 The Worldwide Boxing Magazine Site |
Got your free t-shirt yet? |
| articles from the magazine ... |
|
April 1999
Each month we bring you a selection of articles from the current and past issues of BOXING MONTHLY. To buy the magazine, see our subscription or back issues pages, or use our world distribution map to find a news-stand copy. Why not use our Interactive Forum to express your own boxing comments and opinions!
|
 |
THE NEARLY MAN
Disappointing, yes, an evil stitch-up, no way. Lennox Lewis only has himself to blame for not beating Evander Holyfield to become undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. GLYN LEACH reports from New York |
|
JUST THE JAB: Lewis piled up the points early on with his left hand,
but faded from the fight as it unfolded, saving his title in the
final round
- Get Big Pic "I was ripped off," raged Lennox Lewis. "It was a conspiracy. It wasn't
even a close fight." His manager, Frank Maloney, who had planned to lead a victory
parade around Times Square in his Union Flag suit, was instead left muttering:
"Fucking scandal." And he wasn't referring to the reports that said he was to be
dumped after the fight, a matter that I am sickeningly concerned we have not heard the
last of. But, revoltingly treacherous as it may seem that the Little Englander might not
be for Lewis world much longer, we have more pressing matters to address right now. Like what went wrong with the Fight of the Decade? Why is Evander Holyfield still in
possession of the World Boxing Association and International Boxing Federation titles, and
why is Lennox Lewis still the World Boxing Council champion? Why was the undisputed
heavyweight title left so disputed? And what were the reasons behind this failure? It
really depends who you listen to, and those who shout loudest are hard to ignore. The draw at Madison Square Garden on 13 March was described by US TV sports network
ESPN as "The worst decision we have ever seen in boxing", and that is a theme
that has been picked up worldwide. With gleeful abandon and wanton irresponsibility.
"Boxing's messed up again, let's go wade in the sewer of the sports arena until we
find something better to do." And so the world's media set sail on a sea of controversy. And I, for one, feel
distinctly green around the gills as a result. In short, I don't agree with the drama
queens and conspiracy theorists. Nor with Lewis, Maloney, ESPN, anyone who sees this
result as a robbery perpetrated by judges Larry O'Connell (WBC) and Eugenia Williams
(IBF), who scored a draw - 115-115 - and a Holyfield win - 115-113 - respectively. Nor do
I agree with judge Stanley Christoudoulou (WBA), who liked Lewis by 116-113, and as such
was the hero of a situation that sees his fellow officials branded as villains, corrupt
individuals, no less, in the eyes of many. If these two judges were on the take, then investigate reporters from this magazine,
the Independent, the Mail, the Sun, Sport First, plus another whose remarkable change from
a draw to a Lewis win by four rounds still leaves me stunned. This "controversy"
smacks of a need to wrench dramatic headlines from a disappointing fight that neither man
deserved to win. The draw-scoring journalists in question, including myself and BM columnist, Harry
Mullan, whose poor health prevented his covering the show from ringside for Sport First
but who scored it from TV, all had it 115 apiece. Just like O'Connell, the Kentishman who
is now a fully fledged British traitor of Kim Philby magnitude, according to the
disgruntled. So hang me, Mullan, Richard Williams, Jeff Powell and Colin Hart, too. What
do we know? The editor of Europe's best-selling boxing mag, two chief sportswriters and
two of the most experienced boxing writers in the world. What do we know? The thing about boxing is that everyone thinks they're an expert, just like that. You
can't tell 'em nothing - not that they ask, because they think they already know it all.
And unfortunately, many of these self-opinionated and self-deluding misinformationists
have access to news space, resulting in a perpetual bad rap for the sport. Any one can
jump onto a controversy for some easy copy, but so few are truly qualified to do so. Without naming names, this is the manner of tripe which appeared in print after the
fight. "Lewis v Holyfield was meant to make sense of boxing's governance: the prize
was amalgamating the WBA's and the IBF's championships - the other eight 'world'
organisations might have fallen into line if the crown had been unilaterally
bestowed." Pa-lease! Excuse my French, but what a load of crap that piece of writing
is. Wrong, wrong, wrong all the way. And what a crock of utter . . . you get my drift . .
. it is for New York to launch three government-level investigations into the result of a
close contest that neither man could fully take control of to the extent that three
experienced officials couldn't find the same result. What a disgraceful waste of
tax-payers' money. There will always be political parasites who will attempt to ride any wave of
controversy for their own ends and those on both sides of the Atlantic who have done so
should be ashamed of themselves for using an unpopular result from something as
essentially irrelevant as a sporting event as an opportunity for some cheap
electioneering. It would seem entirely preferable were they to concentrate on the job they
had been elected to do. Their meddling is an insult to their constituents, all of whom are
aware that the world's true imperfections cannot be glossed over by such blatantly
populist posturing. Let me tell you something about draws. When you score one, you accept
that it could have gone either way. All it takes is one point, perhaps only one punch, and
you have a winner. The writers who saw Lewis and Holyfield as equal on the night will all
readily accept that, as does judge O'Connell. It is only reasonable, no? BM's Steve Farhood (ringside) and Graham Houston (TV-side) make coherent arguments for
wide margins in favour of Lewis. But they are boxing men who can accept this was merely a
disappointing outcome to a disappointing sporting event. A big one, yes, but just another
one at the end of the day. There will be others. The fight could have, should have, been so much more, but its mediocrity was defined by
that of Lewis and Holyfield, neither of whom, had they won, could have claimed to have
performed like the Baddest Man on the Planet, which this fight was designed to discover. Supposing Lewis had won a contest that Maloney, correctly, had called Britain's most
significant sporting encounter since the 1966 soccer World Cup Final. We're not talking
Geoff Hurst hat-tricks here. Rather a nil-nil after 90 minutes, no score in extra time,
Germany missing all five of their penalties, England missing their first four then Sepp
Maier spilling a soft shot into his own net. You could cheer if you wanted, but that
wouldn't be good enough for me. Nor did the fashion in which this fight was fought satisfy the crowd of 21,284 - 8,000
of whom were British and deserved far more for the fortunes they spent to travel 3,000
miles in order to watch men being paid a combined $30 million show each other exaggerated
respect for 36 minutes. In full song for three rounds, the British Task Force disappeared until the final
stages. They wanted to be there for "Our Lennie", but "Our Lennie"
didn't seem to want to be there himself. But what of Ms Williams, the most heavily
criticised, IBF official who scored in favour of Holyfield. It transpired that the New
Jersey grandmother had been appointed just 24 hours before this fight and her two-point
margin of victory for her fellow countryman, was built in rounds four and five, where she
was totally at odds with her fellow judges who scored for Lewis. "I don't know where they got her from or why she was appointed," said
Maloney. "She wasn't on the list of six we were shown which the judges would be
chosen from, then, suddenly, she is appointed from nowhere." "She's a lady with
a lot of experience - of making bad decisions," said Lewis's co-promoter, Dino Duva. While I might not necessarily agree with this official's scoring, I see no need to
vilify her or question her parentage, morality or anything else. But it is an unfortunate
fact of life in boxing that if you do something which someone doesn't agree with, you are
not just in disagreement, you are wrong. Scum, even, and I make no exaggeration. Duva did
not enlighten us regarding the previous "crimes" of Ms Williams and my deadline
requirements prevented me from investigating further at that stage. All Son of Lou could
offer as evidence against Williams at the post-fight conference was a sheet of paper on
which appeared the so-called computer punch stats - Lewis connecting with 348 of 613
punches (57%), Holyfield with 130 of 385 (34%). "How she could possibly give that result on the basis of what she saw I don't
know," chipped in Emanuel Steward, who was so disgusted that he left the press
conference - and Lewis's trainer is not known as a shunner of the spotlight. "I scored by the blows that connected, I don't have the privilege of the boxing
stats," said Williams. But even if she had, her score need not have been any more
reliable. On the contrary, "computer" punch stats are not, nor will they ever be,
conclusive, because there is no computer. Punches are ticked off by very human beings - I
know two of them myself - at ringside, people with the capability to be every bit as
fallible as any judge. And with all due respect to the duo I mention (British and not
involved in this fight), their combined ages would not equal that of O'Connell,
illustrating the potentially massive disparity in experience between pros and amateurs,
the latter of which punch-stat bods are compared to licensed officials. Why aren't those who are so keen to question the judges' credibility applying the same
criteria to the TVKO punch stat team? Because their names are not announced with their
findings, that's why. Hard work for lazy journos. Whether a punch is a scoring blow, did the receiving fighter manage to turn his head
just enough to avoid it or did the blow cause that movement, will always be open to
debate, by punch-counters as much as judges and fight-watchers. To view punch-counting as
a science is ridiculous and certainly not reason enough to cause the reaction to this
result that we see. For one thing, it would be entirely possible for a fighter to land a massive amount of
shots in three rounds but do next to nothing for the other nine, during which his opponent
need only land a couple of decent punches in each round to run out a winner by a margin as
wide as 117-111. I say this not in relation to Lewis and Holyfield's relative outputs in
this fight, but to illustrate a very valid point that many have chosen to ignore, for
their own ends. After all, contemporary TV soccer coverage is full of statistics regarding, shots on
target, amounts of corners, etc, but these have absolutely no bearing on the result of a
match. Computer punch stats are fun, nothing else. But they most certainly are not funny when
taken as gospel. And they certainly are no reason for respected officials to be accused of
corruption, nor for self-serving politicians to begin demanding government enquiries into
the result of a bloody boxing match, for God's sake. There are so many things to be taken into account when scoring a fight, not all of
which might be immediately apparent, particularly to the armchair fan. For instance, the three judges sit on different sides of the ring for good reason. A
fight can look completely different depending on the position of the observer. I am
reminded in particular of Steve Little's surprising win over Michael Nunn for the WBA
super middleweight title in London five years ago as a case of a vastly different fight
being seen from different angles. Those who had Nunn the winner were, almost to a man,
along one apron, while the rest of the arena went with Little.
It is worth noting, I think, that I sat on the same side of the ring as Larry O'Connell
in New York and agreed with his score. And there were those with the maligned Williams's
view of the action - experienced fight-scorers from Britain in the crowd - who backed
her vote for a Holyfield victory. That the rest of the arena, plus the TV multitudes
who, it must be remembered, all have the same view, found this shocking is neither here
nor there. They were not watching the same fight as we were. And that's why there are
three judges, to cover all angles.
And then, obviously, there is the age-old quantity versus quality quandary. And
without doubt, Lewis threw and landed far more punches. However, his jab - a predominant
feature of this performance - was often little more than a paw, an extended range-finder
or fender used to stop Holyfield doing what he needed to do against an opponent with such
physical advantages - 6ft 2ins and 15st 5lbs against 6ft 5ins and 17st 8lbs - get inside.
In that Holyfield could never achieve this with any frequency, Lewis draping his full
weight over the older man and tying him up whenever he did, Lewis could be said to have
controlled the fight. And points are scored for generalship, also, it should be
acknowledged. But Holyfield, while throwing less, landed good scoring blows of his own. And, most
importantly, he landed them at crucial points, as one might expect of the most experienced
heavyweight in the division (barring dinosaurs such as George Foreman and Larry Holmes,
both of whom Holyfield fought and will have learned from). Timing is important. It's common knowledge that an old pro will work for the last 30
seconds of a round in order to make an impression on the judges. Holyfield expanded on
that psychological tact in New York; he worked steadily harder as the fight went on,
giving the impression that he was building momentum as the fight unfolded. Certainly, that
was how I saw it. And the judges. Having had great difficulty getting to grips with Lewis's jab in the first two rounds,
Holyfield started to warm to his task. He won the third, no problem, the judges agreed. I
also gave him a share of the fourth, which Williams alone of the officials had him
winning. But the fifth, where Williams was again the odd person out by voting Holyfield,
was clearly a Lewis round, I thought, with Holyfield in his worst shape of the fight after
Lewis punched him, totally illegally mind you, on the back of the head, much as he had
done to Razor Ruddock in October 1992. Holyfield was disorientated and had to call on his
famous and fantastic survival instincts in order to get through round five. Rounds six and seven were interpreted differently by the judges. I had six even, while
O'Connell went Holyfield and his colleagues had Lewis. The seventh I saw for Lewis, as did
the WBA and IBF officials, while O'Connell had it even. As you can see, things were pretty
tight at this stage. But eight through 11 were Holyfield rounds, for myself and for the judges. Williams had
him winning all four, while her associates gave three to Holyfield with one even -
O'Connell the 10th, Christoudoulou the 11th. Lewis had let his hands drop and stopped working, and the smaller man was making him
give ground, leaping in and landing with double jabs, single shots and combinations.
Holyfield was the general in these four rounds and it was here that he made the fight
competitive, I thought. More than that, he took the lead. Lewis might have won his rounds bigger, more dramatically, but Holyfield is canny and
worked at the right times, at points when Lewis, for some unknown reason, took his foot
off the gas. Lewis let Holyfield win rounds that he could easily have claimed as his own.
God knows that Emanuel Steward, Harold Knight and Courtney Shand in Lewis's corner were
imploring him to do more. But to no avail and Lewis has paid the price for thinking he
knew best. Perhaps just for thinking instead of doing. It's all very well for Lewis, whose
stamina was in question prior to this fight, to praise Steward for bringing him to a
physical peak at the right time. But Steward is probably the greatest active trainer in
the world, not a fitness coach. He speaks, you listen. He advises, you do, and you
generally win. Lewis didn't and he drew. Let's stop here, after round 11, for a bit of arithmetic, which we'll approach from
Holyfield's angle as it was he who so many thought had done so little. The third was his,
as were eight, nine, 10 and 11 - the judges were in almost complete agreement on that, as
was I. Lewis did not win any of these rounds, that was agreed by all the officials. And
that makes five out of 11 completed rounds to the WBA/IBF champ. Holyfield was in very
good shape at that point, he'd turned the fight around. Surprising as it may seem to many of you, Lewis, then, had to win the 12th and final
round in order to get a draw according to O'Connell, myself and the other draw-scoring
journalists. And, of course, Lewis won the last round clearly, all the judges were in
agreement on that, and so a draw - five rounds each with two even - is hardly an
outrageous result from this fight. I must admit that on returning to London and watching a tape of the fight, I switched
one Holyfield round - the 11th - to even, as it was also scored by Christoudoulou, and so
my revised card had Lewis ahead by a single point at the end. But what's a one-round
margin? In those circumstances you can hardly argue with a draw or even a loss by one
point. Not everyone sees things exactly the same way. But the judges didn't have the benefit of a video re-run and so neither will I shift
from my original reading. A draw might not be the result any of us wanted, but that's what
I'm prepared to live with and so must Lewis and his army of supporters, many of them newly
impressed Americans who had previously poured scorn upon him. So what next? All the sanctioning bodies have agreed, thankfully, to waive their mandatory
requirements in order for a rematch to take place within six months. But, in truth, a
second fight would likely be similar to the first. The fighters' respective sizes, styles
and attitudes simply do not mesh in a manner that will provide thrilling encounters. The investigations? They will run out of steam when the politicians find some other
bandwagon to jump on. And the sooner the better. And the rematch venue? Please, please, British fans, do not hold your breath for the
rematch to take place on your soil. A second fight is unlikely to gross as much as the
first, making it a virtual certainty that it will take place not in London, not in South
Africa, but back in the States, where the bulk of the financial backing will come from.
And to be quite honest, I wouldn't cross the pond again for a rematch. It just wasn't a
rewarding enough experience and much of that is down to Lewis. This was Lewis's much-publicised opportunity to define himself as a fighter and he did,
although not in the manner he would have liked. We now know, beyond doubt, that his
mentality is that of a chess player, one who is virtually allergic to the idea of
risk-taking. And the willingness to take risks is part of greatness in any field.
Greatness is grabbed, not gifted, but Lewis appears to want it handed to him on a plate.
And it ain't gonna happen because, in life, that just doesn't happen. Can Lewis change his attitude sufficiently to claim a place among the major heavyweight
champions? at 33, I doubt it. This fight, the biggest of his career, showed him to be a
natural conservative. And as such, much like William Hague, he seems destined not to be
remembered as an outstanding contributor to his field. A shame for Lewis and also from a
British perspective, but so it goes. Holyfield had done enough to establish his position in history long before this fight
and no one would blame him if he were to retire. Clearly, the warrior's heart now beats in
an ageing body, one that even Holyfield's formidable will cannot drive to further heights
of achievement. If he does fight on it surely will not be for long. And that will be for
the best because the last thing boxing needs is for one of its genuine heroes of recent
times to end up selling himself short. The overwhelming impression that this fight has
left is that if Lewis and Holyfield are the two best heavyweights in the world, the sooner
the next generation emerges the better. Because the Richest Prize in Sport does not
deserve to be contested by fading forces and both are past their best, at the top by
default. Michael Grant, Herbie Hide and any other up-and-comer out there, get ready. Your time
is near and the sport needs you. But take note; when your opportunity arrives, take it for
all your life is worth. Otherwise a fate similar to that of Lewis is all that awaits you.
And who wants to be a nearly man? |
|
Also available to read from issue:
|
|
On sale on the last Thursday of every month Ensure you never miss a copy . . . buy your subscription or back issues here. |