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

I agree Lewis wasn't almost as quick as prime Holyfield, but with his big advantages in height and reach he didn't need to be.

You mean the same Mercer who the fight before hurt Holyfield and gave him a tough fight? Sure he didn't outbox Mercer, but they were in a tiny 18ft ring, Lewis wouldn't outbox Holyfield either in such a small ring. Put that Mercer in a 20ft plus ring with Lewis and it would of been an easier fight for Lewis, still tough but he would of won a much clearer decision.

Agreed Lewis was prime, Holyfield had slowed, had adapted his style a little by sitting down on his shots more, was more economical as well, he was clearly past his best days. But Lewis at his best dominated Evander like we had not seen since his first fight with Bowe.

Had Holyfield been competitive with a prime Lewis while past his best, I'd definitely favour him a prime for prime match up but the way he was shut down and controlled by Lewis means to me that he'd have always had a hard time with Lewis. Prime for prime would of likely been a tight affair, but I favour Lewis to win a decision, don't think prime Evander was a big enough hitter to really make Lewis pay for it when he caught him and I cant see Evander winning a decision, or at least a fair decision.

Holyfield would probably win the rematch though, because then Lewis would likely take him lightly in the rematch and under perform.

 

One would have to be extremely generous to Holyfield, in order to have scored their second fight only 7-5 to Lewis. Another Draw would have been another travesty of justice - plain and simple.

What adjustments did Holyfield actually make in the second bout?

 

But Lewis did out box him.

 

But when you have that extra range and reach as well as excellent timing the difference in speed isn't as prevalent hence why I said nearly.

Is it the best Lewis ever? Maybe the most complete. Not sure if it means the best though. He wasn't as quick as he was against Ruddock for instance.

 

Holyfield was already a couple of years past his best for Mercer, he'd been through wars already and was coming back from the awful Moorer fight and the heart scare, but he boxed well and put Mercer down.
I thought it was a competitive close fight but not as close as Lewis-Mercer, and Mercer was in noticeably better shape for the Holyfield fight.
Larry Holmes puts them both to shame because he easily outboxed Mercer at 42-years-old.

The size of the ring is a strange excuse. It does a disservice to Mercer to suggest he owes his success to the limited ring space.
Lewis was bigger, just as strong, and the more powerful puncher .... so why would he be disadvantaged by having a smaller ring?
His reach is way less than 18 feet, so if he wants to use his reach he had all the space in the world.
If he was some small, dancing, 'fancy dan' with no power and strength, the reasoning would be valid, but Lewis was a big brutal puncher, so he can't say it's a disadvantage.

 

This is the truth.
People here have re-written the history in their own minds to suggest Lennox Lewis was complacent and over-confident in the 2nd fight because he did so well it the 1st one, but at the time it was evident that Lewis had never been as motivated in his life, he was trained down to 242 pounds again, and was absolutely determined to win way more emphatically and knock Holyfied out (like people claimed he could have in round 5 of the first one).

The problem for him was Holyfield turned up boxing as well as he could at that stage of his career, and Lewis's skillset was not enough to win emphatically against such a skilled opponent, but all credit to Lewis for doing enough to get the win (and fairly enough, imo).

 

The actual words you used in your prior post were: "No need then to critizise the 1st decision in my view.", which is a daft thing to suggest, given that Lewis won their first fight so emphatically it probably would have removed the need for a rematch. It was a disgraceful decision and a patent robbery.

Your idea that things evened out in the rematch is also flawed. It could only "seem" that way to people who thought Holyfield did much better than he actually did in their second meeting. But, there's absolutely no case for a Draw and only an extreme stretch, in favor of Holyfield, gets the cards down to a Lewis win of 115-113.

So, there was and is absolutely every need to criticize the first decision.

 

Around 116-113 is a decent card in the rematch. I cannot fathom how some could score it a draw or even worse, for Holyfield.

 

Make the case then.

 

I know. It's quite extraordinary.

Holyfield might have looked a little better but he wasn't convincingly winning rounds. A few were close and could be argued as going to Holyfield but, in reality, if a Boxer is not clearly winning more rounds than their opponent, it can't be expected for the result to go in their favor. Not even the draw, in this case.

 

You refer to the skills of both fighters but, I'm yet to read anything from you, which elaborates on this difference in skill, between Lewis and Holyfield, such that it might highlight the points during the fight this was apparent. This, of course, would help support any case made for the fight being closer than the scorecards would suggest.


If you’re going to start accusing people here of having “re-written the history in their own minds”, you might want something more substantial than:

“but at the time it was evident that Lewis had never been as motivated in his life, he was trained down to 242 pounds again”

Please let me know when the psychology paper has been written, which conclusively links a physical 3lb drop in weight, over an 8-month period, to a Heavyweight Boxer’s levels of mental motivation. Especially, since it seems 242lbs equates to the most motivated that Boxer could ever have been in his life, even when said Heavyweight has been floating between 241lbs and 248lbs for the previous 4 to 5 years.


Lewis has stated that he went into the ring with the attitude that he’d already beaten him once so “What can he possibly do now?”

Steward stated: “Lennox won the first fight so clearly that he felt Holyfield couldn’t present any kind of problem for him.”

The above quotes are on record and, thus, their use cannot be considered as people here having "rewritten the history in their own minds".


There is also the clear and significant drop in the use of the Lewis jab, during the fight itself. It is not 're-writing the history' to note this. You have claimed in a previous post that you think Holyfield took the Lewis jab away but without suggesting a plausible method, through which Holyfield, achieved this. I am more than happy for the techniques employed by Holyfield to be pointed out to me so I can see where and how often in the fight they occurred. It should be visually verifiable.

 

Can you please point out the rounds in which you believe Lewis was hurt by Holyfield?
Which rounds do you think Holyfield won convincingly?