View Full Version : Holyfield-Lewis in '98: Would it make a difference


Emon723
03-27-2011, 01:57 AM
What lead to Evander Holyfield's unimpressive performance vs Lewis in March 1999.

He was 36 years old, an age when a boxer is supposed to be past his prime.
His fight with Henry Akinwande in June was cancelled, and fought an equally undeserving Vaughn Bean.
10 months of not getting into the ring after the unification bout with Moorer in Nov '97 and prior to the Bean fight, Sept '98.

If only Boxing at that time ride on a momentum of big fights, Holyfield vs Lewis immediately for the undisputed Heavyweight title in the summer of 1998, after the four best heavyweights fought in the same period (Lewis-Golota, Holyfield-Moorer). Consider these:

Akinwande and Bean had their previous title shots and dont deserve a second chance, Shannon Briggs cant even beat a 48-years old George Foreman and Zelijko Mavrovic mysteriously jump into the WBC number 1 rankings.

Would a year earlier make a difference in the outcome of the Holyfield-Lewis first fight where the Real deal was lucky to salvage a gifted draw.

jimmy1569
03-27-2011, 04:07 AM
I still believe he won the second fight. He was taking it to Lewis & landing the bigger blows. He made the adjustments just like he had in the second Bowe fight. His last dominating performance was against Michael Moorer. He was really becoming unstoppable after he finished with both Mikes. He clearly started to lose that edge with The Bean fight & then Lewis. I don't think Lennox would've stood a chance against the Evander of The Tyson & Moorer fights where people were talking about him as a top 5 heavy alltime & a legend for what he had done to Tyson.

Holtol
03-27-2011, 04:20 AM
Holyfield never did to much after the Lewis fights. Holyfield was not at his strongest in 99 a year earlier would have helped him a little bit, in the first fight and the second.

Quarry
03-27-2011, 05:29 AM
I still believe he won the second fight. He was taking it to Lewis & landing the bigger blows. He made the adjustments just like he had in the second Bowe fight. His last dominating performance was against Michael Moorer. He was really becoming unstoppable after he finished with both Mikes. He clearly started to lose that edge with The Bean fight & then Lewis. I don't think Lennox would've stood a chance against the Evander of The Tyson & Moorer fights where people were talking about him as a top 5 heavy alltime & a legend for what he had done to Tyson.

i agree with you, Holy was robbed in the rematch with Lewis which is why he is determined to continue his quest to regain the title he feels he was unjustly robbed of

Mugwump
03-27-2011, 07:01 AM
i agree with you, Holy was robbed in the rematch with Lewis ...

What on earth are you talking about? The word "robbed" implies Holyfield was four or five rounds ahead - perhaps more - and was the victim of a grossly unjust decision. I defy ANYONE to watch that bout and explain to me how Holyfield was miles ahead on the scorecards.

It's now come to the point where any decision, no matter how convincing, is counted as unquestionable evidence of corruption. Words and meaning have lost any semblance of connection.

I bet you believe they filmed the moon landings in a TV studio, too.

Emon723
03-27-2011, 07:06 AM
Holyfield coming off signature wins over Tyson and Moorer will went to the ring with Lewis far confident than the 1999 version, I was actually disappointed by the outcome of the Bean fight, Holy try to over impressed his hometown crowd in Atlanta, even raising his hand after he knock Bean down late in the 10th.

In some way, history was really kind to Lewis, not that im saying Tyson and Holyfield will beat him at their very best, but Lewis fought a shadow of their former selves.

Quarry
03-27-2011, 08:23 AM
What on earth are you talking about? The word "robbed" implies Holyfield was four or five rounds ahead - perhaps more - and was the victim of a grossly unjust decision. I defy ANYONE to watch that bout and explain to me how Holyfield was miles ahead on the scorecards.

It's now come to the point where any decision, no matter how convincing, is counted as unquestionable evidence of corruption. Words and meaning have lost any semblance of connection.

I bet you believe they filmed the moon landings in a TV studio, too.

i would not claim Holy won by four or five rounds but three clear rounds ahead is more my score of that fight with the word Robbed used to describe how Holy lost his title, i have watched the fight several times over the years and could never understand how Lennox was awarded the decision
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BuBOrhB9010" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LOMg8FgauQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The_Demon
03-27-2011, 08:52 AM
What on earth are you talking about? The word "robbed" implies Holyfield was four or five rounds ahead - perhaps more - and was the victim of a grossly unjust decision. I defy ANYONE to watch that bout and explain to me how Holyfield was miles ahead on the scorecards.

It's now come to the point where any decision, no matter how convincing, is counted as unquestionable evidence of corruption. Words and meaning have lost any semblance of connection.

I bet you believe they filmed the moon landings in a TV studio, too.

Haha well put,people dont seem too understand what the term 'robbed' means

Mugwump
03-27-2011, 11:29 AM
i would not claim Holy won by four or five rounds but three clear rounds ahead is more my score of that fight with the word Robbed used to describe how Holy lost his title, i have watched the fight several times over the years and could never understand how Lennox was awarded the decision
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BuBOrhB9010" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LOMg8FgauQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You're out of your mind. Jeff Fenech's defeat to Azumah Nelson in their first fight was unquestionably a "robbery". Robin Reid's decision loss to Sven Ottke was also a "robbery". Holyfield's loss to Lewis was a tight decision. I had Lewis ahead by a round, perhaps two. But I wouldn't have complained if it came out a draw because it was a fiercely contested bout. But a robbery? Not in a million years. The fact that you cannot understand why Lewis won says more about your understanding of boxing than the decision itself.

Holtol
03-27-2011, 01:27 PM
Haha well put,people dont seem too understand what the term 'robbed' means

I think if a boxer wins 7 or 8 rounds and his opponent is given the decision the boxer who won most of the rounds was robbed of the win. It is very hard to win two thirds of a fight against elite compitition. To have to win all but three rounds of a fight to get a decision is rediculous.

Pastrano
03-27-2011, 02:41 PM
Holyfield that fought Moorer in '97 beats Lewis.

Ziggy Stardust
03-27-2011, 04:44 PM
Haha well put,people dont seem too understand what the term 'robbed' means

Close fight that could go either way = Not a robbery.
One fighter clearly wins but the other guy gets the decision = Robbery.

In the case of the second Lewis - Holyfield fight it was a close one that could have gone either way. Now the FIRST Lewis - Holyfield fight I'd call a robbery since Lewis clearly one that fight but it was scored a draw.

Poet

Mugwump
03-27-2011, 04:51 PM
I think if a boxer wins 7 or 8 rounds and his opponent is given the decision the boxer who won most of the rounds was robbed of the win.

Again, not necessarily. YOU might think a boxer won seven or eight rounds. But if they were close rounds, which could have been scored either way depending on the criteria you are applying and the boxer lost it could in no way count as a robbery. A good example of this is the Calzaghe v Hopkins bout which is very difficult to score.

[quote[It is very hard to win two thirds of a fight against elite compitition. To have to win all but three rounds of a fight to get a decision is rediculous.[/QUOTE]

You do know that a boxer can decision a fight with only one winning round?

Holtol
03-27-2011, 05:14 PM
Again, not necessarily. YOU might think a boxer won seven or eight rounds. But if they were close rounds, which could have been scored either way depending on the criteria you are applying and the boxer lost it could in no way count as a robbery. A good example of this is the Calzaghe v Hopkins bout which is very difficult to score.

[quote[It is very hard to win two thirds of a fight against elite compitition. To have to win all but three rounds of a fight to get a decision is rediculous.

You do know that a boxer can decision a fight with only one winning round?[/QUOTE]

Calzaghe won that fight fair and square. If it had of gone to Hopkins it would have been bad Jugging imo. I think Holyfield deserved the decision in the second fight. If you are not going to call it a robbery you could call it something else I suppose. Something was taken away from Holfield that should have been his. The fights bettween Lewis and Holyfield should be one win a piece.

Yeah, I know that a boxer could win a decision by only winning one round.

Mugwump
03-27-2011, 06:55 PM
Calzaghe won that fight fair and square. If it had of gone to Hopkins it would have been bad Jugging imo. I think Holyfield deserved the decision in the second fight. If you are not going to call it a robbery you could call it something else I suppose.

I think the word you are looking for is "unfortunate". I know it seems like I'm being fussy here but words really do matter. Far too many people these days seem to think it's perfectly okay to hyper-emphasize a point - usually leading to confusion, misinterpretation and, occasionally, anger. I've no idea why this is so. Perhaps people think it separates them from the crowd but all that really happens is everyone else follows suit leading to a surreal kind of arms race of descriptive prose where words and meaning part company completely.

Quarry
03-28-2011, 03:02 AM
Close fight that could go either way = Not a robbery.
One fighter clearly wins but the other guy gets the decision = Robbery.

In the case of the second Lewis - Holyfield fight it was a close one that could have gone either way. Now the FIRST Lewis - Holyfield fight I'd call a robbery since Lewis clearly one that fight but it was scored a draw.

Poet

Holy - Lewis I was a draw not a robbery, the british judge who travelled over to the states on the plane with Lewis scored it a draw 6rds each. Lewis had opportunities in the fight when Holy seemed hurt but never took those opportunities, i had Lewis winning by 1 round and Holy winning the rematch by 3 rounds. the 24rds these two fought i had Holy the clear winner 14-10rds

Ziggy Stardust
03-28-2011, 03:08 AM
Holy - Lewis I was a draw not a robbery, the british judge who travelled over to the states on the plane with Lewis scored it a draw 6rds each. Lewis had opportunities in the fight when Holy seemed hurt but never took those opportunities, i had Lewis winning by 1 round and Holy winning the rematch by 3 rounds. the 24rds these two fought i had Holy the clear winner 14-10rds

I watched the first Lewis - Holyfield fight when it happend and have watched it a number of times since. At no time have I ever been able to give Evander more than four rounds and that's with me being my most charitable and cutting him every break possible. And btw I happend to have been rooting for Holyfield in that fight.

I really could care less what a blind minor-league Brit judge scored it. He should stay home and find a new line of work.

Poet

Quarry
03-28-2011, 05:13 AM
I watched the first Lewis - Holyfield fight when it happend and have watched it a number of times since. At no time have I ever been able to give Evander more than four rounds and that's with me being my most charitable and cutting him every break possible. And btw I happend to have been rooting for Holyfield in that fight.

I really could care less what a blind minor-league Brit judge scored it. He should stay home and find a new line of work.

Poet

you are entitled to your opinion and your scorecard yet none of the three judges saw the fight anything like you saw it and they was 3 highly respected judges who scored 116-113, 115-115 and 113-115 so your 4rds at best for Holy is way off the mark compared to professional judges who between them have refereed and judged hundreds of world title fights and was sitting ringside compiling their scorecards whereas you scored it watching your television coverage. so maybe it is you who needs to find the new line of work because scoring prizefights is not something you excel at so my advice to you is, Don't give up your day job.

Ziggy Stardust
03-28-2011, 06:00 AM
you are entitled to your opinion and your scorecard yet none of the three judges saw the fight anything like you saw it and they was 3 highly respected judges who scored 116-113, 115-115 and 113-115 so your 4rds at best for Holy is way off the mark compared to professional judges who between them have refereed and judged hundreds of world title fights and was sitting ringside compiling their scorecards whereas you scored it watching your television coverage.

"Professional" judges get it wrong all the time. Do we need to type a litany of the bad decisions handed down over the last 20 years? Professional referees in football and basketball blow calls all the time. Professional umpires in baseball blow calls all the time. This is nothing new. You can pretend that everyone connected to boxing is the highest level of competency and are le bon chevalier sans peur sans reproach but that would make you a fool.


so maybe it is you who needs to find the new line of work because scoring prizefights is not something you excel at so my advice to you is, Don't give up your day job.

Hmmmmm. I do believe you said the following:
the 24rds these two fought i had Holy the clear winner 14-10rds

Quite frankly that makes you look like a crank and someone who seriously needs to find a new sport since it's clear you haven't figured out boxing yet. Don't quit your day job Junior.

Poet

Quarry
03-28-2011, 01:28 PM
"Professional" judges get it wrong all the time. Do we need to type a litany of the bad decisions handed down over the last 20 years? Professional referees in football and basketball blow calls all the time. Professional umpires in baseball blow calls all the time. This is nothing new. You can pretend that everyone connected to boxing is the highest level of competency and are le bon chevalier sans peur sans reproach but that would make you a fool.




Hmmmmm. I do believe you said the following:


Quite frankly that makes you look like a crank and someone who seriously needs to find a new sport since it's clear you haven't figured out boxing yet. Don't quit your day job Junior.

Poet

the professionals make mistakes but you don't, is that what you are saying?

The only person looking like a crank is yourself

Ziggy Stardust
03-28-2011, 01:54 PM
the professionals make mistakes but you don't, is that what you are saying?

The only person looking like a crank is yourself

And the vast majority of people who saw that fight believed Lewis got robbed so who's the crank here? Look, we know you have a huge dislike of Lewis and he could pitch a shutout and you'd say he lost. You're letting your personal antipathy cloud your reasoning here.

Poet

RubenSonny
03-28-2011, 01:58 PM
Holyfield-Lewis 1 is one of the big robberies of recent memory, the second fight was close but I think I scored it for Holy, I'm gonna watch it again in a few days.

Quarry
03-28-2011, 01:58 PM
And the vast majority of people who saw that fight believed Lewis got robbed so who's the crank here? Look, we know you have a huge dislike of Lewis and he could pitch a shutout and you'd say he lost. You're letting your personal antipathy cloud your reasoning here.

Poet

i thought Lewis won the fight

Vadrigar.
03-28-2011, 01:59 PM
And the vast majority of people who saw that fight believed Lewis got robbed so who's the crank here? Look, we know you have a huge dislike of Lewis and he could pitch a shutout and you'd say he lost. You're letting your personal antipathy cloud your reasoning here.

Poet

Is this sonnboy's ALT?

RubenSonny
03-28-2011, 02:01 PM
Is this sonnboy's ALT?

:lol1: I think you tagged the wrong post, and yes Quarry is Sonny.

Quarry
03-28-2011, 02:25 PM
:lol1: I think you tagged the wrong post, and yes Quarry is Sonny.

i aint sonny unless he lives here in the Isle of man

Joeyzagz
03-28-2011, 04:41 PM
I scored the first fight comfortably for Lewis.

The 2nd fight I had Lewis 117-115,

Lennox: 5 rounds
Holyfield: 3 rounds
Even: 4 rounds

Not very entertaining at all and no one really got hurt.

GJC
03-28-2011, 04:57 PM
3 highly respected judges who scored 116-113, 115-115 and 113-115 so your 4rds at best for Holy is way off the mark compared to professional judges who between them have refereed and judged hundreds of world title fights and was sitting ringside compiling their scorecards whereas you scored it watching your television coverage.

Christodoulou (116-113) and O'Connell (115-115) were experienced and respected but Eugenia Williams (113-115) certainly wasn't experienced enough to judge a fight of that magnitude and landed the job on 24 hours notice. If you wish to quickly judge her judging, she scored the 5th 10-9 to Holy.
At the New York Senate investigating committee she claimed that photographers kept blocking her view and when invited to review the 5th again said, "but what I've now seen on television, it looked like Lewis was the winner of that round" "But what I saw on TV was not what I saw on the night. I viewed the fight from a different angle"
There was also a mystery $20,000 floating around her bank account that was never satifactorily explained. As for O'Connell being that he was English, maybe he tried too hard to be scrupiously fair?
I too wouldn't give Holy more than 4 rounds, the referee Mercante Jnr thought Holy won no more than 3.

Personally I thought Lewis won the 2nd fight and should have taken the fading Holy out in the last 4 rounds. To me it seemed as if he was content to just do enough and seemed to give away the last round completely.
Closer fight for sure but Lewis again IMO

joseph5620
03-28-2011, 09:41 PM
What on earth are you talking about? The word "robbed" implies Holyfield was four or five rounds ahead - perhaps more - and was the victim of a grossly unjust decision. I defy ANYONE to watch that bout and explain to me how Holyfield was miles ahead on the scorecards.

It's now come to the point where any decision, no matter how convincing, is counted as unquestionable evidence of corruption. Words and meaning have lost any semblance of connection.

I bet you believe they filmed the moon landings in a TV studio, too.


The claim that Holyfield was "robbed" in the second fight with Lewis is one of the most ridiculous things I've read here. I also find it strange that usually the people who say that never acknowledge that the first fight was a legitimate robbery. That was a one sided fight. The two fights were not in any way similar in terms of Holyfield getting robbed. I thought Holyfield fought better in the second fight but still lost it.

joseph5620
03-28-2011, 09:44 PM
:lol1: I think you tagged the wrong post, and yes Quarry is Sonny.









:lol1::lol1: I thought so.