Best and worst tank jobs.

[BoxBuzz]

Good topic regarding slick ones. None come to immediate mind.

Easy ones to spot...

Michael Spinks vs Mike Tyson (Please, people. I will maintain until they lay me in the ground he tanked it, and not convincingly in the least).

Cliff Ettienne vs Mike Tyson (Pathetic. All I have to say).

Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson (And the Oscar goes to...).

Bruce Seldon vs. Riddick Bowe (Before Tyson-Seldon, there was...dun-dun-dahhh....Bowe-Seldon )

Bert Cooper vs. George Foreman (This really the same guy who stood in there with Mercer and Holyfield?)

Bert Cooper vs. Reggie Gross (Worse than the Foreman job...in fact, worse than anything on this list, sans MAYBE Tyson-Seldon).

Roberto Duran vs. Ray Leonard (What an embarrassment...for Elmer D)

Would you include guys basically quitting by refusing to even try to win? If so, I can think of a heap.

Not to sure about Spinks? Did You see his eyes roll back into his head as he hit the ground? The last punch on Spinks landed kind of weird but look at the way it forced him on his back so violently

The clincher for me is the look in his eyes as he watches the ref after KD #2. Pure, lucid terror.

or..."where the hell am i, and How did I get here?"

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yeah...and topped off with a 9.7 swandive into the ropes.

[BoxBuzz]

You are stubborn on this one.....you'd think my "character reference" would be somewhat influencing. But no. lol

[Goodnight, Irene]

In all honesty, I just dont know what doubters see when Spinks is looking up at the ref after the second knockdown?

Hes just screaming lucid fear with those eyes.

[BoxBuzz]

In all honesty, I just dont know what doubters see when Spinks is looking up at the ref after the second knockdown?

Hes just screaming lucid fear to my eyes.

Fixed!

[klompton]

Sure...


It was as fixed as Liston-Patterson...

[Goodnight, Irene]

LOL.

[Ambling Alp]

Here is one that doesn't seem to be mentioned often: Alex Stewart looked like he barely got hit when he fought Tyson.

Yep....there should be a LOT of Tyson stories in this thread. There was a Svengali aspect to his reign of terror.

G.I. As far as Barrera....we may agree that it appeared that way. I'm just sayin it's hard to determine. I honestly feel you've made a mistake with Spinks....just my opinion....we probably agree on Antonio vs Pac Man...but when/how/where did he "tank"? Was it before he entered the ring? When is it a "dive" vs just an "aspect of the sort of victory the opponent achieved".

I think Spinks was stunned and helpless, I think Liston had his bell rung and was truly discombobulated, and maybe feeling hopeless about his chances. Did Antonio WISH he handn't signed the return match? Or did something happen in that match that made him feel that he just didn't have the tools and he lost faith in himself? If your opponent defeats you mentally....is that not an "earned win"?
Regardless of what a spectator may surmise?

A guy like Antonio who is strong minded, and competitive is not a "typical suspect" for such an assumption....nor is Spinks or Liston. But if the other guy wins the war of the minds why is that not any less honorable of a way to win, vs just knockin' someone out with a left hook? Hell we all want the easy fight.....whether it's the one round KO...or the "unwilling combatant". The win may be just as good either way.

With Stewart, I think he was very intimidated against Tyson. I didn't mean that he was being paid off or anything like that. Maybe if you are that scared an ordinary punch would do more damage than normal; maybe he didn't actually quit, I dunno. However, he sure did not seem to be hit with much.

I didn't mean to say that everyone quit against Tyson. Spinks certainly did not quit against Tyson. If a fighter are going to flop down, he is not going to fall back into the ropes where he could get seriously hurt if he fell awkardly. Also if he was going to quit, he probably wouldn't have gotton up after the first knockdown. Finally, he certainly would not have left himself so wide open after getting up from the first knockdown.

I don't think Sharkey threw the fight against Carnera. Obviously Sharkey was the better fighter, but he just got caught. Sharkey was an inconsistent fighter and (as demspeyfire mentioned) he was getting old.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Here is one that doesn't seem to be mentioned often: Alex Stewart looked like he barely got hit when he fought Tyson.

Yep....there should be a LOT of Tyson stories in this thread. There was a Svengali aspect to his reign of terror.

G.I. As far as Barrera....we may agree that it appeared that way. I'm just sayin it's hard to determine. I honestly feel you've made a mistake with Spinks....just my opinion....we probably agree on Antonio vs Pac Man...but when/how/where did he "tank"? Was it before he entered the ring? When is it a "dive" vs just an "aspect of the sort of victory the opponent achieved".

I think Spinks was stunned and helpless, I think Liston had his bell rung and was truly discombobulated, and maybe feeling hopeless about his chances. Did Antonio WISH he handn't signed the return match? Or did something happen in that match that made him feel that he just didn't have the tools and he lost faith in himself? If your opponent defeats you mentally....is that not an "earned win"?
Regardless of what a spectator may surmise?

A guy like Antonio who is strong minded, and competitive is not a "typical suspect" for such an assumption....nor is Spinks or Liston. But if the other guy wins the war of the minds why is that not any less honorable of a way to win, vs just knockin' someone out with a left hook? Hell we all want the easy fight.....whether it's the one round KO...or the "unwilling combatant". The win may be just as good either way.

With Stewart, I think he was very intimidated against Tyson. I didn't mean that he was being paid off or anything like that. Maybe if you are that scared an ordinary punch would do more damage than normal; maybe he didn't actually quit, I dunno. However, he sure did not seem to be hit with much.

I didn't mean to say that everyone quit against Tyson. Spinks certainly did not quit against Tyson. If a fighter are going to flop down, he is not going to fall back into the ropes where he could get seriously hurt if he fell awkardly. Also if he was going to quit, he probably wouldn't have gotton up after the first knockdown. Finally, he certainly would not have left himself so wide open after getting up from the first knockdown.

I don't think Sharkey threw the fight against Carnera. Obviously Sharkey was the better fighter, but he just got caught. Sharkey was an inconsistent fighter and (as demspeyfire mentioned) he was getting old.

Whatre your thoughts on Tyson-Ettienne?

[klompton]

When I first saw Tyson-Etienne I thought it was a dive. Then when I saw the slow mo replays I was pretty satisfied it was legit, and still am. It was a good shot he got hit with thats hard to see, and was hard for him to see. Etienne didnt exactly have the best chin either. He was pretty much tailor made for Tyson.

[Goodnight, Irene]

When I first saw Tyson-Etienne I thought it was a dive. Then when I saw the slow mo replays I was pretty satisfied it was legit, and still am. It was a good shot he got hit with thats hard to see, and was hard for him to see. Etienne didnt exactly have the best chin either. He was pretty much tailor made for Tyson.

First Spinks, now Ettienne?

You'd have made a great juror in the OJ trial

[Jaywheel]

I always thought Spinks tanked it. But my dislike for him and his bro, makes me biased. It's all opinions but it's not like saying like Ruiz or Moorer tanked it against Tua. Spinks did look like a deer in the headlights from the opening bell, but it has to be called a good tank job because we are still arguing over it that long after.

Unlike the Kermit LeapFrog Cintron.

[klompton]

When I first saw Tyson-Etienne I thought it was a dive. Then when I saw the slow mo replays I was pretty satisfied it was legit, and still am. It was a good shot he got hit with thats hard to see, and was hard for him to see. Etienne didnt exactly have the best chin either. He was pretty much tailor made for Tyson.

First Spinks, now Ettienne?

You'd have made a great juror in the OJ trial

I just think its funny that some people would have us believe that Tyson was not a quick handed and huge punching HW. Etienne was knocked down half a dozen times by the Fres Oquendo and twice by Franz Botha. Neither of those guys was even in the same hemisphere as Tyson (old or not) in terms of punching power. There is no denying the punch landed and landed hard, you can hear that much on the audio and in the replay you can see it was a poweful punch. The only thing that would even make me begin to question it is Etiennes removal of the mouthpiece, but big deal, fighters do all sorts of weird shit when they are hurt (by that logic Simon Brown was capable of continuing to fight against Pettway as he threw punches at phantoms while lying on his back) and even if he was with it enough to conciously decide to quit that doesnt make it a fix or a tank job. Plenty of fighters have been beaten into concious submission, thats a big difference from a tank job. I wont even respond to Spinks. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. Nobody questioned it then, why should they now? Its ridiculous.

I think some people need to give the conspiracys a rest. If theres no smoke theres no fire. Its not like Harold Green tanking to Graziano and admitting it years later after everybody always suspected it. Or LaMotta tanking to Fox and testifying to it. Or Fulton tanking to Fuentes. Those are all fairly well documented and while there may be others that nobody caught there is usually a reason why. In these fights there didnt need to be a fix. The fix was that they carefully matched Tyson against a come forward guy, who left a lot of openings and had a weak chin. There was no need to fix it beyond that.

[Goodnight, Irene]

When I first saw Tyson-Etienne I thought it was a dive. Then when I saw the slow mo replays I was pretty satisfied it was legit, and still am. It was a good shot he got hit with thats hard to see, and was hard for him to see. Etienne didnt exactly have the best chin either. He was pretty much tailor made for Tyson.

First Spinks, now Ettienne?

You'd have made a great juror in the OJ trial

I just think its funny that some people would have us believe that Tyson was not a quick handed and huge punching HW. Etienne was knocked down half a dozen times by the Fres Oquendo and twice by Franz Botha. Neither of those guys was even in the same hemisphere as Tyson (old or not) in terms of punching power. There is no denying the punch landed and landed hard, you can hear that much on the audio and in the replay you can see it was a poweful punch. The only thing that would even make me begin to question it is Etiennes removal of the mouthpiece, but big deal, fighters do all sorts of weird shit when they are hurt (by that logic Simon Brown was capable of continuing to fight against Pettway as he threw punches at phantoms while lying on his back) and even if he was with it enough to conciously decide to quit that doesnt make it a fix or a tank job. Plenty of fighters have been beaten into concious submission, thats a big difference from a tank job. I wont even respond to Spinks. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. Nobody questioned it then, why should they now? Its ridiculous.

I think some people need to give the conspiracys a rest. If theres no smoke theres no fire. Its not like Harold Green tanking to Graziano and admitting it years later after everybody always suspected it. Or LaMotta tanking to Fox and testifying to it. Or Fulton tanking to Fuentes. Those are all fairly well documented and while there may be others that nobody caught there is usually a reason why. In these fights there didnt need to be a fix. The fix was that they carefully matched Tyson against a come forward guy, who left a lot of openings and had a weak chin. There was no need to fix it beyond that.

The funniest line in a very funny post

Well done

[BoxBuzz]

Hey Klompton.....I've always wondered if LaMotta really tanked, OR if he'd rather us just believe it. lol.

He was a real character. And I'm surely willing to keep an open mind about Sharkey as well as Spinks.

It's unlikely any of us will ever really know. But I am very much drawn to the conclusions I have stated.

[klompton]

So... you think Sharkey and Spinks tanked but wonder if LaMotta-Fox was legitimate??? O... k...

[BoxBuzz]

So... you think Sharkey and Spinks tanked but wonder if LaMotta-Fox was legitimate??? O... k...

No, but I know this thread is a bit winding, so For the record.

I'll take LaMotta at his word, but damn, I have a hard time with him diving for anyone, he just don't seem the type, but how can you argue with his admission?

I am certain in my bones that Spinks did not pre-meditate that loss to Tyson.

I suspect that Sharkey allowed his chin to be found...so yep...my opinion is that he pre-meditated it.

[yancey]

Any of you boxing historians have any thoughts on the second Marciano-Walcott fight?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Any of you boxing historians have any thoughts on the second Marciano-Walcott fight?

You thinking he just showed up to get paid, or there was some type of arranged fix?

[yancey]

Any of you boxing historians have any thoughts on the second Marciano-Walcott fight?

You thinking he just showed up to get paid, or there was some type of arranged fix?

Looked at it a couple of times tonight.

The knockdown was definitely legit, but it seems to me that Walcott recovered pretty quick while sitting on the canvas.

Maybe Walcott was simply trying to stay down as long as possible in order to recover.

He definitely rose quickly when he wanted to get up. Maybe he just cut it too close. The count seemed awfully quick.

Looking at the film tonight makes me think Walcott was genuinely upset and he simply cut things too close before getting up. His corner was also upset with that 10 count, too.

Rocky was very likely to win anyway. Just wish it wouldn't have ended with some controversy.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Any of you boxing historians have any thoughts on the second Marciano-Walcott fight?

You thinking he just showed up to get paid, or there was some type of arranged fix?

Looked at it a couple of times tonight.

The knockdown was definitely legit, but it seems to me that Walcott recovered pretty quick while sitting on the canvas.

Maybe Walcott was simply trying to stay down as long as possible in order to recover.

He definitely rose quickly when he wanted to get up. Maybe he just cut it too close. The count seemed awfully quick.

Looking at the film tonight makes me think Walcott was genuinely upset and he simply cut things too close before getting up. His corner was also upset with that 10 count, too.

Rocky was very likely to win anyway. Just wish it wouldn't have ended with some controversy.

The ending was a little odd --- Walcott pretty much gets up, very quickly, right on ten. That may well indicate he mistimed his rise --- but remember, for whatever its worth, Walcott claimed to have blacked out between 7-10. Now, maybe that happened and maybe it didnt, but the footage of him rising quickly right on ten at least makes that plausible (if you blacked out with your last memory hearing a ref's count, then came to, it follows that youd rise quickly once awakened, likely disoriented and unaware of where the count was).

[Ambling Alp]

Unlike some of the other fights mentioned here, I have always thought that this was a fight that was strange; not sure if Walcott took a dive, quit or what.

First, Walcott hardly throws any punches in the beginning. He is just clinching. Then he goes down, and looks like he could get up easily. He waits until 10 and then pops right up. Hard to believe that he wouldn't be smart enough to get up before 10.
Then he walks around the ring casually. All of a sudden he is furious at the ref. If he really was furious at the ref, why not start screaming right away?

The "black out" excuse doesn't sound legit at all.

[Boilermaker]

Unlike some of the other fights mentioned here, I have always thought that this was a fight that was strange; not sure if Walcott took a dive, quit or what.

First, Walcott hardly throws any punches in the beginning. He is just clinching. Then he goes down, and looks like he could get up easily. He waits until 10 and then pops right up. Hard to believe that he wouldn't be smart enough to get up before 10.
Then he walks around the ring casually. All of a sudden he is furious at the ref. If he really was furious at the ref, why not start screaming right away?

The "black out" excuse doesn't sound legit at all.

But the symptoms you describe above are 100% consistent with the blackout story. He got up straight away. He didnt know there was a controversy and walked around casually and then he started complaining later on when told that he had lost. If he blacked out, he would have also had memory loss. He wouldnt have argued straight away because he woudnt have known it was the end of the fight, even.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Unlike some of the other fights mentioned here, I have always thought that this was a fight that was strange; not sure if Walcott took a dive, quit or what.

First, Walcott hardly throws any punches in the beginning. He is just clinching. Then he goes down, and looks like he could get up easily. He waits until 10 and then pops right up. Hard to believe that he wouldn't be smart enough to get up before 10.
Then he walks around the ring casually. All of a sudden he is furious at the ref. If he really was furious at the ref, why not start screaming right away?

The "black out" excuse doesn't sound legit at all.

But the symptoms you describe above are 100% consistent with the blackout story. He got up straight away. He didnt know there was a controversy and walked around casually and then he started complaining later on when told that he had lost. If he blacked out, he would have also had memory loss. He wouldnt have argued straight away because he woudnt have known it was the end of the fight, even.

Thats why I say, while I dont commit either way on Walcott's story, there is nothing in the footage which dispels a blackout. Maybe he did and maybe he didnt, but his behaviour makes it plausible, IMO.

[Ambling Alp]

Unlike some of the other fights mentioned here, I have always thought that this was a fight that was strange; not sure if Walcott took a dive, quit or what.

First, Walcott hardly throws any punches in the beginning. He is just clinching. Then he goes down, and looks like he could get up easily. He waits until 10 and then pops right up. Hard to believe that he wouldn't be smart enough to get up before 10.
Then he walks around the ring casually. All of a sudden he is furious at the ref. If he really was furious at the ref, why not start screaming right away?

The "black out" excuse doesn't sound legit at all.

But the symptoms you describe above are 100% consistent with the blackout story. He got up straight away. He didnt know there was a controversy and walked around casually and then he started complaining later on when told that he had lost. If he blacked out, he would have also had memory loss. He wouldnt have argued straight away because he woudnt have known it was the end of the fight, even.

It's not 100 % consistent at all.
First, it still doesn't explain why he was not throwing punches. There was hardly any clinches in the first fight but that is all Walcott was doing in the first round before the knockdown. He was not throwing hardly any punches. He didn't look like he was really trying. He really didn't seem to be hit hard to enough to be seriously hurt.

I think the blackout was thought of after the fact. You would think that if blacked out he would black out right away after he got hit and went down, and then he would and cleared his head, which is what usually happens. It is odd that he would get hurt with a punch and go down, seem to be ok, then blackout. Not impossible but rare.

However, lets pretend that he did blackout when he said he did. He got up and seemed fine. He was walking around calmly. All of a sudden he is upset at the referee; as he if he suddenly remembered he should be upset over the supposed quick count. If he really blacked out, he wouldn't have known that the count was supposedly quick and therefore he would not have been arguing with the referee. He may have thought to himself (if he really blacked out) that he didn't remember being down that long, but he wouldn't automatically think the referee cheated him.

It's also unlikely that he would he black out and then still pop up immediately after the ref counted ten. He didn't pop up before the 10-count or several seconds after the 10-count. He popped up right when the ref counted 10. That is quite a coincidence. He had to have known the referee counted him out.

I disagree that he didn't know that the fight was over for a long time, then realized it was and started to argue with the referee. That doesn't make any sense.
Obviously he would have seen several other people in the ring.
If he didn't know the fight was over, he would not have known to argue that he got a quick count. He would have continued fighting as soon as got up.

Unlike some of these other fights mentioned, there is a lot of suspicious things going on. I suppose it is possible that he simply mistimed the referees count (ie Quarry vs Chuvalo) and got up right after the referee said 10. However, it seems more likely that he tanked it.