CREDIBILITY GONE, TOO : AFTER LOSING TITLE, CHAVEZ READY WITH EXCUSES.

Byline: Michael Rosenthal Daily News Staff Writer

After Julio Cesar Chavez narrowly outpointed David Kamau in September of last year, Kamau insisted he would've won had the judges seen things more clearly.

Chavez's response? ``Excuses are for losers.''

Well, if Chavez is right, then he too is a loser.

A day after he lost his championship here, Chavez gave Oscar De La Hoya almost no credit for what most observers saw as a marvelous performance, instead blaming the first knockout loss of his 16-year career on the cut above his left eye that caused a premature end to the fight.

It was typical Chavez, who complained about Pernell Whitaker's tactics after their draw in 1993 and, among other things, said he hadn't trained properly when Frankie Randall handed him his only loss in 1994.

``I was not able to see, to tell you the truth,'' he said. ``It's not an excuse.

``Oscar De La Hoya simply took advantage of the cut. His punches really never hurt me. He beat me fair and square, but I never felt his punches.''

If his lack of graciousness wasn't bad enough, Chavez also admitted he lied.

He said immediately after the fight that he had been cut five days earlier while sparring. On Saturday, at a news conference, he admitted that ``perhaps I said some things I shouldn't have said . . . probably because I was a little depressed.''

His latest story was that he suffered a minor cut along the outside of his left eyebrow - the area where he was cut Friday - while sparring about a month ago. He said it had healed but implied that it remained tender.

Chavez then lost all credibility when he said his 3-year-old son Christian played a role in the cut. He claimed that three days ago the boy threw his head back while he was sitting on Chavez's lap, causing the tender area to ``turn red.''

``That did worry me a little bit,'' he said.

He should have been worried about De La Hoya.

The cut, which required five stitches to close, might have made Chavez's task somewhat more difficult. However, it was obvious his task was impossible regardless.

With poise beyond his years, De La Hoya fought the perfect fight. He used his five-inch reach advantage to keep Chavez and his short arms away and pecked away from the outside with the jab and hard combinations.

Try as he might, Chavez couldn't get inside. His wild, lunging punches that found only air were both embarrassing and stark evidence that this was a mismatch. And even on the few occasions the two did trade punches inside, De La Hoya, his hands blazing, got the better of it.

The numbers are evidence of De La Hoya's domination.

According to computer punch statistics, De La Hoya landed 94 of 195 punches (48 percent), Chavez only 35 of 103 (34 percent). Even more impressive, De La Hoya landed 44 of 83 power punches (53 percent), Chavez a mere 16 of 48 (33 percent).

Clearly, Chavez had no chance: De La Hoya was the superior fighter in every respect.

Still, immediately after the fight, Chavez said De La Hoya was ``nothing.''

On Saturday, he retreated - but not by much. Chavez would say only that De La Hoya was ``a good fighter'' because he was able to take advantage of the cut. When he was asked to assess De La Hoya's talent, however, he said only that the 23-year-old is rising steadily while most experts believe he's among the top two or three fighters pound-for-pound in the world.

And Chavez would later add that ``Oscar De La Hoya is not the toughest fighter I've encountered.''

De La Hoya reacted to Chavez's earlier comments with indignation.

He pointed out that Chavez had said at earlier news conferences that ``there would be no excuses, that the fighter who won would have `Ultimate Glory,' '' the slogan used in promoting the fight.

``Now he's making excuses about cuts and other things. It's not right.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO Julio Cesar Chavez, giving Oscar De La Hoya little cr edit, had many different stories about his cuts.

Associated Press