Fights were a guy had the right gameplan/did the right things but still lost clearly

[The Old LefHook]

Judges not referees!

Judges know where their bread is buttered.

Deliever and there is more work.

Not every 'shaping' of a fight is a 'fix.' - but if you speak in such hyperbole not only do you get to discredit without substance, but also get to jump right to the word 'conspiracy.'

When you throw those two words around loosely you can, at least in your own mind, debunk any argument you might disagree with.

Maybe we need a 'Godwin's Rule' for using the word 'fix' in prize fighting. Call it 'reverse tin foil hat thinking.'

Or better, try a little nuance, reality just might come in a little clearer.

Even better yet try looking a little deeper into Kid Gavilan's career. From court testimony we know that for the first Bratton fight in 1951 the IBC made it clear to the judges that if Gavilan was still on his feet at the end of 15 the title was to be his.

Gavilan's people were connected and were kicking back $.

But four years later, aftering wearing out his welcome with too many TV appearances and unexciting decision wins, the IBC flipped the rules around.

In 1954 it was Saxton, who, if still on his feet after 15 rounds, was to get the decision.

They say Kid Gavilan ran to the locker room after the decision and literally cried, never understanding that he had both gained and was robbed by the same interference.

You need a better understanding of the power of promoters over judges on close decision fights.

We didn't invent the term 'house corner' because they were writing a Hollywood script. No, they coined the term because the nuance was recognizable and at times is even confirmed when it came spilling out in court hearings.

You seriously believe that promoters and broadcasters don't influence decisions?

I thought we were talking about Clay. You are finding refuge in the gangster days of yore. We know lots of those fights were fixed because shaping was not a sure thing. People are so much cleaner now (Ha! Ha!) than the olden days.

I say Clay's record in close fights is down to being the most recognizable man in the world and perhaps the most popular at the time. The judges were mesmerized like a lot of other people. Clay's ring generalship extended right out of the ring and down into the minds of the judges and crowd, and to remote viewers as well. He was so much bigger than regular people and other boxers. They call it "love, adulation, idolatry." They call it ring genius.

I believe some fights are fixed, and even more are shaped. Now somebody tries to put the shape on every big fight, I am sure. They might only succeed in getting a referee who breaks up clinches right away. The other side is trying to shape too. What is the limitation of gloves that may be chosen, if it is not shaping? I think shaping is always present in boxing, but fixing is only available sometimes.

Now if we were talking about politicians instead of boxers, there would be no disagreement. Those are the experts in shaping and fixing elections and perceptions.

[Anthony342]

Weeel...the one I like BEST is the "fight" in which 15 year old Mike Tyson is "fighting" Joe Cortez. Joe prances out, hande is proper position and BOOM, 8 seconds and he's flat on his back in dreamland and they're calling for the oxygen..

I originally though it was the referee that we all love to hate, "i'm fair but I'm firm", but although the guy actually looks very like him, it was a different Joe Cortez.

The ref..his "hair" was fair....maybe... but we never saw it, and his "mind" was firm, ...but we never saw that either.

Is there video of this?

[Willie Pep 229]

I thought we were talking about Clay. You are finding refuge in the gangster days of yore. We know lots of those fights were fixed because shaping was not a sure thing. People are so much cleaner now (Ha! Ha!) than the olden days.

I say Clay's record in close fights is down to being the most recognizable man in the world and perhaps the most popular at the time. The judges were mesmerized like a lot of other people. Clay's ring generalship extended right out of the ring and down into the minds of the judges and crowd, and to remote viewers as well. He was so much bigger than regular people and other boxers. They call it "love, adulation, idolatry." They call it ring genius.

I believe some fights are fixed, and even more are shaped. Now somebody tries to put the shape on every big fight, I am sure. They might only succeed in getting a referee who breaks up clinches right away. The other side is trying to shape too. What is the limitation of gloves that may be chosen, if it is not shaping? I think shaping is always present in boxing, but fixing is only available sometimes.

Now if we were talking about politicians instead of boxers, there would be no disagreement. Those are the experts in shaping and fixing elections and perceptions.

We're not really far apart on any of this - we're seeing the same thing and calling it different.

RE: Bold Face 1- Yes that is what I am saying about about Ali and why those decisions went his way.

RE: Bold Face 2 - That's what I was trying to say.

Do you think Don King had any influence on decisions?

I believe promoters and broadcasters influence fights with 'judge' approval. Even if it ain't official approval, it's there.

I left Ali and went back to the 1950 gangsters because I could, (because of the FBI investigations and subsequent convictions,) offer more than just conjecture.

With Ali I couldn't do that. With Ali all we can do is speculate. But the history of the fight game doesn't disallow the corruption I suggest, but in turn supports it.

[QueensburyRules]

Yea even when he wasn't champion he was treated by the judges as if he was.

You wanted a decision over Ali you had to beat him clearly (Norton I). They just weren't giving close decisions to the other guy, e.g. the above mentioned along with Norton III, all could have gone the other way, but not against the 'Greatest.'

Too much money on the table to throw away a cash cow like Ali on a close fight. And all the above mentioned were close fights. Close enough that with a stroke of a pen, they could keep the dream ($$$$) alive.

This is prize fighting, not some silly sport concerned with silly things like 'fairness.'

Prize Fighting = $$$$$

You want the close decisions to go your way? Put asses in the seats or take it out of the judges' hands.

Norton, Lyle, Young didn't have enough to do either, so they were put aside.

Tough game! Never claimed to be anything but.

- - Team Ali did Big George a favor by freezing him out of the title picture. That allowed George to mature away from boxing to set the stage for his storied comeback.

[The Old LefHook]

You have a point about King influencing decisions. I am sure he has. You couldn't put anything past him to protect his interests--fixing, shaping, bribery, blackmail. I hope most promoters only indulge in a little shaping tug-of-war. Fortunately, most fights are not worth fixing--i.e. it is not cost effective on small fights unless you are protecting a hot prospect. A little fixing and a lot of shaping go a long ways for those with the technique.

[Willie Pep 229]

I like to save the phrase 'fixed fight' for the real fixes. Fights where one of the fighters is cross.

Fix fights (to me) are when the gangsters set it up to rob the gamblers.

These types of fights are pretty rare especially today with there being so much money on the table if you win.

This comes into play because you have to fix a fight that has ******** action attached to it, which means it has to be a top shelf fight. That then takes us back to the dilemma of how can one possibly buy off a top shelf fighter when there is so much money in winning.

With that, most corruption in the fight game today has to do with what happens outside the ring. PEDs of course is the biggest problem today, but it is the influences of promoters and scantioning bodies, that abuse fighters financially today.

Crooked judging has been a problem ever since they decided to start scoring fights, but I believe over the past century+ the biggest corruption really came from 'getting fights signed.'

Going back to the gangster days again, when corruption was still pure, the IBC's power laid not in who would win a fight but who would get the TV appearances or who would get the shot at the title.

The IBC was not a scantioning body, it was a 'labor union' for fight managers. By playing on the 'close shop' laws in important States, e.g. NY, CA, ETC, they could force venues (and indirectly broadcasters as well) to only use fighters signed with 'unionized' managers. (Enter Jim Norris.)The IBC then collected dues and fees (kick backs) from all the parties involved: promoters, managers, broadcasters, and the fighters.

There weren't too many actual 'tanked' fights. Difficult to pull off and obvious to the viewers it proved better to take a little bit from everyone for every fight, for a decade, now that's real money.

P.S. I put 'labor union' in quotes because the Feds in the end refuse to recognize the IBC as a true union (disallowing Wagner Act protection) and eventually busted 'the octopus' up with anti-trust laws.

[GhostofDempsey]

There needs to be a distinction made between fighters who fought their best fight and came up short because they were out-boxed, and those who fought their best fight and were robbed on the scorecards or victims of a fix. While others seem to abandon what works for them midway through a fight and give the fight away--which is what we saw with Zab vs. Floyd.

Most fighters aren't capable of making the needed adjustments to defeat an opponent, they learn what they have in the gym and it's either going to be enough or it isn't. No version of Holyfield was going to defeat Lewis. Toney could not have done anything different to defeat Jones. He's a defensive counter-puncher and his game plan was to catch Jones on counters, but Jones had superior reflexes and hand speed which won the day. Toney wasn't a high-volume pressure fighter, and that's what it would have taken to back Jones to the ropes and take away some of his leverage.

Leonard did everything right in his first fight with Duran, but still fell short. He was simply out-boxed by Duran.