Fights you suspect were fixed and why

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 13 Feb 2006, 08:16

Lewis vs Holyfield I

That was a dodgy result. Holyfield lost, so "quick - lets make it a draw!"...
The female judge's scorecard gave one round to Holyfield (I "think" it was the 5th) when literally the whole round was spent by Holyfield with his guard up near the ropes getting punched by Lewis!

How you can get repeatedly hit, not throw anything back, and win 10/9 is beyond me....

That decision stunk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/b ... index.html

"Eugenia Williams of Atlantic City, N.J.

Williams, who filed for bankruptcy before the fight, told the Newark grand jury that no one attempted to sway her decision, her lawyer has said.

She judged the fight 115-113 for Holyfield. English judge Larry O'Connell scored it 115-115, while South African judge Stan Christodoulou favored Lewis, 116-113.

After watching a replay, Williams testified in New York that she would have scored it differently had photographers not impeded her view"

She had just filed for bankruptcy eh??? Temptation to accept a bribe would have been huge.

Dirk Kelly · Post by **Dirk Kelly** » 13 Feb 2006, 08:24

viciousmaussa wrote:for a suspicious fight, how about Nate Miller vs Thomas Hearns, in I think Manchester. I mean why would Miller let the much older man with all that mileage and vulnerability, outwork him? at that point Hearns wasn't even world class, yet Nate was so lethargic it was unbelievable. the suspcious thing is, he never once tried to win against a man who was there to be taken.

I remember watching that fight and thinking there was something fishy. Miller didn't even break a sweat, just sat on his stool shrugging his shoulders, even his corner weren't that bothered like he was sparring or something.

Woods vs. Johnston 1 was a terrible home town decsion, esp. with Johnston nearly crying in the interview about all these descions he keeps getting.

MaxPow · Post by **MaxPow** » 13 Feb 2006, 08:47

Does anyone think Tarver-Jones III was fixed in any way? It really looked like it to me.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 13 Feb 2006, 09:01

Stu I think it was such a close fight that it was one of them that could have gone either way and whoever lost had a right to be angry. I personally has Benn 115-113. I suppose this discussion has made me thought it probably wasn't fixed just close.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 13 Feb 2006, 09:03

Jones was as fit as he possibly could be for that rubber match IMO. His body just can't reach those ridiculous conditioning levels anymore. He still has the moves and the timing, but now he gets tired like everyone else.

MaxPow · Post by **MaxPow** » 13 Feb 2006, 09:27

Kilburn wrote:Jones was as fit as he possibly could be for that rubber match IMO. His body just can't reach those ridiculous conditioning levels anymore. He still has the moves and the timing, but now he gets tired like everyone else.

That part where Jones got hurt late in the fight was strange to me. Jones got shook and then Tarver charges, Jones ducks and Tarver literally throws himself out of the ring. It was too exaggerated. And that was after how many rounds of absolutely NOTHING. I doubt he could have been very tired. Fishy.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 13 Feb 2006, 09:40

Arsenal wrote:Stu I think it was such a close fight that it was one of them that could have gone either way and whoever lost had a right to be angry. I personally has Benn 115-113. I suppose this discussion has made me thought it probably wasn't fixed just close.

Yes, but the fact Eubank/Hearn got out of an agreement with King because it was a draw has to raise some questions. King had an set in stone argreement for the winner and loser - as there was no winner and loser, Eubank/Hearn got out of it.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 13 Feb 2006, 09:47

I never knew that. Maybe it was a bit dodgy then!

the konformist · Post by **the konformist** » 13 Feb 2006, 11:48

Did anyone else see the Gomez-MacDonagh fight a few weeks back. I don't think that Gomez threw the fight because if he did it would have been a lot easier to take a dive, ubt there were a lot of irregular betting patterns aroung the round in particular that the fight was stopped. it was quite a big controversy here in ireland. an investigation is ongoing.

as regards other fights that i didn't like as regards dodginess Lewis - Holyfield I and Ali Liston II are some of the obvious ones. i read a story some time back - IIRC it was by Ali's doctor, ferdie Paccheo - where he said that he had seen a film in which it can be seen that jack Dempsey clearly takes a railway spike (i think) out of his right glove after THAT first round against Willard in 1921.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 13 Feb 2006, 11:59

Arsenal wrote:I never knew that. Maybe it was a bit dodgy then!

I didn't either untill I got hold of a documentary called Clash of the Titans which was first aired on the BBC in 1999. Hearn and all the main protagonist mention the King deal (well Hearn, Eubank and Benn).... King was fuming. When I heard this, I was thinking "funny Hearn is still alive".

Hearn saying - "I'm going for the draw" was on the ITV telecast - just after the fight.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Feb 2006, 12:04

the konformist wrote:Did anyone else see the Gomez-MacDonagh fight a few weeks back. I don't think that Gomez threw the fight because if he did it would have been a lot easier to take a dive, ubt there were a lot of irregular betting patterns aroung the round in particular that the fight was stopped. it was quite a big controversy here in ireland. an investigation is ongoing.

as regards other fights that i didn't like as regards dodginess Lewis - Holyfield I and Ali Liston II are some of the obvious ones. i read a story some time back - IIRC it was by Ali's doctor, ferdie Paccheo - where he said that he had seen a film in which it can be seen that jack Dempsey clearly takes a railway spike (i think) out of his right glove after THAT first round against Willard in 1921.

Nat Fleischer I always thought it was who said someone had shown him the film, which he then later denied I think.

Weren't there also claims that Dempsey also had plaster of paris on his hand wrapping on the left hand?

dandantheweatherman · Post by **dandantheweatherman** » 13 Feb 2006, 13:02

I've heard the railway spike and plaster of paris theory as well. How do you hide a railway spike in your glove? Come to think of it. what's a railway spike anyway?

Has anyone read the book 'Great White Hopes' by Graeme Kent. That came out last year and might have something about Willard/Dempsey.

And wasn't there something suss about a Tyrone Everett fight in the mid 1970s - I could be totally wrong, but I'm sure I recall reading something in the American boxing press about this about 15 years ago. Can't remember what the thing was about this fight though, so it might just have been a crap decision rather than anything bent.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Feb 2006, 13:05

Here

Hmm, don't see how the fornicate you would conceal that in your glove, nor how you would use it unless it was bent around the hand, and surely that would smash the fuckries out of your fingy-wingies too?

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 13 Feb 2006, 13:20

I've just remembered one. Does anyone know the fight where a young Irish prospect, I think it he was a light/welterweight fought a South American, who I don't think was well rated, in the early 80's. The guys face really marked up and he had lumps all over his face. I think he had facial disfigurements after that. Anyway he lost by unimous decision but the corner couldn't understand how their guy had been so badly beat up and why he had really bad injuries. The Irish boxer also said he had never been hit so hard. Anyway at the end of the fight they were all shaking hands when the Irish guys Dad, who was also his trainer, shook the S.American hands and found he had no padding in the gloves. I can't remember the outcome and if the guy was banned but the Irish fella couldn't box anymore because of the injuries, was unemployed, became an alcholic and eventually committed suicide. There was a documentary on it a year or so ago but I can't remember his name.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 13 Feb 2006, 13:36

dopey wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:for a suspicious fight, how about Nate Miller vs Thomas Hearns, in I think Manchester. I mean why would Miller let the much older man with all that mileage and vulnerability, outwork him? at that point Hearns wasn't even world class, yet Nate was so lethargic it was unbelievable. the suspcious thing is, he never once tried to win against a man who was there to be taken.

I remember watching that fight and thinking there was something fishy. Miller didn't even break a sweat, just sat on his stool shrugging his shoulders, even his corner weren't that bothered like he was sparring or something.

Woods vs. Johnston 1 was a terrible home town decsion, esp. with Johnston nearly crying in the interview about all these descions he keeps getting.

Miller could've knocked Hearns out in two rounds if he wanted. it was bizarre.

as for Woods-Johnson 1, I thought it was very close. i'm in the minority, but Woods had a Massive round 12 and should've been credited with a knockdown, if it weren't for Ian John Lewis' bad call. so i feel the draw was just, as a 2 point round would've easily leveled the fight

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 13 Feb 2006, 13:48

Arsenal wrote:I've just remembered one. Does anyone know the fight where a young Irish prospect, I think it he was a light/welterweight fought a South American, who I don't think was well rated, in the early 80's. The guys face really marked up and he had lumps all over his face. I think he had facial disfigurements after that. Anyway he lost by unimous decision but the corner couldn't understand how their guy had been so badly beat up and why he had really bad injuries. The Irish boxer also said he had never been hit so hard. Anyway at the end of the fight they were all shaking hands when the Irish guys Dad, who was also his trainer, shook the S.American hands and found he had no padding in the gloves. I can't remember the outcome and if the guy was banned but the Irish fella couldn't box anymore because of the injuries, was unemployed, became an alcholic and eventually committed suicide. There was a documentary on it a year or so ago but I can't remember his name.

That was Billy Collins against Luis Resto, with Panama Lewis in his corner.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=022083

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 13 Feb 2006, 14:38

Thanks!

don't call it a comeback · Post by **don't call it a comeback** » 14 Feb 2006, 10:05

Lot of different things getting mixed up in this thread:dodgy refereeing, dodgy judging and a few alleged dives.

As far as seeing a boxer in a championship fight take a dive then thats pretty rare if not unheard of these days. Certainly nothing springs to mind.

Dodgy refereeing is also pretty rare but the joker in Reid v Ottke deserves a special mention. He may have been grossly incompetent. Or a crook. Or in my view possibly both as if it was bent it stood out a mile.

Most of the controversy these days is in the scoring. Two that stand out for me are Willie Jorrin vs Mikey Brodie - until the day I die I will remain convinced that Jorrin had something going for him that night. Especially from the US judge who gave him a big margin. Huge injustice and the smell got worse after Jorrin's next fight with Larios. And Johnny Nelson got an amazing gift draw against Guillermo Jones a few years back. Judge Frank Cairo had Nelson winning despite him barely throwing a punch.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Feb 2006, 10:51

Dodgy judging definetly occurs, some due to incompetence, and some due to them favouring the fighters of the bigger promoters, or along national lines. I don't think it's anything to do with bundles of cash being slipped into tuxedo jacket pockets however, more a case of judges almost unconsciously favouring those who fight for the established fighters.

Slapsie Maxie · Post by **Slapsie Maxie** » 14 Feb 2006, 11:17

Henry Wharton Vs Fidel Castro Smith ( or was he Slugger O Toole then?)

The single worst decision in a British ring. So dreadful and stomach turning, I stopped watching fights for about six months

Slapsie

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 14 Feb 2006, 11:22

Loftgroov wrote:Lewis vs Holyfield I

That was a dodgy result. Holyfield lost, so "quick - lets make it a draw!"...
The female judge's scorecard gave one round to Holyfield (I "think" it was the 5th) when literally the whole round was spent by Holyfield with his guard up near the ropes getting punched by Lewis!

How you can get repeatedly hit, not throw anything back, and win 10/9 is beyond me....

That decision stunk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/b ... index.html

"Eugenia Williams of Atlantic City, N.J.

Williams, who filed for bankruptcy before the fight, told the Newark grand jury that no one attempted to sway her decision, her lawyer has said.

She judged the fight 115-113 for Holyfield. English judge Larry O'Connell scored it 115-115, while South African judge Stan Christodoulou favored Lewis, 116-113.

After watching a replay, Williams testified in New York that she would have scored it differently had photographers not impeded her view"

She had just filed for bankruptcy eh??? Temptation to accept a bribe would have been huge.

Even if she had scored the 5th round for Lewis it still would have been a majority draw.

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 14 Feb 2006, 12:13

i was always highly suspicious of Tommy Hearns's icing of James Shuler (ko 1)at LT middle in the 80's i saw the punch and i dont get it ???

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 14 Feb 2006, 13:56

Slapsie Maxie wrote:Henry Wharton Vs Fidel Castro Smith ( or was he Slugger O Toole then?)

The single worst decision in a British ring. So dreadful and stomach turning, I stopped watching fights for about six months

Slapsie

As Harry Carpenter said at the time during the commentary:

"If Wharton gets this one, it will have to go down with the loaves and the fishes" (or words to that effect, its been a good few years since I saw the fight!)

The unfashionable Slugger O'Toole was jobbed that night - I think even Henry would admit that now..

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 14 Feb 2006, 14:40

TerribleTerry wrote:
Slapsie Maxie wrote:Henry Wharton Vs Fidel Castro Smith ( or was he Slugger O Toole then?)

The single worst decision in a British ring. So dreadful and stomach turning, I stopped watching fights for about six months

Slapsie
As Harry Carpenter said at the time during the commentary:

"If Wharton gets this one, it will have to go down with the loaves and the fishes" (or words to that effect, its been a good few years since I saw the fight!)

The unfashionable Slugger O'Toole was jobbed that night - I think even Henry would admit that now..

Absolutely. I'd forgotten about that one until you brought it up. It was a disgrace.

shoutout · Post by **shoutout** » 14 Feb 2006, 22:34

Max Molyneux wrote:Valuev has had dodgey ones when he steps up.

Liston I reckon took a dive in the second Ali fight, no way would that drop someone unless it was Zab Judah!

absolutely was a dive...the infamous "phantom punch". the mafia had a major stake in boxing back then & many believe they had something to do with that...or perhaps it was sonny just diving for an easy payday to keep his heroin supply flowing...he was a documented addict at various points in his career!! some even believe liston's death was a well-executed mafia hit because he was in2deep!!!