Is Boxing as corrupt as ever ??

I have no doubt that there were world champions from the past that shouldn't be world champions due to rigged fights....I have no doubt even some world heavyweight title fights were fixed..........Doubts over Sharkey -Carnera....and even Johnson-Willard among others.....

I remember ordering a video full of fights when I first came over here and as there was space on the tape some guy put a Fidel castro smith vs Henry Wharton fight on the end....Smith was dominating the up and coming Wharton (Duff's fighter) and in the 5th Wharton chucked him against the ropes landed some meaningless punches and the ref stepped in...I felt nauseous watching it!!

Steele.........was shocking in Bruno-Tyson........Tyson smacked him when he was down.....and Bruno got a last warning in the first round............Steele was shocking also in the Chavez-Taylor fight too....With red lights flashing behind Taylor he must have known Chavez couldn't get to him!!...Let a half dead Tommy carry on vs Barkley!!

Tyson and Taylor = Don King fighters..........

My guess is Boxing is still as bent as always..............More so at the pre-championship level..........But as referees and judges want work and Promoter's provide.. are we naive to think we are always seeing matches where both Boxers have a chance to win ???

So much money at stake......and so many controversies that no one cares anymore...Boxing is more open to corruption than ever..

Sad fact i'm afraid..

I don’t think it is corrupt in the sense of shadowy figures in pin striped suits carrying violin cases passing money under the table. However do think there are subtle ways of exerting pressure and influence. Think if you want to keep working as a ref or judge it does not hurt for you to be in the good graces of the major promoters and is not too hard to achieve this. Easy enough to mark a close round in the favour of the house fighter or jump in on a stoppage a little early or allow a house fighter a little more recovery time. Over a 12 rounder three close rounds marked in the right way can have a huge influence on the fight. Only have to watch the Chisora stoppage the other week. Perfectly within the rules to stop him but would have been equally as possible and perhaps sensible to show a bit of pragmatism and let it go on. Not suggesting the ref was in any way corrupt but certainly exercised his judgement in favour of the house fighter.

Good points Rowley and we feel the same way......How many Mexican fighters got good decisions when working in wbc title fights.....Would Molinares had kept his belt against Starling had it been the IBF and not the WBA..

Corruption is more subtle these days...........and as nothing surprises you anymore probably just as prevalent..

The thing you have to remember Truss is judges and refs in boxing are not full time professionals as they are in many other sports they are working stiffs like you and me. As such if you were a judge in this country four or five all expenses paid trips to Vegas a year would be seen as a more than welcome little bonus wouldn’t it. Would have to be one hell of a moral guy to not, even on a subconscious level, want to protect these trips and ensure they keep coming and if marking a round 10-9 rather than 10-10 when it is close enough to go either way will ensure that happens you cannot blame folk too much for doing it.

Rowley wrote:The thing you have to remember Truss is judges and refs in boxing are not full time professionals as they are in many other sports they are working stiffs like you and me. As such if you were a judge in this country four or five all expenses paid trips to Vegas a year would be seen as a more than welcome little bonus wouldn’t it. Would have to be one hell of a moral guy to not, even on a subconscious level, want to protect these trips and ensure they keep coming and if marking a round 10-9 rather than 10-10 when it is close enough to go either way will ensure that happens you cannot blame folk too much for doing it.

Haven't a problem with a close fight going the other way or a round.....It's just blatant stuff like Ramirez-Whittaker.......Ottke vs........ These judges seem to get away with being corrupt..........like FIFA........

Agree there are some examples that reek too much to be put down to interpretation. Odd thing is in boxing we just accept it. Remember when Hatton was in his WBU days and Mickey Vann reffed pretty much every fight he had. Again not saying Vann was up to anything as Hatton was winning every fight clearly enough to not need too much help but can you imagine in football if Howard Webb was selected to ref Man Utd’s first fifteen games of the season, it would never be allowed to happen.

That's the point people used to make a fuss..But it's got so crazy that people aren't bothered...

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

Never so much more than in this sport..

Part of the reason people have turned their backs...

Happy to see this topic being raised and to my mind, you're spot on Truss.

There are way too many outrageous decisions and easy fights being made to ignore the suspicious stench of corruption.

Close but contentious decisions are bound to happen when a sport relies on human judgement but the volume of sheer blatant political gifts is absurd. To name but a few:

Pacquiao vs Bradley
Rios vs Abril
The entire fiasco surrounding Khan vs Peterson was insane, the hat chap and the ref who had barely been outside Washington in his whole career - even though the fight itself was close.

We all know the fights.

Thomas Hauser often alludes to big fight machinations in his excellent articles.

Your favourite fighter Paulie was on the end of it too against Diaz in Texas with the judge, whose name escapes me, with the staggering history of home town decisions.

Rowley makes a good point too about the little things adding up in fights such as Broner's fouling against, again, Paulie recently.

One thing that should also not be ruled out in this is good old fashioned human incompetence. Because boxing has the history it has the minute we see a decision or stoppage that beggars belief our default setting is to cry fix, it is kind of ingrained.

However watch other sports and you will see just as many things of such staggering incompetence. Only have to look back to the first ashes test recently when the umpire Aleen Dar failed to give Broad out for what was a clear and thick edge to slip. Nobody cried fix because odd recent betting scandal aside cricket does not have the same reputation for corruption. Similarly nobody cried corruption when Tottenham did not get a goal at Old Trafford that was at least three foot over the line. Are either of these any more or less ridiculous than Bradley getting the nod over Manny?

Unfortunately Rowley I do think boxing is more ridiculous due to the lack of regulation and consistency in its organisation. This is a breeding ground for unscrupulous behaviour.

Back to a sporting perspective, when 3 judges, or even 2 of 3, get something woefully wrong then it can only suggest non-legitimate activity. The concept of multiple judges is to negate poor, inconsistent decisions, so when a majority make a shocking call, then questions have to be asked.

Again, pointing to Thomas Hauser, he wrote about a recent Donaire win which went to split decision because one judge was way off the mark to such an extent that the spectator could only wonder at what their agenda was.

Rowley wrote:One thing that should also not be ruled out in this is good old fashioned human incompetence. Because boxing has the history it has the minute we see a decision or stoppage that beggars belief our default setting is to cry fix, it is kind of ingrained.

However watch other sports and you will see just as many things of such staggering incompetence. Only have to look back to the first ashes test recently when the umpire Aleen Dar failed to give Broad out for what was a clear and thick edge to slip. Nobody cried fix because odd recent betting scandal aside cricket does not have the same reputation for corruption. Similarly nobody cried corruption when Tottenham did not get a goal at Old Trafford that was at least three foot over the line. Are either of these any more or less ridiculous than Bradley getting the nod over Manny?

Some of the poor cricket and football decisions are made on the spot and happen in seconds. Over 12 rounds a judge should be able to pick the right winner even if he misses a couple of things over the fight. I just think some judges are too close to an organisation or promoter and results become corrupted due to these overly friendly associations. Dodgy judging is just too common.

As the champion of the slugger o'toole/fidel Castro smith v Henry Wharton fight as being one of the biggest stitch ups I've seen, I'll have to point out that it went to the cards truss.

Wharton was white, with a strong local following.  Smith was black and fighting out if the ingle gym. In his early days, Ingle tried to get him an Irish following by giving him a pseudonym and a green hooded robe to enter the ring with. Couldn't make it up really.

Bit of a glen Johnson, smith. Lost plenty of dubious close decisions away from home. The Wharton one was a shocker. I had it a near shut out for smith.

Rowley wrote:Agree there are some examples that reek too much to be put down to interpretation. Odd thing is in boxing we just accept it. Remember when Hatton was in his WBU days and Mickey Vann reffed pretty much every fight he had. Again not saying Vann was up to anything as Hatton was winning every fight clearly enough to not need too much help but can you imagine in football if Howard Webb was selected to ref Man Utd’s first fifteen games of the season, it would never be allowed to happen.

yes i remeber good old mickey Vann refereeing Hattons WBU fights and i use to make the exact same point that no football club would be allowed the same referee at home for all its matches.

Mickey Vann in my eyes was a 'Frank Warren' referee and was always willing to stop fights at the earliest opportunity.

I think Boxing is the most corrupt sport in the world, yes there is doping in many sports, cycling, atletics etc but boxing has these problems as well and many many more, not only do some competitors cheat, hand wraps, PEDS etc but the judges can be in on it, referee's can be in on it and even the governing bodies themselves..............................................................................

David Barnes/Jimmy Vincent - Absolute shocker of a decision

Bobby Vanzie/Graham Earl I and II - Did the powers that be have an agenda? Vanzie certainly thought so and suggested the BBBoC were racist. It earned him a ban and fine and ultimately forced him to retire

Rowley wrote:One thing that should also not be ruled out in this is good old fashioned human incompetence. Because boxing has the history it has the minute we see a decision or stoppage that beggars belief our default setting is to cry fix, it is kind of ingrained.

However watch other sports and you will see just as many things of such staggering incompetence. Only have to look back to the first ashes test recently when the umpire Aleen Dar failed to give Broad out for what was a clear and thick edge to slip. Nobody cried fix because odd recent betting scandal aside cricket does not have the same reputation for corruption. Similarly nobody cried corruption when Tottenham did not get a goal at Old Trafford that was at least three foot over the line. Are either of these any more or less ridiculous than Bradley getting the nod over Manny?

You make a good case....However has to be said in the sports you mention referees have a split second to see things generally....whilst a judge tends to have three minutes to see which way the wind is blowing.....

When fans and commentators can see when someone is getting a slap and a judge from ten feet away can't....You have to summise incomtetency is at a level beyond comprehension...

But incompetence is everywhere...but only forgivable in contentious decisions...

Dave is spot on with Barnes v Vincent...True shocker and the home fighter got the nod.

Rowley wrote:One thing that should also not be ruled out in this is good old fashioned human incompetence. Because boxing has the history it has the minute we see a decision or stoppage that beggars belief our default setting is to cry fix, it is kind of ingrained.

However watch other sports and you will see just as many things of such staggering incompetence. Only have to look back to the first ashes test recently when the umpire Aleen Dar failed to give Broad out for what was a clear and thick edge to slip. Nobody cried fix because odd recent betting scandal aside cricket does not have the same reputation for corruption. Similarly nobody cried corruption when Tottenham did not get a goal at Old Trafford that was at least three foot over the line. Are either of these any more or less ridiculous than Bradley getting the nod over Manny?

True enough rowley, but like penalties at old Trafford ( intimidated refs or just that the opposition never get into united's box?) there aren't that many away town decisions. If it was all incompetence the promoter's fighter would get shafted more frequently.

Sir Alex...Had to love him could get away with murder....

Told a referee that he would be leaving in an ambulance at half time and escaped penalty whilst anyone else only has to shake his head at one....and they get it..

I bet Alex Ferguson has given Moyes his watch. It runs 3 minutes slower than everyone elses when Utd are losing and 3 minutes fast when they're winning.

Amazing feat of engineering.

milkyboy wrote:As the champion of the slugger o'toole/fidel Castro smith v Henry Wharton fight as being one of the biggest stitch ups I've seen, I'll have to point out that it went to the cards truss.

Wharton was white, with a strong local following.  Smith was black and fighting out if the ingle gym. In his early days, Ingle tried to get him an Irish following by giving him a pseudonym and a green hooded robe to enter the ring with. Couldn't make it up really.

Bit of a glen Johnson, smith. Lost plenty of dubious close decisions away from home. The Wharton one was a shocker. I had it a near shut out for smith.

Was actually at the fight full of Wharton fans, and none of them thought he won,alway's remember one of Whartons fans saying to me that's fxxking disgusting, we walked out shaking our heads disgraceful decision.Only way Smith could have won that night was by ko.

Good someone else remembers it nico. Glad it was as obvious live as it was on the box.

You think in life that the cream will rise to the top, but sometimes the odds are just stacked against you. Smith looked like a really class operator that night and did a better job than benn and at least as good as Eubank did on Wharton, but no-ones heard of him. Not sure he was the most dedicated, but with results like that it can't be easy to stay focussed.

if a fighter can get caught juicing then ko'd and is still be champ something is a miss

I suppose a major difference is the four major world titles we have now. Along with the Silver, Intercontinental, and Diamond titles, it means a lot more relatively innocuous fights are being shown. In the past, a fight which is equivalent to being for the WBC International Middleweight Title would have been shown in front of about 500 people, With one taping of it, only to be used if the annointed fighter looks really good in it.

Manny vs Bradley

Oscar vs Mosley

A couple of examples where the house fighter has got the wrong end of the shaft. Accepted things tend to favour the big name or house fighter more often than not but the idea the beneficiary of poor decisions is always the big name is not 100% accurate.

Its all corrupt but who is there to clean things up?

The other day Chisora beat Scott in a fight I did not bother to watch. When I opened up the papers the nest morning there was Chisora with 1 belt strapped to his waist and another held alof. What? Is Chisora some sort of champion??? I must have missed that, did Chisora clean up the H/W division without me knowing?

Why is it every tom dick and Harry owns a belt???

Rowley is right..Lot's of honest people around..........However boxing has reached a stage where robberies are so prevalent that no one is outraged anymore...

Making it easier to get away with them............When you don't have to worry about consequences..what's to stop you..

There was a time when ''taking a dive'' would actually progress your career. Thankfully those days are gone. A lot has been cleaned up in boxing but the need to develop 'star' fighters who can attract an audience is paramount in boxing. The purity of the sport has gone a long time ago its just buisness now.

You brought up Jack Johnson before but the 1 thing that stands out about his career is that after beating Burns in Australia he became world champion even tho he was not rightly recognised as such. Still the boxing fans wanted to see Johnson beaten fairly and squarely in the ring so the hunt for the great white hope began. The powers that be could have made up a new belt and left Johnson out of the picture forever but that matter HAD to be settled in the ring. I fear this integrity in boxing has gone.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:There was a time when ''taking a dive'' would actually progress your career. Thankfully those days are gone. A lot has been cleaned up in boxing but the need to develop 'star' fighters who can attract an audience is paramount in boxing. The purity of the sport has gone a long time ago its just buisness now.

You brought up Jack Johnson before but the 1 thing that stands out about his career is that after beating Burns in Australia he became world champion even tho he was not rightly recognised as such. Still the boxing fans wanted to see Johnson beaten fairly and squarely in the ring so the hunt for the great white hope began. The powers that be could have made up a new belt and left Johnson out of the picture forever but that matter HAD to be settled in the ring. I fear this integrity in boxing has gone.

Thought Johnson was recognised as such and that was the problem...........

He could not get a title fight in the US so he had to travel the world, caught up to Burns in OZ and beat him. Still it was not up to Johnson wether he could defend the title in America

Maybe Johnson's ability to get fights in the US would have been helped a little bit if he did not take part in fixed fights with Ketchel when he did secure a fight or if he had actually been willing to face someone with a pulse as champion.

Taking white women across state lines wouldn't have helped either..

Rowley wrote:Maybe Johnson's ability to get fights in the US would have been helped a little bit if he did not take part in fixed fights with Ketchel when he did secure a fight or if he had actually been willing to face someone with a pulse as champion.

Yet he was willing to travese the freaking GLOBE to fight for the title.

Don't get your point

ketchel was after Burns

Hang on a minute...Didn't Johnson agree to go a certain distance for the cameras against Ketchel....

Wasn't fixed per se..

My point is onetwo I struggle to have too much sympathy for a guy who refused to fight his best challengers and when he did secure a title defence in the states got involved in something that stunk to high heaven as his defence against Ketchel almost certainly did.

Think Rowley does regard Johnson as the main reason Langford and Burley didn't make it at the highest level...........Who can blame him...

Ketchel-Johnson wasn't the only fight to be prolonged for the cameras in those days......and I think you're being a little harsh on Johnson for that..

Appreciate he is not alone in prolonging things for the camera, however if you're going to get involved in stuff like that you kind of lose the right to then moan if promoters in the states do not want to touch you with a bargepole.

Johnson's struggle for fights was mainly due to his being balck and whites not wanting there guys to be embarrassed by him..racism at it's worst..

Nothing to do with Ketchel Mate...and you know it..

Some of Dempseys fight weren't bonafide If history is to be believed....

Fair point, will admit I am not the most objective of guys when it comes to Johnson. Completely understand his position that after being snubbed and messed about by white people for so long once he was title holder he was going to live his life exactly as he saw fit but think his general demeanour and attitude hurt so many black fighters who had to follow in his wake that I find it hard to admit.

Tex Rickard openly admitted that he had no desire to promote Dempsey vs Wills with the fall out and hassle from Johnson Jeffries still fairly fresh in his memory. All guesswork but do have to wonder how differently things could have been had Johnson given the shot to Langford or Jeannette instead of Jack.

Rowley wrote:Fair point, will admit I am not the most objective of guys when it comes to Johnson. Completely understand his position that after being snubbed and messed about by white people for so long once he was title holder he was going to live his life exactly as he saw fit but think his general demeanour and attitude hurt so many black fighters who had to follow in his wake that I find it hard to admit.Tex Rickard openly admitted that he had no desire to promote Dempsey vs Wills with the fall out and hassle from Johnson Jeffries still fairly fresh in his memory. All guesswork but do have to wonder how differently things could have been had Johnson given the shot to Langford or Jeannette instead of Jack.

I think Johnson was willing to do what other black fighters were afraid to do and it paid off for him. He had balls and he was not going to conform like Langford or Jeanette and hope a shot would materalise. Johnson went out and took it.

He did not go out and take it, he got lucky as Macintosh wanted to put a big event on to take advantage of the US Naval fleet being in Australia over christmas and so offered Burns an absolute shed load of coin to take the fight. Jack got the gig because at the time he was the most qualified challenger and as such deserved it. One could only wish Johnson had adopted such a simple approach when it came to defending the title.

As an aside Johnson had to borrow the money to get to Oz from the National Sporting Club in London who lent it him on the proviso he made his first defence against Langford for the club, a deal Jack renaged on. Classy.

The sport is still fairly rotten, except now the Mafia that once run boxing have been replaced by by big time promoters, TV executives and judges scoring fights based on names and future revenues rather than the fight they just watched.