How can anyone dominate without going for it hammer and tongs? Nobody should be crying over a guy not willing to go hammer and tongs to become champion for the heavyweight title. that first fight, I scored a draw. Recently I did give it to Lewis, but not by enough to complain about a draw. For me, the two fights did not satisfactorily resolve who was the better man because Lewis would simply take too many rounds off. In both fights.
It's simple really you can tactically dominate a fight, without beating the other man half to death. Winky Wright vs Felix Trinidad for example Wright just controlled the fight with the jab, and totally shut down Trinidad's offence. Mayweather at Welterweight when he was no longer a puncher, like he was at lower weightclasses. Often tactically dominated fighters and shut down there offence. And's that precisely what Lewis did to Holyfield, as evident from Holyfield's 30 punches a round. Really ? so your saying a boxer can't fight a smart tactical fight, and totally befuddle and outbox the other fighter just because it's for the championship ? and it's required that you fight toe to toe when it isn't in your best interest ? i'm sorry but i don't agree with that logic. You must think great tactical boxers like Mayweather, Whitaker, all deserved draws in any semi competitive fight they had then because they boxed safely. Well Holyfield disagrees with you, he was so disheartened and befuddled in the fight he was on the verge of quitting. The overwhelming statistics in Lewis's favour do not match up with your opinion either. Well i'm actually surprised you don't have Holyfield, winning by a landslide in the rematch. If you thought Holyfield deserved a draw in the first fight. Considering Holyfield did alot better in the 2nd fight. And finally you keep saying "Lewis took too many rounds off" but Holyfield averaged 30 punches a round, so if anything it was Holyfield who took too many rounds off.
You had Holyfield winning the 5th round ? absolutely laughable. You mean the round when Lewis had his best round of the fight ? and badly hurt Holyfield along the ropes for almost a full minute ? you need your eyes checked if you think Holyfield won that round. Lewis landed 43 punches in that round, compared to Holyfield's 11, it was Lewis's best round of the fight. And you gave it to Holyfield when he was almost outlanded 4 to 1 ? ok then.
No I am not saying that at all. The majority of the rounds need to be conclusive and they were not.six rounds were easy to score. The other six? First time, although Lewis looked better in the rounds he won, there were enough rounds that could have went either way that if Evander was scored half of them it would be a draw. You can only give it to Lewis by rounds, if all the quiet rounds went to him. Seven rounds were reasonably inconclusive. the consensus among mainstream media was Lewis was robbed. Boxing people also mostly thought Lewis had “done enough”. But it wasn’t some hysterical outrageous thing. Harold Lederman gave Evander 3 rounds. I gave Holyfield 4 rounds with 2 even. It was a closer fight than people think. the first fight I scored round 5 for Lewis. I posted my scoring of the second fight to demonstrate even second time around it was inconclusive also. By rounds I don’t think either fight was that decisive. And there were no 10-8 rounds. This rivalry was supposed to decide who the best in the world was. And it just didn’t.
It's just a waste of time I can't believe I'm debating it, the statistics are there for everyone to see. The fight itself watching it with your own eyes should be clear as day, and listening to what Holyfield said himself tells you how "Close" he thought it was. So that's the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, and I'm going to swiftly take myself out of this thread now.
So Hatton was Mayweather's last victory then? Just about every fight he had after that could have gone either way really? Man wasn't he lucky.
Is it reasonable to say that someone as highly regarded as Lewis, at or near the peak of his powers, should have taken Holy out or at the very least taken him out? Yeah, Steward seemed to have agreed with that. Is that a sentiment that has anything to do with round by round scoring? Absolutely not..
Yes, Lewis got screwed. Holyfield won 2-3 rounds. Somehow, one judge gave Holyfield the 5th round, which consisted of him getting pummeled against the ropes. The second fight was better and more competitive. That was a 7-5, 8-4 type fight for Lewis. Lewis looked sloppy at times and overreliant on the uppercut. Holyfield took one monster uppercut, I think maybe in round 9, that looked like it momentarily lifted him in the air. Holyfield bounced back pretty fast, he was one tough fighter.
Both fights were won by Lewis. But the second fight was closer to a draw. So the judges made two mistakes. The first fight was a draw, and the second fight, in which Holyfield performed better than in the first fight, he lost.
I have seen Lewis - Holyfield II several times and I always scored a draw or 115-114 Holyfield.I remember the majority of press row scoring for Holyfield as well. It is clear that the judges were biased from the first fight when looking at their individual scorecards.
