Most recent fight in my mind, where I seen this, was when George Foreman fought Tommy Morrison for the vacant WBO title.
Though Morrison won the fight by decision....in the early rounds Foreman tagged Morrison really hard and right before Morrison was about to go down, Foreman held him up---and took it easy on Morrison the rest of the fight.
When asked later on, Foreman said "I like the kid, he deserves a chance".
I think possibly the most well known fix in boxing is LaMotta vs Fox. Then possibly Carnera vs Sharkey 2.
Fights That Were Fixed and/or Taken Easy on Opponents
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
One thing though , when a fighter wants to take it easy on another fighter, he gets him out of there right away. Joe Louis -John Henry Lewis is an example. Dempsey- Miske also. If you take it too easy on a guy you could lose a decision. If your so much in control and better than your opponent and you carry him along doing enough to clearly win, then he is gonna take a beating . I suppose thats the logic in banging him right outta there.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Re: Fights That Were Fixed and/or Taken Easy on Opponents
I did find it odd that Foreman lost the fight against Tommy, but it was he who got the shot at the title against Moorer in his very next fight.IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Most recent fight in my mind, where I seen this, was when George Foreman fought Tommy Morrison for the vacant WBO title.
Though Morrison won the fight by decision....in the early rounds Foreman tagged Morrison really hard and right before Morrison was about to go down, Foreman held him up---and took it easy on Morrison the rest of the fight.
When asked later on, Foreman said "I like the kid, he deserves a chance".
I think possibly the most well known fix in boxing is LaMotta vs Fox. Then possibly Carnera vs Sharkey 2.
fixes
Reggie Stickland has 'coasted' his way through hundreds of fights to "lose" by decision...
Smart enough to both realise he was never going to be a top performer, but good and clever enough to know that by keeping busy he could make himself a good living in the sport he loves!
The "crook". :P
Smart enough to both realise he was never going to be a top performer, but good and clever enough to know that by keeping busy he could make himself a good living in the sport he loves!
The "crook". :P
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
He was so concussed from that right hand that it caused him to shield his eyes from the bright rays of the sun. Hardy KO'd. Willard is one of the bottom dwellers in heavyweight championship history and was not in the same league with Jack Johnson, past his prime or not.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:evndrbsn wrote:Jack Johnson vs. Jess Willard anyone?
no way this was a very legit KO. willard hit him with a hard right hand
I remember a documentary on Johnson that said if he threw the fight with Willard, the charges against him in the states with trafficking white women (or whatever he fled the US for, I forgot) would be dropped. You don't remember Jack Johnson dying in prison, do you? This is one of those crazy boxing stories I tend to believe.
The Willard-Johnson fight was probably not fixed.
(1) If Johnson was promised a deal, why did he take years before turning himself over to US authorities? Logic would indicate he would have turned himself in a lot sooner.
(2) The films of the fight show a very agressive Johnson in the early rounds, trying to end the fight quickly, then slowing down gradually.
(3) The shielding of the eyes could mean that he was beaten, unable to get up and had his eyes open and the light bothered him, such as a man being sedated and still blinking under the hospital lights of an operating room. The film also shows him stretching out on the hot canvas and dropping his arms afterwards.
(4) When Nat Fleischer bought the story, he did not believe it to be true but due to the fact that Johnson was broke and needed money and his in his pride, throwing a fight was less damaging to his ego than admitting a defeat.
(5) Johnson was in poor condition for the fight. He had a roll of fat clearly visible in the film.
As for fixed fights look up Mark Gastineau.
(1) If Johnson was promised a deal, why did he take years before turning himself over to US authorities? Logic would indicate he would have turned himself in a lot sooner.
(2) The films of the fight show a very agressive Johnson in the early rounds, trying to end the fight quickly, then slowing down gradually.
(3) The shielding of the eyes could mean that he was beaten, unable to get up and had his eyes open and the light bothered him, such as a man being sedated and still blinking under the hospital lights of an operating room. The film also shows him stretching out on the hot canvas and dropping his arms afterwards.
(4) When Nat Fleischer bought the story, he did not believe it to be true but due to the fact that Johnson was broke and needed money and his in his pride, throwing a fight was less damaging to his ego than admitting a defeat.
(5) Johnson was in poor condition for the fight. He had a roll of fat clearly visible in the film.
As for fixed fights look up Mark Gastineau.
I think Johnson could have got up but he was exhausted and had had enough of both the fight and being the cham,pion the white establishment hated. I don't think Jack could take another 18 rounds and decided to lie down. It was a legitimate win for Willard.enrique wrote:The Willard-Johnson fight was probably not fixed.
(1) If Johnson was promised a deal, why did he take years before turning himself over to US authorities? Logic would indicate he would have turned himself in a lot sooner.
(2) The films of the fight show a very agressive Johnson in the early rounds, trying to end the fight quickly, then slowing down gradually.
(3) The shielding of the eyes could mean that he was beaten, unable to get up and had his eyes open and the light bothered him, such as a man being sedated and still blinking under the hospital lights of an operating room. The film also shows him stretching out on the hot canvas and dropping his arms afterwards.
(4) When Nat Fleischer bought the story, he did not believe it to be true but due to the fact that Johnson was broke and needed money and his in his pride, throwing a fight was less damaging to his ego than admitting a defeat.
(5) Johnson was in poor condition for the fight. He had a roll of fat clearly visible in the film.
As for fixed fights look up Mark Gastineau.
I agree, sheilding and protecting your eyes is one of the most automatic things a human being does often subconsciously, it's a very natural reaction.enrique wrote:(3) The shielding of the eyes could mean that he was beaten, unable to get up and had his eyes open and the light bothered him, such as a man being sedated and still blinking under the hospital lights of an operating room
I believe the Johnson vs Willard fight was not pre-arranged. It was just a case of a former great who was old, out of shape and past his best fighting a younger, strong determined foe in Willard.
Yes Johnson was a much better fighter than Willard at one time, means little, just look at the McBride - Tyson fight amongst countless others.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Plus, how can Johnson say the fight was fixed in which he would get a suspended sentence? When after he returned to the USA he served over a year in Leavenworth.
*********************************************
I guess another thing that can be debated is controversial decisions so bad that it could have been a fix, which I think the following were:
1.) Muhammad Ali vs Jimmy Young, Young clearly had landed more punches
2.) Tarver vs Jones 1
3.) Jerset Joe Walcott vs Joe Louis 1
4.) Larry Holmes vs Micheal Spinks 2
Those are just examples.
*********************************************
I guess another thing that can be debated is controversial decisions so bad that it could have been a fix, which I think the following were:
1.) Muhammad Ali vs Jimmy Young, Young clearly had landed more punches
2.) Tarver vs Jones 1
3.) Jerset Joe Walcott vs Joe Louis 1
4.) Larry Holmes vs Micheal Spinks 2
Those are just examples.
..walcott should have been given the decision in the first louis fight....but he didn't win every round....and as for the knockdowns..this fight used the winner of a round scoring...not points...so the knockdowns won two rounds for walcott. if louis won two close rounds...they counted just the same..walcott outboxed the bomber through most of that fight...but louis won some rounds too when walcott just stayed out of the way. even referee goldstien who had it for walcott had it very close. several of the writers for ring magazine had louis winning. walcott's people made a protest, saying he should have won because he scored the most points...this is where the knockdowns would have counted. but in new york the points were gone to only if the fight was a draw.
again..i think walcott won..based on what i've seen of the edirted films and of what i've read and of people i've talked to....but he won close.
again..i think walcott won..based on what i've seen of the edirted films and of what i've read and of people i've talked to....but he won close.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
agreedJaclem wrote:..walcott should have been given the decision in the first louis fight....but he didn't win every round....and as for the knockdowns..this fight used the winner of a round scoring...not points...so the knockdowns won two rounds for walcott. if louis won two close rounds...they counted just the same..walcott outboxed the bomber through most of that fight...but louis won some rounds too when walcott just stayed out of the way. even referee goldstien who had it for walcott had it very close. several of the writers for ring magazine had louis winning. walcott's people made a protest, saying he should have won because he scored the most points...this is where the knockdowns would have counted. but in new york the points were gone to only if the fight was a draw.
again..i think walcott won..based on what i've seen of the edirted films and of what i've read and of people i've talked to....but he won close.
when reporters asked joe louis what he thought about referee ruby goldstein scoring it for walcott, louis replied " I know rube, he calls em like he sees em."
according to jaclem, the most forgotten controversial decision is walcott-charles IV. did u think charles won?
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
tagjohnson
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 281
- Joined: 14 Jul 2005, 09:56
Did he? I haven't ever re-watched the fight but as I remember it neither of them did anything for 2:30 of every round, and not very much in the other :30Decagon wrote:Those are shitty examples. Tarver-Jones I wasn't very controversial. Maybe 20% of the people who watched the fight thought that Tarver won. Jones controlled 2:30 of each round, and Tarver just fought at the end.IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I guess another thing that can be debated is controversial decisions so bad that it could have been a fix, which I think the following were:
1.) Muhammad Ali vs Jimmy Young, Young clearly had landed more punches
2.) Tarver vs Jones 1
3.) Jerset Joe Walcott vs Joe Louis 1
4.) Larry Holmes vs Micheal Spinks 2
Those are just examples.
Re: Jack Dempsey
Although there is some question about Jack Dempsey's
bout with Fireman Jim Flynn being on the level, the latter
was far from being a mediocre opponent. Yes, Flynn was
far from being a great fighter, but was a capable one.
- Chuck Johnston
bout with Fireman Jim Flynn being on the level, the latter
was far from being a mediocre opponent. Yes, Flynn was
far from being a great fighter, but was a capable one.
- Chuck Johnston
..somewhere in my archives i have the full judging on louis/walcott I...how each judge scored each round.
until i can dig it out this is what i do have:
referee goldstein scored it seven rounds for walcott, six for louis and two even.
judge marty monroe scored it for louis nine rounds to six.
judge frank forbes scored eight rounds for louis, six for walcott and one even.
i find the even rounds interesting....especially goldsteins. work out the difference they would have made if they had split between the fighters or if they had gone to either one.
earlier i posted that this was a close fight..even for those who think walcott should have won ...which i do. marty monroe is the one who is most off base.
until i can dig it out this is what i do have:
referee goldstein scored it seven rounds for walcott, six for louis and two even.
judge marty monroe scored it for louis nine rounds to six.
judge frank forbes scored eight rounds for louis, six for walcott and one even.
i find the even rounds interesting....especially goldsteins. work out the difference they would have made if they had split between the fighters or if they had gone to either one.
earlier i posted that this was a close fight..even for those who think walcott should have won ...which i do. marty monroe is the one who is most off base.