards) and 1999 in particular, Lewis emerged as the supreme HW.
But to say he dominated the whole 90s is ridiculous and ignorant.