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

Prime Holyfield should be favoured against Lewis, yes.
I'd bet on the version that faced Douglas in 1990 against any version of Lewis.
Holyfield when he had that work-rate was a superb boxer.

 

Lewis showed skills, just different skills to what Bowe showed. He showed movement, a good jab, control of distance, all things Bowe lacked. Bowe was hit with 51% of a smaller mans punches, 57% power punches as well. Both dominated Holyfield at their best, Bowe did it by beating up Evander, Lewis did it by out boxing the Evander.

 

I'd also say that even though Lewis wasn't as fluent on the inside as Bowe he was more dangerous there, Holyfield knew this as well.....

 

I would always give a prime, non-complacent Lewis the edge against any version of Holyfield.

Whilst an attempted increase in the Holyfield work-rate would have made it a more competitive-looking bout, I'm doubtful that it would have been greatly effective against the range Lewis would have been constantly creating with his footwork and the jab. Other staple deterrents, such as the Lewis uppercut, would have also been in force.

 

Same.

 

It's all speculation. Opinions will differ. I didn't think Lewis was particularly great at creating space and range for the course of a fight.
Unlike, say, Wladimir, who may not have the same variety of tools but definitely knew how to create the distance.

 

Indeed - it is all speculation and I don't doubt that an early-90s version of Holyfield could close the gap at times and, perhaps, quite frequently (against both Lewis and Wlad).

However Wlad's only answer to anyone, who closes the gap is to stifle his opponent; grabbing, holding and wrestling, whereas Lewis has a reasonable inside game and could be quite punishing at that range, if required.

On balance, a focused Lewis limits his opponents' options in more ways than most heavyweights could.

 

I'm always intrigued by which version of Lewis was "a focused Lewis", since that qualifier seems to be added to his name quite a bit.
It seems even the Lewis who turned up for the 2nd fight is being seen to lack some focus by previous comments made on this thread, whereas I reckon that was one of his very best performances.

 

I totally disagree. Lewis was far better at creating distance than Wlad. Both relied heavily on their height and reach to usually just lean back away from shots but Lewis moved better laterally than Wlad. Wlad stands too much in front of his opponents compared to Lewis, if he was better at controlling range he wouldn't have to clinch as much as he did against aggressive opposition.

Lewis could attack from range and then move away against aggressive opponents, Wlad lands but then is forced to clinch because he can't get away like Lewis could. Look at their stances, Lewis' is narrower giving him a higher centre of gravity making him more mobile, Wlad's feet are wider apart, his centre of gravity lower, it made him a better balanced fighter than Lewis who could look clumsy, but that comes at a cost, it made Wlad less mobile and less able to create space because of this.

Vitali was also better at creating space through movement than Wlad. Compare their movement in their fights with Peter. Wlad stands in front of Peter too much, too static, Vitali on the other hand was constantly circling usually to his left.

What Wlad did was not create space or range what he did was ensure when the fight was not at his preferred range he smothered his opponent ensuring the fight was usually fought at his range. That's different to creating range, it's just as effective but a different skill.

 

I'm always using terms such as 'complacency' to describe the biggest flaw Lewis had. The difference between a focused Lewis and a careless Lewis was clearly reflected in his performances; a most notable example being Rahman I & II.

I think the same can be said of Holyfield I & II; just in reverse order. Lewis most certainly tuned into the first Holyfield fight. I believe he was less so in the rematch, for the reasons previously given.

 

I favour Lewis prime for prime.

If he can't outbox you he just out punches you.

How many close range uppercuts can Holy swallow against a man who's almost as quick as he is?

 

holyfield when he had that work-rate and much more speed of hand and, especially, foot

 

Lewis wasn't almost as quick as prime Holyfield.
Lewis struggled against an overweight Mercer, who he didn't really out-box or out-punch.
The Lewis of the Holyfield fights is the best Lewis there ever was, and Holyfield was already slowed down by about 5 or 6 years.

 

I prime Lewis had two fights to do all those against a past it Holyfield and he didn't do it. The early 90's version of Evander was a different animal altogether.

 

I agree with this 100% Whether the decision was fair or not in Holyfield-Lewis I, Lewis was not given the win. He should have been absolutely focused to be at his best in Holyfield - Lewis II. And I think he was. I just think Holyfield (even a past prime one) was better at making adjustments than Lewis was. And the second fight was damn close in my opinion. Definitely no more than 7-5 if not a draw.