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

The fact that you use Lennox Lewis and Emanuel Steward post-fight quotes to back up your claim actually almost proves the opposite of what you're trying to prove.
I'm all for throwing out any psychological an*alysis, if that's what you prefer. But you're very keen to project a psychological an*alysis of a "complacent" Lewis to explain how he "under performed". I'd say the difference in Holyfield is far more striking and explains how Lewis couldn't do what he did in the first fight.

It stands to reason, in my opinion, that the events surrounding the injustice of the first fight would be a STRONG motivator for Lennox Lewis. He was in good shape.

Watch the fight and you will see Lewis is jabbing from the outset, and Holyfield is quite successful using his right hand to block and parry from the outset too. Lewis scores with some jabs but Holyfield is figuring the range quickly. By the 4th round Holyfield is sending his own jab lower (Lewis doesn't have his cup up to his chest this time), and scoring that way, offsetting Lewis's rhythm. By the 5th round Lewis is trying to keep Holyfield at bay with one-twos, trying to land a big right off the jab because he's growing frustrated with Holyfield becoming a difficult target for the jab alone. By that point Holyfield has figured out the jab and was quick to reply to jab-jabbing with his own.
It's clear by round 6 Lewis has failed to establish jab supremacy and Holyfield is anticipating, nevermind blocking, the vast majority of the jabs Lewis attempts to land.
NEITHER FIGHTER neglects the jab, it's just that Lewis can't land it like he'd hoped for, and the Holyfield jab to the chest is real rhythm-breaker.
It's a good boxing match.

 

I try not to debate around counter-intuitive claims (like the one above) that the evidence given is counter-intuitive. It gets messy (and, quite frankly, probably already has).

Suffices to say, I totally disagree with you.

I have not 'projected' anything of the sort. I have pointed to the quotes from Lewis and Steward themselves. There's little, if any, analysis required and certainly not any rooted in psychology.

But, at least there's no re-writing of the history with it, either (just endless speculation by Lewis detractors on what Steward and he really meant by those words - because it couldn't possibly be the truth). These comments were not made public at the time and there was no image-gain or profit to be made from them. As winners, there was no reason to have explained that fight in the way they did.

I have also pointed at the lower work-rate, particularly the jab, as well as the lack of sharpness and assertiveness in the movement of Lewis, a difference that is, to my mind, clearly discernible between Fight I to Fight II. Whatever faith you have in punch stats, at least its a recorded number at the time and the rest is my interpretation of what I saw in the fight.

No more so than it stands to reason that Lewis did not feel as challenged by Holyfield himself, having won so clearly the last time.

I have watched the fight - many times. But, I have no problem watching it again to look out for what you're suggesting. In the meantime, I do seem to recall Holyfield, on occasion, catching the jab but not in such a consistent manner that it would deter Lewis from using it.

I do not recall Holyfield's own jab being prevalent but I noticed he jabbed to the body for a short spell - nothing for prolonged periods, however. And, as alluded to in a previous post, Round 6 produced very little from either fighter, with Lewis more or less taking the round off.

I do not think what you have described can account for Lewis THROWING LESS JABS FROM THE OUTSET and DISPENSING WITH THE JAB ALTOGETHER, AT TIMES.

A more upbeat Holyfield no doubt made things a little more interesting but I still believe Lewis was less tuned into this bout than the previous one - culminating to make for a more competitive-looking bout. Which is more or less what I stated, at the outset.

 

Perhaps Lewis didn't want to risk another lottery punch, so he fought smart. Agreed. I still hold Lewis insanely high padded cup guard well over his belly button as shameful to help protect him from Holyfield's body shots

 

Not really. The problem was Holyfield was already in the midst of a nine-fight streak where he only won two fights ... and one of those wins was considered a total gift (against Ruiz the first time). And the mandatories were waiting two years for a shot. Tua had already sued Lewis by that point trying to get him stripped.

I thought Holyfield lost to Lewis the first time. I thought he lost the rematch. I thought he lost the first fight to Ruiz (and it was considered such a bad decision the WBA ordered an immediate rematch). Holyfield got floored and beaten badly and nearly stopped by Ruiz in the second fight. Their third fight was a draw, and both guys looked bad. Then he finally beat Rahman thanks to a headbutt (but that's when Tyson and Lewis were about to fight). Then he lost clearly to Byrd. Got stopped by Toney. Lost nearly every round to Donald. Then he had his boxing license revoked because he was thought to have slipped so much.

At no point in there would a third fight been in order.

 

Having now watched the two bouts, both back-to-back and side-by-side, most of the comments on this thread, referring to some of the action in the second fight, are visibly verifiable. I think the observations made about Holyfield’s skills are valid - to a point - in that he did use different techniques to try and deal with the Lewis jab, in the rematch. That, combined with a little bit more assertiveness; slightly increased output and movement is what gives the fair impression of an improved Holyfield.

However, the question remains, as to how effective any of the adjustments made by Holyfield actually were, in terms of making an impact on Lewis; winning rounds and making an overall difference to the scoring. And, to my mind, the answer is that, in themselves, they fell quite short of pushing the envelope. It again occurred to me, in watching the second fight for the zillionth time that, as much as Holyfield was trying, he was not able to maintain any consistency.

I do not accept the idea that Holyfield caused Lewis to fail in establishing "jab supremacy". That’s a dreamy view of a great Heavyweight Champion, who was indeed looking improved but not in any way taking that kind of control. Rather, it was more a case that Lewis was not following the same strategy as he had in the first fight, albeit that, at times, it might have looked that way.

Lewis himself was also inconsistent but I think this is due to him having no particular strategy - other than to go for a KO. Apart from this appearing obvious in spells, with Lewis waiting for a chance to land the big right (as opposed to setting up the right), it is also implied by the commentary team and mentioned specifically, on a several occasions, that Lewis is seeking the knockout. Foreman goes as far as to say “Lewis is looking strictly for a knockout.”

As such, Lewis frequently lapses in allowing Holyfield to close the distance, which Lewis was more than capable of avoiding. Holyfield, to his credit, took good advantage of this, through which he was able to bring, in a small way, his own jab to the fore. But, it was rare that Holyfield followed up with anything substantial behind the jab and, if it had any effect on Lewis at all it was, in the main, to force him to pause momentarily, readjust his feet and begin his approach again.

Lewis, at any time he felt like it, could put Holyfield back in his box when he maintained his spacial awareness, used his feet more and returned to a focused and assertive jab. Whenever Lewis did this, the most effective (and eye-catching) tactic in Holyfield’s armory was bull-rushing, head-first into Lewis, winging in a hook as he did so (see: Round 10).


On this turn of watching the bout, I also picked up on some of Foreman’s enigmatic commentary. Foreman did tend to speak his truth about what he was watching, as he saw it. Though, he did tend to only highlight the good from one opponent and the bad from the other, at times. It seems he was rooting for Holyfield, this time around.

During Round 6, in particular, Foreman suggests: “Lewis thought all he got to do is just come out here and it was all his for the taking. He had no idea he would have to fight for this title.”

Lampley then asks: “So you think Lennox Lewis was that totally complacent coming into this fight.”

Foreman’s response seems to then turn to how the convincing performance of Lewis in the first fight had people afterwards putting the idea into his head that he'd won so easily, he should have knocked Holyfield out. However, while Lewis won the first fight, Foreman emphasizes that he hadn’t done so without a good strategy (and one gets the impression that Foreman is making the point that Lewis did not and never had any intention of employing the same tactics in this fight).

I also found Round 6 to be one of the most relevant in terms of it representing the only way this bout could be won by Holyfield. And, it took a Lewis, verging on utter disinterest (even while looking for the occasional haymaker), coupled with Holyfield’s extra effort, for him to win a Round clearly.


All-in-all, the more intense performance of Lewis in the first fight, in which he uses the jab and boxes consistently, wins it big for him. In the second fight, Lewis is less interested in boxing and more interested in getting the fight over with. If the idea of Lewis believing this would easily achievable is anywhere near the ballpark of being true, then it reeks of overconfidence. In any event, it affords a more energetic Holyfield the opportunities to try and impose himself. But, ultimately, Lewis is able to do enough to take the majority of the rounds, whilst Holyfield's efforts are never enough to bear down on Lewis with any kind of sustained authority.

 

I had it Lewis 115-113 when I first scored it. I watched it again and had it 116-112 Lewis.

You'd have to be really generous to have it even, let alone score it for Evander.

 

I don't blame him in the least. That's for a ref to decide. If you don't like it he's the one to blame. Hell l'd hold it neck high if the ref was okay with it.

 

Great post. The only thing l might add is that given the result of the first fight Lewis may have felt he needed a knock out to win the second fight. Hense his less focus on outboxing him and loading up a bit more.

 

My score as well. I haven't watched this fight in years but l've certainly watched and scored this fight numerous times. 7-5 is a close as l can get for Holyield (ie he lost) if l was a judge and not trying to give the benefit of the doubt to Holyfield l would score it 8-4.

 

Lewis won the first one...
Holyfield won the second one...

I feel like because of the robbery during the first fight, the judges didn't want to give Holyfield the second fight. It was a close fight after all the second time round.

 

Yeah, I've heard other here say that as well. Why was that? Holyfield at his best had every punch in the book including body punches but I didn't know that Lewis was particularly susceptible to body punches? yet the extremely high body guard did give the impression that he was worried about them.

 

I'm not in the mood to do this again but l had a round by round debate a number of times and nobody on the Holyield side can point to the rounds which woul'd give him a win. But of you want to make your case then do so.

 

I think it's fair to say Lennox earned the rematch after getting screwed in the first one. Holyfield needed to administer a beat down similar to what he took in their first go. Anything less and it goes to Lennox, which it did.