Worst Excuses After A Loss

First topic message reminder :

We've heard a lot of recent talk about Haye potentially fighting Vitali and a fair few posters (with reason) go back to his fight with Wlad and his infamous "Little Toe" excuse.

Truss mentioned Spinks' knee "injury" before the Tyson fight.

Golota claimed his knee was knackered after Lewis annihilated him.

Calzaghe blamed brittle hands after the David Starie debacle (probably fair TBH).

Khan was actually pretty fair after being punched out by Garcia, but he did whine & bleat about the Peterson fight, citing biased refereeing and "The man in the hat".

What's the worst excuse you've heard?

By the way, that was Sakio Bika

I once fought a convicted thief from Afghanistan..

He tried to blame the loss on having no hands!!!

Darchinyan after he got sparked by Donaire....

'I was not hurt'...

classic!

I got told this story recently by a friend who was reading the dirstiest race ever run (about the 1988 100m sprint final I think where everyone was juiced).

In 1984 Ben Johnson blamed Lennox Lewis for him only getting a bronze. Both were on the Canadian Olympics team and Johnson was relaxing before his race playing pool. His room key was around his neck which was bothering him playing so he took it off and left it on a sofa. Lewis strolled in and thought it would be a good idea to rob it as a joke. While Johnson stressed lookingall over for his card and working himself into a state Lewis returned about 6 hours later and gave it back to him. Johnson by now was so riled up that he attacked Lewis in a rage (not a good idea). Lewis disarmed him by putting him in a headlock until Johnson had calmed down sufficiently. But Johnson who then raced to bronze said that Lewis had injured his neck with the headlock and that was why he didnt get the gold.

I think we can safely assume that Jonson was telling the truth there, don't think he's the deceptive or dishonest type.

Typical Lewis. Too busy concerned with tying his oponent up rather than unleashing the right hand and finishing the job early. He was safety first even back then.

manos de piedra wrote:I got told this story recently by a friend who was reading the dirstiest race ever run (about the 1988 100m sprint final I think where everyone was juiced).

In 1984 Ben Johnson blamed Lennox Lewis for him only getting a bronze. Both were on the Canadian Olympics team and Johnson was relaxing before his race playing pool. His room key was around his neck which was bothering him playing so he took it off and left it on a sofa. Lewis strolled in and thought it would be a good idea to rob it as a joke. While Johnson stressed lookingall over for his card and working himself into a state Lewis returned about 6 hours later and gave it back to him. Johnson by now was so riled up that he attacked Lewis in a rage (not a good idea). Lewis disarmed him by putting him in a headlock until Johnson had calmed down sufficiently. But Johnson who then raced to bronze said that Lewis had injured his neck with the headlock and that was why he didnt get the gold.

Very poor by Johnson to blame Lennox for not winning. Johnson was a drugs cheat caught numerous time and a disgrace to the sport so its not surprising that he tries to blame others.

I like Gordy.

He knows that lewis was over rated

Thanks for reminding me, Gordy. Worst ever excuse I've heard for a loss was Lewis when he got stopped by Rahman, where he blamed the sudden change in altitude.

To be fair, he may have had a point - from 6'5" to canvas level in a split second is quite a change!

88Chris05 wrote:Thanks for reminding me, Gordy. Worst ever excuse I've heard for a loss was Lewis when he got stopped by Rahman, where he blamed the sudden change in altitude.

To be fair, he may have had a point - from 6'5" to canvas level in a split second is quite a change!

alma wrote:Gordy, are you Lennox's mum or something? You have an unhealthy obsession with the bloke. Or are you seanarilus, the guy who lives in Canada?

No I just appreciate great fighters and when they are British it is a bonus! It was great to have a British heavyweight champion who could box superbly and beat the best instead of the frauds like Haye, Price and Harrison that have tried to follow.

88Chris05 wrote:Thanks for reminding me, Gordy. Worst ever excuse I've heard for a loss was Lewis when he got stopped by Rahman, where he blamed the sudden change in altitude.

To be fair, he may have had a point - from 6'5" to canvas level in a split second is quite a change!

No excuse, Lewis got caught by a lucky punch because he hadnt prepared properly but anyone who understands boxing knows that and in the rematch Lewis showed what he could really do when he was focused. His knockout of Rahman is one of the best knock out you will ever see in a ring.

Ben Johnson trying to blame Lewis for not winning gold or David Haye blaming his toe now they are excuses!

How was it a lucky punch? Was Rahman trying to swat a fly and Lewis got in the way?

didnt eubank blame collins for putting a curse on him or something?? im sure gordy or waingro can enlighten us

rowley wrote:How was it a lucky punch? Was Rahman trying to swat a fly and Lewis got in the way?

Rahman was very fortunate. Lewis was easily winning the fight but in boxing one punch can change everything. Rahman scored with a lucky punch which was down to Lewis not being fully focused. But they had a rematch which you should watch to see how a fully focused Lewis put the record straight and proved that the first fight was a fluke.

People should go back and look at Lewis and the fights he had at his best. Everything is about these hyped fighters like Haye and Price that people think are great fighters but they are not even close to how good Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield and fighters from before them were. Even alot of the opponentnts that Lewis or Tyson beat like Bruno or Tua or Mercer would be champions if they were around now instead of back then.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:How was it a lucky punch? Was Rahman trying to swat a fly and Lewis got in the way?

Rahman was very fortunate. Lewis was easily winning the fight but in boxing one punch can change everything. Rahman scored with a lucky punch which was down to Lewis not being fully focused. But they had a rematch which you should watch to see how a fully focused Lewis put the record straight and proved that the first fight was a fluke.

People should go back and look at Lewis and the fights he had at his best. Everything is about these hyped fighters like Haye and Price that people think are great fighters but they are not even close to how good Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield and fighters from before them were. Even alot of the opponentnts that Lewis or Tyson beat like Bruno or Tua or Mercer would be champions if they were around now instead of back then.

you forgot to mention ali, who imo was the greatest. but after that came lewis and nothing since

Gordy wrote: But they had a rematch which you should watch

Thanks for the tip, will try and find the fight.

I believe that it may be in Unions fantastic career in video thread, if that's any help?

Last time Gordy came on talking this much tripe we ended up with a thoroughly good informative debate between Chris and JBW, so let's let this one run........

Gordy wrote:

Rahman was very fortunate. Lewis was easily winning the fight but in boxing one punch can change everything. Rahman scored with a lucky punch which was down to Lewis not being fully focused.

How is a fighter choosing not to turn up in shape or focussed lucky? Is not Rahman's fault Lennox chose to show contempt for both the sport and his opponent by poncing around on a film set rather than grafting and acclimatising to the conditions where he would be fighting. Rahman threw the punch to hit Lewis, it acheived its objective, is only lucky if he had been going for the ref which to the best of my knowledge he wasn't.

poor lennox. having waingro as you're number 1 cheerleader isnt going to do much for his legacy. the guy is enough to turn everyone into lennox bashers

Lance wrote:poor lennox. having waingro as you're number 1 cheerleader isnt going to do much for his legacy. the guy is enough to turn everyone into lennox bashers

This is unfortunately very true. Hard though it is sometimes to believe on here but I am a Lewis fan, within reason, but do find myself getting a little wound up with how we have this nostaliga that he was so many things that simply are not the case, he was never Mr Excitement, his era was not a golden age of the heavyweights and he was far from unbeatable because no matter how much some would like to airbrush them from his record the ko's to McCall and Rahman happened, to lose once to such a level of fighter is poor to manage it twice is just downright sloppy. Good fighter, excellent champion but lets keep some sense of perspective about his abilities.

alma wrote:What was the excuse for Lewis' loss to mccall I wonder. And no, I'm not watching the rematch

There are those who could argue that your opponent having a mental breakdown in the middle of a fight could be considered lucky.

alma wrote:What was the excuse for Lewis' loss to mccall I wonder. And no, I'm not watching the rematch

The ref stopped it early and he was ok to continue was his reason I believe.

As Champ he should've been given the benefit of the doubt, it wasn't a Rahman style flattening.

I didnt think he looked in great shape to be honest. He was similar enough to how Khan looked after his knock down against Garcia. Possibly he could have continued and had a stab at surviving and hanging on but would have been tough to see the round out and fully recover. I can see arguments both ways because there have been cases in the past which would justify either stopping it or giving the benefit of the doubt.

I didnt think so particularly, but Ive seen fighters allowed to continue in that spot. Hard to know what would have happened for sure if he let it go on. He could have possibly held on for dear life and survived. Or he could have been sent back out like Enzo or Holyfield against Bowe and been pancaked. Option B is probably what you want to avoid at all costs in that spot though.

But recently enough if you take Bellews heavy knockdown against McKenzie or Holmes knockdown against Shavers in the past there is an argument for giving Lewis the option I think.

I can close my eyes and throw a punch with the intention of hitting you.. if it hits you then i am lucky.

If someone who never boxed threw a punch at me and they connected, it would be my own fault, however, they would be lucky that my concentration lapsed for moment.

If Rahman throws a hayemaker at Lewis and it lands...yadder...yadder...yadder....

rowley wrote:

alma wrote:What was the excuse for Lewis' loss to mccall I wonder. And no, I'm not watching the rematch

There are those who could argue that your opponent having a mental breakdown in the middle of a fight could be considered lucky.

...or you could argue that it should be considered as unlucky because it detracts from your victory.

Lewis was all over the place against McCall. Great reffing.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

rowley wrote:

alma wrote:What was the excuse for Lewis' loss to mccall I wonder. And no, I'm not watching the rematch

There are those who could argue that your opponent having a mental breakdown in the middle of a fight could be considered lucky.

...or you could argue that it should be considered as unlucky because it detracts from your victory.

Very true, I personally am not of a view it is lucky, was more trying to demonstrate the point that people are going to dismiss Lewis' losses as the result of poor luck it only seems fair to do similar with some of his wins. My own view is if you turn up in shape, try your best and win you're not lucky, such things as your opponent turning up out of shape are beyond your control so for me do not detract from your win.

TheMackemMawler wrote:I can close my eyes and throw a punch with the intention of hitting you.. if it hits you then i am lucky.

If someone who never boxed threw a punch at me and they connected, it would be my own fault, however, they would be lucky that my concentration lapsed for moment.

If Rahman throws a hayemaker at Lewis and it lands...yadder...yadder...yadder....

No such thing as a lucky punch in boxing. You thrown a punch with the intention of hitting your foe. If it connects it doesnt matter if you were not looking, getting a beating or on the verge of being ko'd yourself. Still a punch that you threw with the intention of landing.

I remember Benn knocking out some Jamaican guy after being ricked and staggering all over the place. I don't see many calling that a lucky punch. Or is a lucky punch when it lands n the favoured fighter?

Lewis should definately have been allowed to continue. He said himself he was ok to continue and he even told the ref he was ok. I think this fight might have been a stitch up as Don King was involved in it and he had a history of shafting Lewis. I would not be surprised if he had bribed the ref thts the kind of man he is. Lewis looked ok to continue and he would have won the fight if he had been allowed to.

Yay, Gordy's back

Gordy wrote:Lewis should definately have been allowed to continue. He said himself he was ok to continue and he even told the ref he was ok. I think this fight might have been a stitch up as Don King was involved in it and he had a history of shafting Lewis. I would not be surprised if he had bribed the ref thts the kind of man he is. Lewis looked ok to continue and he would have won the fight if he had been allowed to.

You literally do believe everything your favourite boxers say don't you?? First Calazaghe now this......

alma wrote:He didn't look ok to continue, his legs were wobbling even after the referee stopped the fight.

Suspect you're over analysing it Alma, subsequent to the fight Lewis has said he was fine to continue, surely that is good enough.

alma wrote:He didn't look ok to continue, his legs were wobbling even after the referee stopped the fight.

Not sure why I'm even bothering writing this to be honest

Because it's what WUMs manage to get you to do, mate!!

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:I can close my eyes and throw a punch with the intention of hitting you.. if it hits you then i am lucky.

If someone who never boxed threw a punch at me and they connected, it would be my own fault, however, they would be lucky that my concentration lapsed for moment.

If Rahman throws a hayemaker at Lewis and it lands...yadder...yadder...yadder....

No such thing as a lucky punch in boxing. You thrown a punch with the intention of hitting your foe. If it connects it doesnt matter if you were not looking, getting a beating or on the verge of being ko'd yourself. Still a punch that you threw with the intention of landing.

Really? Tyson Fury was lucky he didn't kill himself

Lennox Lewis was asked about if he was suspicious that the referee stopped his fight when the other boxer was managed by Don King. He said there is so much corruption in boxing that he could not rule it out. Look what happened when he fought Holyfield. That was one of worst decisions seen in boxing and Don King was involved again. King is corrupt and not above bribing officials so I have always thought the fights Lewis did not win were rigged by King. That is apart from the Rahman fight which was just a lack of focus and motivation from Lewis. The Holyfield and McCall fights were very suspicious though and when King is involved there will be corruption. Lewis showed in the rematches that he was the better fighter anyway so I dont think those fights matter too much. He was a much better fighter than McCall, Rahman and Holyfield.

Gordy wrote:Lewis should definately have been allowed to continue. He said himself he was ok to continue and he even told the ref he was ok. I think this fight might have been a stitch up as Don King was involved in it and he had a history of shafting Lewis. I would not be surprised if he had bribed the ref thts the kind of man he is. Lewis looked ok to continue and he would have won the fight if he had been allowed to.

Khan said the same thing after Garcia decked him. He even told the ref he was ok to continue.

How was it a stitch up? Lewis was paid to hang his chin out?

I heard that the initial script of the Oceans 11 remake actually cast Vitali Klitschko and David Tua to play the two boxers but Don King knew that if Lewis was cast he would not be able to go to South Africa early enough to acclimatise for the Rahman fight and so he persuaded Steven Soderbergh to cast Lewis instead of Tua and it worked because Lewis lost to Rahman but won the rematch which you should watch.

Yeah but are Wlad and Vitali brothers?

azania wrote:

Gordy wrote:Lewis should definately have been allowed to continue. He said himself he was ok to continue and he even told the ref he was ok. I think this fight might have been a stitch up as Don King was involved in it and he had a history of shafting Lewis. I would not be surprised if he had bribed the ref thts the kind of man he is. Lewis looked ok to continue and he would have won the fight if he had been allowed to.

Khan said the same thing after Garcia decked him. He even told the ref he was ok to continue.

How was it a stitch up? Lewis was paid to hang his chin out?

Khan was allowed to continue and the big difference is Lewis is far better than Khan. Khan was able to hang on for a round or two but a much better boxer like Lewis would have recovered and boxed smart until his senses were back. Lewis had a much better chin than Khan.

I think it was a stitch up because of Don King. The ref was in Kings pocket just like the judges in the Holyfield fight were. You cant rely on getting a fair fight if Don King is involved.

The freaking ref stopped the fight. Khan said he was ok to go onl He even told the ref he was ok to go on.

Was it in the plan for McCall to deck Lewis? How did King, McCall and the ref fix that one?

I never understood what the complaints about the ref stopping the McCall fight was, Lewis at the count of 8 literally stumbles into the ref to stop himself falling over. It was a good stoppage.

I think that Lennox Lewis who was a great heavyweight champion not like modern fighters who hed easily beat imo should have continued against Mccall because he said himself he had a better chin than Mccall who was not as good as the great Lennox The Lion Lewis who only lost because of bad luck because Mccall was actually aiming for a hallucination that Don King had put there and he was unlucky because don king tricked him into forgetting to train but if he was in shape he would easy win by knockout and you should watch Lennox at his best like when he beat prime Mike Tyson who everyone thought would destroy him and I knew Lewis woould win but no one believed me and after Lewis beat prime Tyson I went around all my friends which took about 40 seconds and said hey I was right and you were wrong and now I'm alone and Holyfield,48, is ducking Lewis,46, cos naz is younger.

nice Spring reference at the end there JBW.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:I can close my eyes and throw a punch with the intention of hitting you.. if it hits you then i am lucky.

If someone who never boxed threw a punch at me and they connected, it would be my own fault, however, they would be lucky that my concentration lapsed for moment.

If Rahman throws a hayemaker at Lewis and it lands...yadder...yadder...yadder....

No such thing as a lucky punch in boxing. You thrown a punch with the intention of hitting your foe. If it connects it doesnt matter if you were not looking, getting a beating or on the verge of being ko'd yourself. Still a punch that you threw with the intention of landing.

You can throw a hayemaker in self-preservation with no idea where the target is or where it will land, and it takes a certain amount of luck for your fist to find the sweet spot.....especially since you havn't picked your shot or even spotted the opening because all you have done is swing a glove in desperation.

Talk to enough guys in the gym and if they are experienced and honest enough they will admit they have landed the odd lucky punch or two. The whole I threw the shot, I intended to throw the shot, the purpose of throwing shots is to render my opponent unconscious therefore I intended to knock my opponent out, no luck involved, can often be nothing but bravado (if not flawed logic). It reminds me of IQ test questions like all spicks are spocks, and some spocks are spacks, so all spacks are spicks?

I can go to the fair ground and pay 3 quid to fish for ducks and catch a duck...and win a goldfish! I have no skill at catching ducks, I always miss the duck, however, THIS TIME I intended to catch the duck, and i did, therefore I am not lucky in the slightest, I'm one mean duck catcher!

However, if a wild swing gets through, is that not the fault of the one who is hit more than the luck of the hitter?