Boxing’s Fixed Fights

Name them, or agree/disagree on the below.

Either with a boxer agreeing to lose, or judges cards.

LaMotta-Fox: LaMotta admitted throwing it to the FBI and in his book.
Gavilan-Graham: Graham dominates fight, loses decision.
Gavilan-Saxton: Saxton controlled by mob figures, wins decision against 20/22 of ringside reporters.
Jones Olympic Final.
Eric Esch, Butterbean, various, including Foreman.
Andre Smiley, various, 1990 to 1997, for Sean Gibbons of Top Rank
Calvin Barker vs Eric Esch and Iran Barkley

Probable: McGovern-Gans: Looks fixed, betting patterns, Fleischer said ‘Terry was good, but not that good’, Gans feared for his life with all the lynchings.
Ottke-Reid: Ref looking for any excuse to DQ Reid it seems.

Possible:
Johnson-Ketchel: Ketchel agreed to lose in return for being carried?
Ali vs Liston: Liston down from a ‘phantom punch’
Chavez-Taylor: Steele suspect.
Lewis-Holyfield: Eugenia scores Lewis dominated 5th round for Holy.
Oscar-Whitaker: Arum held sway over LV judges and commission.
De La Hoya-Trinidad: Jerry Roth gives Trinidad first 3 rounds.
Mosley-De La Hoya “scales were tampered with and medical documents had been forged”

Interesting article, Scott. I think there are a few we can pretty much put to bed; Gans-McGovern, LaMotta-Fox, Gavilan-Saxton (come to think of it, Saxton has Blinky Palermo engineer an even more shocking verdict against Basilio a little further down the line, too). It's the 'possible' section which makes for the most interesting reading, I reckon, and on top of the ones you mention there are plenty of others which could be considered.

For instance, I'd have no problem with anyone thinking De la Hoya beat Whitaker (personally, I scored it a draw), but I would have a problem with them thinking that he won by the margins which the judges declared, all by five or so points if I remember correctly?

Likewise, I think that De la Hoya-Trinidad, due to Oscar's puzzling reluctance to engage over the last four rounds, was a very close affair, with both men perhaps having a claim to nick it by a point - but how Roth had Tito winning the first three, when he barely connected on target, is very strange indeed.

Another one I'd throw in would be Whitaker-Ramirez I. The WBC, their relationship with King and their apparent bias towards hispanic fighters have all been well documented, but never has a fight made me feel sure that something was amiss than that one. Usually I think that a decision should stand even if it's a poor one for sanity as much as anything else - but that one was so bad that I think an immediate overturn would have been in order.

Ward vs Kessler, Bika, etc... Being allowed to butt his opponent at will, and then the scorecards of the Bika fight being wider than they should've been. Not saying the results would have been any different, but I still don't like the guy.

88Chris05 wrote:Interesting article, Scott.

Evidently not!

BALTIMORA wrote:Ward vs Kessler, Bika, etc... Being allowed to butt his opponent at will, and then the scorecards of the Bika fight being wider than they should've been. Not saying the results would have been any different, but I still don't like the guy.

Fixed or self preservation by the judges?

The one I have read a lot about and am always convinced was a complete fix was Fitzsimmons vs Sharkey as refereed by Wyatt Earp. Can't be bothered to go through it all again, fortunately there was an excellent thread on the BBC written about it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A75220832

Scottrf wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Interesting article, Scott.

Evidently not!

BALTIMORA wrote:Ward vs Kessler, Bika, etc... Being allowed to butt his opponent at will, and then the scorecards of the Bika fight being wider than they should've been. Not saying the results would have been any different, but I still don't like the guy.

Fixed or self preservation by the judges?

Well, yeah...not fixed as in 'take a dive', but certainly fishy insofar as liberties taken.

rowley wrote:The one I have read a lot about and am always convinced was a complete fix was Fitzsimmons vs Sharkey as refereed by Wyatt Earp. Can't be bothered to go through it all again, fortunately there was an excellent thread on the BBC written about it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A75220832

Still managed to get the obligatory 1 stars!

Fists of Fury wrote:

rowley wrote:The one I have read a lot about and am always convinced was a complete fix was Fitzsimmons vs Sharkey as refereed by Wyatt Earp. Can't be bothered to go through it all again, fortunately there was an excellent thread on the BBC written about it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A75220832

Still managed to get the obligatory 1 stars!

Such is life, suspect I didn't work enough Manny or Floyd references in.

Holyfield against Lewis was a robbery Don King had bribed judges they scored Lewis best round for Holyfield

Witherspoon v Bonecrusher Smith. Witherspoon took a dive fell three times in the first round before the ref waved it off. Witherspoon wanted out of his contract from Don King who paid Witherspoon very badly after the Bruno fight. Witherspoon has since publicly admitted he dived in the fight.

Super D Boon wrote:Witherspoon v Bonecrusher Smith. Witherspoon took a dive fell three times in the first round before the ref waved it off. Witherspoon wanted out of his contract from Don King who paid Witherspoon very badly after the Bruno fight. Witherspoon has since publicly admitted he dived in the fight.

Ike Williams also had the misfortune to have Blinky Palermo calling the shots for him. As a result, there is a bit of a stench surrounding a couple of his fights, notably the one against Chuck Davey, where he admitted to taking a dive.

There are rumours some of George Foreman's early comeback opponents were, to put it delicately, encouraged not to put forth the maximum effort. Can't remember the exact details or names but it is alluded to in Jon Hotten's book Year of the Locust (excellently reviewed on the book reviews section)

rowley wrote:There are rumours some of George Foreman's early comeback opponents were, to put it delicately, encouraged not to put forth the maximum effort. Can't remember the exact details or names but it is alluded to in Jon Hotten's book Year of the Locust (excellently reviewed on the book reviews section)

If you click his name in my initial post there is an article.

Missed that cheers Scott, looks to be pretty much what the book was saying, not convinced myself because looking at some of the guys George was fighting when he first came back I am not sure I would need anything underhand to beat them.

Anybody who has seen the scorecards for Tyson v Douglas might wonder what was afoot.

I detest Boxrec and simply cannot be bothered to sift through it all, but I know that one judge had the fight even at the time of the knockout and I believe that another actually had Tyson ahead.

HumanWindmill wrote:Anybody who has seen the scorecards for Tyson v Douglas might wonder what was afoot.

I detest Boxrec and simply cannot be bothered to sift through it all, but I know that one judge had the fight even at the time of the knockout and I believe that another actually had Tyson ahead.

Likewise the Holmes Cooney fight Windy, think in Holmes' biography he says at least one of the judges had Gerry ahead, have watched that fight a good number of times and how they manage that is beyond me. Although to be fair if the Tyson Douglas stories are true it trumps that because Buster beat him from pillar to post.

Thing about Tyson-Douglas, Windy, was that the two judges who had Tyson, exactly as you remember, level and ahead after nine, were Japanese. This was Tyson's second defence in Tokyo, and the city and the boxing board were making a decent amount of cash from depicting Tyson as the human equivalent of Godzilla. God forbid that something as incidental as points should stop Iron Mike from continuing to wreak devastation on the opposition in Japan.

Larry Rozadilla, the American judge who was in situ, quite correctly had Douglas ahead by a street, but he was always likely to have been outvoted had things gone to the cards.

Just checked boxrec, and was astounded that 2 had Tyson level and ahead between them. Great points there Captain, allows it all to make sense.

Another thing that surprised me (though this was during Tyson's later years) is that he had lost every round to Francois Botha before winning by KO5. How the mighty had fallen!

I hadn't realised that two of them had been Japanese, captain, and had always assumed that Mr King was involved in skullduggery somewhere along the line.

We live and learn. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm sure that the Don was involved somewhere in it as well, Windy, bearing in mind the nonsense that he tried to pull after the fight.

You can imagine it, can't you - "If you Japanese motherf-----s don't score every round for Tyson, you'll never get another heavyweight title fight this side of the 22nd century."

While I think about it, Hugh McIlvanney said of the judge who had Tyson ahead that "one can only assume that he would have given Pompeii the verdict over Vesuvius."

captain carrantuohil wrote:While I think about, Hugh McIlvanney said of the judge who had Tyson ahead that "one can only assume that he would have given Pompeii the verdict over Vesuvius."

Remember that line, love McIlvanney.

Such cynicism, honestly people see Don King, a potential cash cow and put two and two together and get five. It's not healthy you know. You'll be questioning the long count soon.

Each of those two had me, quite genuinely, laughing out loud, and particularly the Pompeii one.

HumanWindmill wrote:Each of those two had me, quite genuinely, laughing out loud, and particularly the Pompeii one.

Have you read his book? It's brilliant for those types of lines. "Looked like a greek statue, with fewer moves" etc.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Each of those two had me, quite genuinely, laughing out loud, and particularly the Pompeii one.

Have you read his book? It's brilliant for those types of lines. "Looked like a greek statue, with fewer moves" etc.

No I haven't, Scott, but this has certainly whetted my appetite to do so. I'm particularly fond of this type of humour.

One of my favourite boxing books. Although it is just a collection of his articles.

I've got it in front of me, Scott. "Anyone who looks into (Alan Minter's) blue eyes when it is time to go to work is not likely to confuse him with Julie Andrews....some had seen those eyes, but only in the more select hostelries of resorts like Glasgow and Marseilles, and the study of their implications had been curtailed by a sudden compulsion to get to the door."

A genius, may he live long and prosper.

Am no massive fan of these collected work type books but have read a few and people raved about Dark Trade by Donald McRae and Ringside by Budd Schulberg, have to say for me McIlvanney on Boxing knocks both of them into next week.

"................... resorts like Glasgow and Marseilles."

That's it. I'm buying it.

Two of the greatest articles of all time for my money.
Johnny Owen
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article818085.ece
No Mas
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,583597,00.html

Have you noticed the verbal tic of his, Scott, where quite a lot of boxers are compared to the Red Army (George Foreman, the Scottish nation, Jim Watt)? It's quite endearing, and he also makes the same comparison with Red Rum in his equally seminal "McIlvanney on Horseracing".

Probably did at the time, but not something I can recall now captain, a few years since I read it. I didn't think you were his biggest fan, didn't you accuse him of using overcomplicated language?

The Owen article, in particular, stands as the finest journalism on any sport that has been written since the war, as far as I'm concerned.

No, that was someone else, although I remember the discussion quite well. He does occasionally lapse into tried and tested phrases, but in general, when he's fresh there's no-one to touch him.

I think that he's wrong about a couple of things (Leonard-Hearns I springs quickly to mind), but as a sportswriter pure and simple, it's Eclipse first and the rest nowhere.

Just read the two articles, Scott. Marvellous stuff, each of them.

Thanks very much for sharing.

I'm trying to remember when I might have been less than fulsome in my praise for McIlvanney, Scott. It may have touched on something to do with his uncharacteristically sycophantic approach to Alex Ferguson, whose biography he wrote. In his writings on boxing, I have never known him show such fear or favour.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I'm trying to remember when I might have been less than fulsome in my praise for McIlvanney, Scott. It may have touched on something to do with his uncharacteristically sycophantic approach to Alex Ferguson, whose biography he wrote. In his writings on boxing, I have never known him show such fear or favour.

Apologies mate, must have just confused you with someone else, just because I remember you being on the thread.

Scottrf wrote:
Probable: McGovern-Gans: Looks fixed, betting patterns, Fleischer said ‘Terry was good, but not that good’, Gans feared for his life with all the lynchings.

~ Why sir, it is more probable that you are partaking some of Mr. JMMarquez's unadultered recyled bilgewater as a health tonic.

Clearly it has blinded you to the essential mechanics of the fight itself not to mention that irregular betting patterns in any sport are fairly common. Did you know that Mr. Fleischer was 13 yrs old when Mr. McGovern took the legs out from Mr. Gans in 1900? The credibility of a cub reporter or any writer may not hold any more water than demented ramblings of Uncle Teddy with his tin horn evaluations of the Klitschko brothers.

Mr. McGovern earned a 10th all time IBRO ranking at featherweight, a stellar rating not reflective of just how dangerous he was in his prime. Mr. Gans was game as can be for being so heavily damaged, but Mr. McGovern was one of the earliest all time ring assassins ever in a dreary era for powerful slugging.

Any fight may be fixed with a more probable one being the huggy/kissy fest last Saturday. Really sir, your allegations rank up there with Mr. Johnson faking being knocked cold for 5 minutes by Mr. Willard or Mr. Dempsey wearing plaster in his gloves or Mr. Obama being born in Indonesia.

Pure and unadulterated sir, jolly good sir for your health perhaps, but not your judgment.......Tally Ho~Ho and away I go to await your next slip up...

Rewrite your post and I might read it.

Scottrf wrote:Rewrite your post and I might read it.

I won't.

Think Johnson-willard was fixed in a way..I'm sure in them days you had to fight a certain amount of rounds for the film makers..

I imagine in the baking heat Johnson got knackered by the time the fight actually started..leading to his downfall.