Paul Sykes v/s John L Gardner

Mimmy · Post by **Mimmy** » 08 Aug 2007, 13:14

I've read Paul sykes book sweet Agony, it concludes with his British Heavyweight Title fight against John L.

Sykes claims he was injected with something before the fight, indicating that if he won Duff (Mickey) would have had contractrial rights and Sykes Promtor would have lost his 'pension'

is there any proof of this, and when the fight was stopped, Sykes turning his back, he claims that he was shouting to his manager, telling him to 'fornicate off', and when he turned back he thought he had been disqualified for swearing.

What do you older boxing enthusiasts think of these claims?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Aug 2007, 13:26

Rubbish to be honest.

Sykes had many issues and just never came to terms with losing to Gardner.

Many a fan and writer did and still think Sykes quit against Gardner when he turned away, 'no mas' just like Duran.

Totybear · Post by **Totybear** » 10 Aug 2007, 08:58

As I remember Gardner didn't carry a concussive punch but relentlessly wore his opponents down. Sykes seemed at the time to turn his back to avoid the cumulative affects the punches were having.

He would have been better taking a knee and a count but he just needed to get out of the way of the punches and instinct told him to turn away.

A real character! I seem to remember also about him in court for beating up a union leader (for which he did time) and half way through the proceedings it came to light that the lawyer defending him was the man who had paid him to do the job!!! Of course in those days I read the sun newspaper so could be wrong!!

Mimmy · Post by **Mimmy** » 13 Aug 2007, 12:13

mercman wrote:
A real character! I seem to remember also about him in court for beating up a union leader (for which he did time) and half way through the proceedings it came to light that the lawyer defending him was the man who had paid him to do the job!!! Of course in those days I read the sun newspaper so could be wrong!!
I think I remember that case too. However, the term 'character' can be a euphamism for all sorts of things and, although I agree that Sykes could be an entertaining character, make no mistake he was one nasty piece of work. His writing is engaging and the TV documentary Paul Sykes: at Large was enthralling viewing but do not let this give you impression that Sykes was a fun character. He was not. He was a nasty hard case with a terrible violent and exploitative record.

what do you mean by exploititive recored?

Matt Teague · Post by **Matt Teague** » 16 Aug 2007, 05:49

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXW21DIfrfo

If anyone is still interested, this shows part of the fight and ending.

Mimmy · Post by **Mimmy** » 17 Jan 2008, 14:16

Enigma check youre message box ive sent you a few messages and you have not replied to me. hope you have just not looked up there.
cheers.