Does a draw count as a title defense?

I had it 7/5, so I would only need a one round swing for it to be a draw. As I mentioned Lewis was too cautious, he showed Holyfield too much respect and he was fighting in Holyfield's home Country.

Although I disagreed with the draw, I had no issues with it, Lewis did not assert himself enough.

 

1) I don't care if they fought in south korea, it makes no difference.

2) which swing round would you award to holyfield?

3) disagreed but had no issues? is disagreeing not an issue in itself?

4) if you had lewis winning then obviously he did do "enough"

 

1) You are being very silly/naive...

2) I would not know, as I scored the fight live, and remembered I had it 7/5. And I am not watching that rubbish again, with 13/14 years hindsight, both of us knowing full well I will score it 7/5...

3) If it was something I cared about, yes. I do not agree with many of the things that happen at my work place, but I do not take issue with them.

4) I thought he did enough, but I can fully empathise with one of the judges having it a draw. I was not a judge, if I was, then yes, one of the cards would of been a Lewis win, and if I replaced Larry O'Connell, Lewis would of won a split nod. But that did not happen!

 

1) what's naive about not caring where a fight is? When I watch fights I don't double check the location before scoring each round.

2) yes, a lewis win.

3) semantics. Disagreeing will do me fine.

4) so i'd ask which rounds could be scored for holy bringing us back to point 2. A lewis win.

 

But we are not disagreeing I scored it a Lewis win, your problem seem to be my empathy for the draw.

As for point one, perhaps you need to. To judge the fight correctly it would make sense to understand the environment around the fight, then perhaps you would understand my point, about having empathy for the draw.

 

It doesn’t matter if anyone considered Shannon the Cannon the best HW in the world. That’s why the Lineal Title goes to the man who beats the man. And it has to be taken from the champion in the ring. That way there aren’t 100 different opinions about who the Lineal Champion is. I mean did anyone realistically consider Buster Douglas the best HW in the world after he beat Mike Tyson. No not at all. I don’t think anyone would have even considered him a top 5 HW. But like it or not, he beat the man, who beat the man. So he was the true Lineal Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World. Until somebody came along and took that title off of him in the ring. And Big George took it from Michael Moorer. Then Shannon the Cannon took from him. So when Lennox put the beating down on Cannon. He earned the rightful claim to a Lineal title that stretches back into the past for over a century. All the way back to the great John L. Sullivan. A lot of people respect that title more than the Alphabet Titles of sanctioning bodies. And Lennox also had the WBC Title also. Which is commonly considered the most prestigious and most respected of all the Alphabet belts.
Just on account of the bouts they put on in the past amd the respect of the past fighters who were WBC champions. So you could easily say that Lennox had more of a right to call him self the champion going into that fight. The Lineal & WBC Titles trump the WBA & IBF in my opinion. And many others too!

. S

back into the past for over a century. All the way back to the great John L. Sullivan

 

I never doubted Lewis was the lineal champion. It still doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Going into that fight Holyfield was the higher ranked HW and this was Lewis's first shot at greatness. By the end of the fight it was clear who the best HW in the world was but the draw tainted that, thankfully we had an immediate rematch.

 

Yes definitely.

 

Draw is the defending title. I won't go into how well the judges did their job
Lewis Vs. Holyfield 1
Wilder Vs. Fury 1
Hagler Vs. Antuofermo 1
Hearns Vs. Leonard 2 ..........

 

I actually think they are quite hot...look up "telefe" and "boxeo de primera" (for their women sportscasters in the latter case)

 

Dokes vs. Weaver 2....Weaver shaded it.

 

Yes x2

 

I’m just trying to think about what you’re saying and I don’t really get it???

I mean you say that Holyfield was ranked higher than Lennox was going into that fight. And I could always be wrong here but if Lennox was the Lineal & WBC Champion and the Real Deal was WBA & IBF champion then how do you figure that Holyfield was ranked higher than Lennox???

Because I’m pretty sure that when a fighter wins even just one alphabet title then the other sanctioning bodies all take that fighter off of their rankings completely. I’m pretty sure that’s what they do now today at least. I’m not sure why? But if it was the same procedure at that time, back in what 1999 I believe it was? Then neither one of those guys would have been ranked at all. And the Lineal & WBC titles taken each separately, are very often commonly considered, and I would even say fairly well known, to be more highly respected then both the WBA or IBF titles. Even back then. And I’m pretty sure that Lennox was the favorite going into both of those fights.

So I don’t understand why you would say that Evander Holyfield was ranked higher than Lennox Lewis was at the time???

Unless you mean to say that Evander Holyfield had more career accolades and accomplishments at the time? Which in that case you would be right.

Other than that I can’t think of any good reason to say that Holyfield ranked higher than Lennox at that time???

But what exactly were you trying say when you were talking about how Lennox Lewis beating Shannon Briggs for the Lineal title doesn’t give him a good claim to be the real HW champ. Like what do we mean when talk about the real HW champ? Are we just talking about who had the best claim to say their the best HW in the world?

Because that’s what it sounds like. And in reality the actual best fighter in the world at any time could possibly not even hold any of the commonly respected titles at all. Alphabet or Lineal. So we can only really base a claim like that on few things I think and it’s not that simple. Cuz we could base it on what titles they currently hold. We could base it on their career accomplishments or we could base it on the strength of the opponents they’ve fought. Which can get complicated and isn’t always easy because comparing fighters is very much subjective to personal opinion. And we could just base it on the old eye test. And in that case it could be a guy who hasn’t even won a single title. I don’t think it’s to crazy to say that either cuz i mean Sonny Liston was considered the best in the world even though Floyd Patterson had the title. And some people were saying that Jaron Ennis was the best welterweight in the world even before he won the the IBF title. And even if he wasn’t the best it still wouldn’t be too far from the truth in claiming that he was. So I think maybe all these factors should be taken in to consideration but that makes it very difficult to come to a common consensus about who the best in the world is at any given time. I don’t know!

Am I saying anything crazy or what?