Holyfield Screwed or bias annoucers?

[wannabet]

He's the heavyweight Champ, so you'd think somebody would have to beat him good to make him lose. Holyfield just threw a couple of tiny jabs, not enough to get in the title. You have to show something to unseat the heavyweight champ!

I didn't really watch it closely, but was wondering if there are honest opinions about if Holyfield should have won.

Also, is he undisputed Champ? Or he only has one of two belts, something like that?

[TheGovernor11]

There's no undisputed champ but Wladimir Klitschko is known as the best HW in boxing.

Honestly for me, that fight was unbearable to watch closely. It's not even that they didn't punch but they didn't do anything.

[turbozed]

The European (I think a Brit one) telecast had Valuev ahead which explains why Bet365 live betting had Valuev as a -160 or so favorite before the decision was rendered. Apparently, the little flurries of Holyfield in their eyes were not enough to win rounds against the champ.

[wannabet]

So, I guess the Russian guy who beat Holyfield (forget his name for the moment) is the lesser of the two Champs. There's Wladimir Klitschko and his brother? Any chance the Russian will fight Klitschko to unify the titles?

I see the -160 for the Russian, I guess that shows you he was definitely ahead near the end of the match. That's not at all what I was hearing listening to it here. It seemed like the announcers were maybe trying just a little too hard to sell Holyfield as the winner. Definitely a totally boring match.