BoxRec

Taansend wrote: I was thinking that. He gets a nice cuff with the left then a partially landed straight right. Maybe he could have got up if he'd tried a bit harder but a punch landing there can f*ck your balance up no end.

Please. A harmless slap with the left and a right that doesn't even land...and pay attention to the rest of what was said up above.

Well, that's what makes boxing and wrasslin...and politics and the nightly news too - a lot of them have to believe in it otherwise why bother putting on the show?

x2x wrote:

Taansend wrote: I was thinking that. He gets a nice cuff with the left then a partially landed straight right. Maybe he could have got up if he'd tried a bit harder but a punch landing there can f*ck your balance up no end.

Please. A harmless slap with the left and a right that doesn't even land...and pay attention to the rest of what was said up above.

Well, that's what makes boxing and wrasslin...and politics and the nightly news too - a lot of them have to believe in it otherwise why bother putting on the show?

You wouldn't have thought it was harmless if it hit you. If your chin is tucked in and you're hit hard in the temple, you can lose your equilibrium and get Knocked Out.

As I've said before, you don't necessarily have to see sweat fly or a head snap back. Of course, I can't, and nobody can "prove" a fight wasn't fixed. The reverse is probably true too.

Tony1244 wrote:
You wouldn't have thought it was harmless if it hit you. If your chin is tucked in and you're hit hard in the temple, you can lose your equilibrium and get Knocked Out.

As I've said before, you don't necessarily have to see sweat fly or a head snap back. Of course, I can't, and nobody can "prove" a fight wasn't fixed. The reverse is probably true too.

Big difference in the punches on that film than the (alleged) punches in the fights on this thread, no? Won't u concede that?

x2x wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:
You wouldn't have thought it was harmless if it hit you. If your chin is tucked in and you're hit hard in the temple, you can lose your equilibrium and get Knocked Out.

As I've said before, you don't necessarily have to see sweat fly or a head snap back. Of course, I can't, and nobody can "prove" a fight wasn't fixed. The reverse is probably true too.

Big difference in the punches on that film than the (alleged) punches in the fights on this thread, no? Won't u concede that?

I think there was a poll here on whether Wilder-Scott was "real." I think we both need to give up on that issue as I think it was "likely" real and you don't. If you're asking me are there differences in some of these "fights," of course there are. Some went down without being hit! I don't think that means there was some guy with a cigar dangling from his mouth who paid the fighter off, I think in many of these cases the guy simply faked it because he knew he couldn't win anyway. Now, the Ausie fight may have been the guy with the cigar.

Tony1244 wrote:
I think there was a poll here on whether Wilder-Scott was "real." I think we both need to give up on that issue as I think it was "likely" real and you don't. If you're asking me are there differences in some of these "fights," of course there are. Some went down without being hit! I don't think that means there was some guy with a cigar dangling from his mouth who paid the fighter off, I think in many of these cases the guy simply faked it because he knew he couldn't win anyway. Now, the Ausie fight may have been the guy with the cigar.

I feel about polls like you (and I) feel about audiences booing.

" I think we both need to give up on that issue as I think it was "likely" real and you don't."

Sure I'll drop it...even tho u never did address the issue of Wilder's post knockdown behavior which I think is pretty much the finishing touch on the evidence that that one really does belong here on this thread. I had dropped it already and then some guy drew it up again.

" I think in many of these cases the guy simply faked it because he knew he couldn't win anyway."


Oh sure, there are various reasons why fighters might take a dive. That would have been the case with that chubby little feller (forgot his name - it's not a household name u know!) who wound up in the ring with Edwards, a pro athlete twice his size. Nobody was going to pay that feller to take a dive. He did it because he calculated that it would be beneficial to his health and longevity and I can't blame him.

The Aussie fight? Oh, you mean the last one I posted. Yeah that was clearly prearranged like most of them on here. Someone told the guy to fall down in round one so he did. They could have sprung for a bit more and sent him for an acting lesson first though.

x2x wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:
I think there was a poll here on whether Wilder-Scott was "real." I think we both need to give up on that issue as I think it was "likely" real and you don't. If you're asking me are there differences in some of these "fights," of course there are. Some went down without being hit! I don't think that means there was some guy with a cigar dangling from his mouth who paid the fighter off, I think in many of these cases the guy simply faked it because he knew he couldn't win anyway. Now, the Ausie fight may have been the guy with the cigar.

I feel about polls like you (and I) feel about audiences booing.

" I think we both need to give up on that issue as I think it was "likely" real and you don't."

Sure I'll drop it...even tho u never did address the issue of Wilder's post knockdown behavior which I think is pretty much the finishing touch on the evidence that that one really does belong here on this thread. I had dropped it already and then some guy drew it up again.

" I think in many of these cases the guy simply faked it because he knew he couldn't win anyway."


Oh sure, there are various reasons why fighters might take a dive. That would have been the case with that chubby little feller (forgot his name - it's not a household name u know!) who wound up in the ring with Edwards, a pro athlete twice his size. Nobody was going to pay that feller to take a dive. He did it because he calculated that it would be beneficial to his health and longevity and I can't blame him.

The Aussie fight? Oh, you mean the last one I posted. Yeah that was clearly prearranged like most of them on here. Someone told the guy to fall down in round one so he did. They could have sprung for a bit more and sent him for an acting lesson first though.

I like the polls here. I've started a couple myself. My point is we voted differently on the Wilder-Scott poll. I think that was a poll. Maybe I imagined it. Don't get me wrong, Its fun to debate. My point was I don't think we're going to change the other's mind on that particular fight. The rest I pretty much agree with.

Tony1244 wrote:
I like the polls here. I've started a couple myself. My point is we voted differently on the Wilder-Scott poll. I think that was a poll. Maybe I imagined it. Don't get me wrong, Its fun to debate. My point was I don't think we're going to change the other's mind on that particular fight. The rest I pretty much agree with.

I don't remember if I voted on that poll or not. We disagree on the value of polls here tho. I like debate too. I would like it if people would debate instead of just putting down one liners and then disappearing, like "the fight was real" or "the fight was fake" or "you're an idiot" or something. That sort of thing is worthless. I respect your opinion but I don't think you should pass up points of contention for which you may not have a ready response, and if I were to do the same I'd like to be corrected. I'm talking right now about how Wilder didn't go to a neutral corner and wait to see what happens next after Scott fell down, something that I would expect a normal boxer to do. Instead he didn't even look at him but started strutting around the ring grinning...as if he knew what was happening without even looking.

x2x wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:
I like the polls here. I've started a couple myself. My point is we voted differently on the Wilder-Scott poll. I think that was a poll. Maybe I imagined it. Don't get me wrong, Its fun to debate. My point was I don't think we're going to change the other's mind on that particular fight. The rest I pretty much agree with.

I don't remember if I voted on that poll or not. We disagree on the value of polls here tho. I like debate too. I would like it if people would debate instead of just putting down one liners and then disappearing, like "the fight was real" or "the fight was fake" or "you're an idiot" or something. That sort of thing is worthless. I respect your opinion but I don't think you should pass up points of contention for which you may not have a ready response, and if I were to do the same I'd like to be corrected. I'm talking right now about how Wilder didn't go to a neutral corner and wait to see what happens next after Scott fell down, something that I would expect a normal boxer to do. Instead he didn't even look at him but started strutting around the ring grinning...as if he knew what was happening without even looking.

I see what you're saying. Scott doesn't take a terrific shot and Wilder knows that. Sometimes fighters celebrate too early though. I've seen fighters act like the fight was over and then to their surprise it isn't. If I don't respond to something, its probably because I'm lazy or something else just came up. I try not to run from a good debate.

Tony1244 wrote: I see what you're saying. Scott doesn't take a terrific shot and Wilder knows that.

That doesn't make sense to me. Scott was 35-1. How could Wilder have known he'd not get back up on his feet?

Sometimes fighters celebrate too early though. I've seen fighters act like the fight was over and then to their surprise it isn't.

Wilder wasn't just celebrating. He wasn't even looking. He was behaving as if he knew for a fact that Scott wasn't going to beat the count. How could he know that? Was that slap followed by a punch that I can't even see land, and even the hired cheerleading announcers expressed skepticism over, so "thunderous", that he could be so certain? Was Scott's fall to the ground so conclusive - the fall that Scott carefully let himself down into with his extended arm? Not that Wilder even looked. He was already strutting around the ring grinning.

If I don't respond to something, its probably because I'm lazy or something else just came up. I try not to run from a good debate.

OK cool. I think, though, that you should cut your losses on this one and save your debating skills for another fight more worthy of your efforts.

x2x wrote:

Tony1244 wrote: I see what you're saying. Scott doesn't take a terrific shot and Wilder knows that.

That doesn't make sense to me. Scott was 35-1. How could Wilder have known he'd not get back up on his feet?

Sometimes fighters celebrate too early though. I've seen fighters act like the fight was over and then to their surprise it isn't.

Wilder wasn't just celebrating. He wasn't even looking. He was behaving as if he knew for a fact that Scott wasn't going to beat the count. How could he know that? Was that slap followed by a punch that I can't even see land, and even the hired cheerleading announcers expressed skepticism over, so "thunderous", that he could be so certain? Was Scott's fall to the ground so conclusive - the fall that Scott carefully let himself down into with his extended arm? Not that Wilder even looked. He was already strutting around the ring grinning.

If I don't respond to something, its probably because I'm lazy or something else just came up. I try not to run from a good debate.

OK cool. I think, though, that you should cut your losses on this one and save your debating skills for another fight more worthy of your efforts.

Cut my losses? Yeah right.

That will happen the day these guys admit the fight was fixed.

Tony1244 wrote:

x2x wrote:

Tony1244 wrote: I see what you're saying. Scott doesn't take a terrific shot and Wilder knows that.

That doesn't make sense to me. Scott was 35-1. How could Wilder have known he'd not get back up on his feet?

Sometimes fighters celebrate too early though. I've seen fighters act like the fight was over and then to their surprise it isn't.

Wilder wasn't just celebrating. He wasn't even looking. He was behaving as if he knew for a fact that Scott wasn't going to beat the count. How could he know that? Was that slap followed by a punch that I can't even see land, and even the hired cheerleading announcers expressed skepticism over, so "thunderous", that he could be so certain? Was Scott's fall to the ground so conclusive - the fall that Scott carefully let himself down into with his extended arm? Not that Wilder even looked. He was already strutting around the ring grinning.

If I don't respond to something, its probably because I'm lazy or something else just came up. I try not to run from a good debate.

OK cool. I think, though, that you should cut your losses on this one and save your debating skills for another fight more worthy of your efforts.

Cut my losses? Yeah right.

That will happen the day these guys admit the fight was fixed.

But Tony old pal they rarely do that, nor do they leave a paper trail. That's not the way the business works.

Here is an interesting excerpt about mafioso Frankie Carbo from Wikipedia:

Boxing Promoter

During the 1940s, Carbo became a boxing promoter, working along with Ettore "Eddie" Coco, James "Jimmy Doyle" Plumeri, Frank "Blinky" Palermo, Harry "Champ" Segal and Felix Bocchicchio.[2] The group was known as the "The Combination", together they were highly successful in fixing high-profile boxing matches. Carbo eventually became known as the "Czar of Boxing".[2][3]

In a 2002 interview with The Observer, Budd Schulberg talked about Carbo and his partner Palermo and their involvement in a 1954 welterweight championship fight.

"...Frankie Carbo, the mob's unofficial commissioner for boxing, controlled a lot of the welters and middles.... Not every fight was fixed, of course, but from time to time Carbo and his lieutenants, like Blinky Palermo in Philadelphia, would put the fix in. When the Kid Gavilan-Johnny Saxton fight was won by Saxton on a decision in Philadelphia in 1954, I was covering it for Sports Illustrated and wrote a piece at that time saying boxing was a dirty business and must be cleaned up now. It was an open secret. All the press knew that one - and other fights - were fixed. Gavilan was a mob-controlled fighter, too, and when he fought Billy Graham it was clear Graham had been robbed of the title. The decision would be bought. If it was close, the judges would shade it the way they had been told."[4]

Saxton was managed by Blinky Palermo. After losing his title to Tony DeMarco in 1955, he would regain it in a 1955 title match against welterweight champ Carmen Basilio, another fight considered to be fixed.[5]

Sonny Liston[edit]
By 1959, Carbo and his partner Blinky Palermo owned a majority interest in the contract of heavyweight boxer Sonny Liston, who went on to win the World Heavyweight Championship in 1962. From the start of his pro career in 1953, Liston had been "owned" by St. Louis mobster John Vitale (mobster), who continued to own a stake in the boxer. At the time Palermo and Carbo acquired their interest in Liston, the notorious Carbo was imprisoned on Riker's Island, having been convicted of the undercover management of prize-fighters and unlicensed matchmaking.

According to both FBI and newspaper reports, Vitale and other mobsters "reportedly controlled Liston's contract",[6] with Vitale owning approximately twelve percent.[7] Liston fought 12 fights under the control of Carbo and Palermo.




Wikipedia also has a lot on Carbo's partner, Frank "Blinky" Palermo. There was a senate investigation into mob control of boxing in 1960. Carbo and Palermo took the fifth twenty five times. They didn't know nuthin about nuthin, see. Lots more on link below. Boxing has become much worse since 1960. No more senate investigations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Palermo

x2x wrote:Here's another one. Not exactly a famous fight, but the same formula. Not executed very well. Anyway, as Jack Bernstein would say, "The guy didn't come here to fall down!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwJYpdXmnwM

Great eye bug-out at 1:11!

Cutman Scabbers wrote:
Great eye bug-out at 1:11!

Ha ha! I am becoming a connoisseur of fake fights!