Has any champion had as many excuses in defeat as Evander Holyfield?

George Foreman was pretty butt hurt when Schulz and Morrison beat him. They "ran all night" and "didn't come to fight". No, they outboxed him that's what happened lol.

Still, I would not blame Foreman one bit for rightfully calling out the injustice in the Briggs fight.

 

He may not have as many excuses as some, thus this is slightly OT:

But if we are talking best excuses I still defy anyone even 70+ years on, to top Jack Roper's "I should of zigged, when I zagged" to explain his defeat to the Brown Bomber.

Frank Bruno's "That's Cricket" (TysonI) follows Roper.

You just cannot argue with such logic...

 

If George hadn't repeatedly shoved Tommy back (an illegal but never enforced breach of regulations), then maybe Morrison would have been available for him to hit enough that he could produce a knockout. I don't think Tommy went in there with the plan to run counterclockwise. He just took Foreman's cheating and turned it against him in a way Frazier couldn't in Jamaica. Moving in and out on George proved easy when Morrison let Foreman himself take charge of Tommy's moving out. One of the smartest heavyweight wins of the last 20 years.

George's blaming Morrison for Foreman's own cheating tactics is like Holyfield blaming his heart malfunction, hepatitis and other physical ailments on steroid use. (Hepatitis from a shared steroid needle? What are the odds?)

 

The Brown Bomber exposed the running myth with the classic "He can run, but he can't hide" line....

In others words, if you are good enough, an opponent running away, cannot win.

 

It was a smart win and Morrison fought very controlled. He didn't let his success go to his head like Moorer did and stand in front of George which is not a smart idea.

A running opponent can be beat as Hopkins(against Hakkar) and Duran(against Bizarro) proved. Runners need to have their distance limited so they cannot escape easily and their bodies taken apart with hard punches making mobility harder to do.

 

Holyfield isn't the worst.

He never really whined too much about decisions even where he could have.
The most he would say would be something like, "I thought I won but the judges give the decision, and that's part of boxing, part of life".
Some boxers cry and scream about corruption and injustice for ever over certain decisions.

I'm not surprised Holyfield was sick and injured a few times. That's part of being OLD.


Holyfield wasn't too bad. He might have made excuses but he always gave his opponent some credit.
I thought both Holyfield and Tyson were more gracious in defeats than Lennox Lewis.

Hopkins is a whiner.
Hagler's still whining about decisions, I bet.

But none of these guys become good or great by ACCEPTING defeat. Losses really come as a shock to good fighters, so their excuses and bad form should forgiven.
Real classy gentleman like Ezzard Charles (who made no excuses for losing to Walcott) are rare.

 

:deal

 

Marciano.. I dont fight against a person who isnt 50 years old and lost 15 times already. And when Ted Lowry and Roland LaStarza beat him he just said he lost because he had sex with some random dudes the night before.

 

Roberto Duran comes to mind. Everytime he lost to a great he said he was out of shape. Yet he trained for the lesser challengers. And people bought it which is surprising.

 

Glen Johnson?
Joshua Clottey?