Tyson-Holyfield-2.
Golota-Bowe-1-2.
The most scandalous case in fight for a title. Your opinion.
Golota-Bowe-1-2.
The most scandalous case in fight for a title. Your opinion.
-
-
Originally posted by Great
Holyfield vs Lewis was pretty controversial
The most in my book would have to be:
Jack Dempsey vs Jess Willard if you know the fight im sure you know the story that surrounds it. -
I know, certainly. But precisely it is not proved.Originally posted by spinksjinx
The dirtiest cases in a ring (title fights). I speak about the facts. For example, all saw, how Tyson has bitten an ear of Evander.Comment
-
Both the "Plaster of Paris" and the "Dempsey had a metal rod is his hand" stories have both been proven to be untrue. Not to mention the injuries Willard "supposedly" recieved from that fight have also been proven to be grossly exaggerated.Originally posted by GreatComment
-
Golota-Ruiz
I don't know how controversial it is, But I do think that there was something going on with the judges there, alot of people have different opinions, But I think that Golota definitely won that fight.
Comment
-
What weighty proofs?Originally posted by YogiComment
-
foreman- axel shultz(spelling?)
thats shultz dude beat foreman easy and they handed that match and the title to foremanComment
-
Why do you feel that Bowe vs Golota was scandalous?Originally posted by GreatComment
-
Lots of proof, but without getting into details, I sum it up like this;Originally posted by Great
First off, among others Willard's chief second observed Dempsey's hands being wrapped in the dressing room. Secondly, the full fight footage shows Dempsey coming into the ring without gloves on, and going over to the referee and shaking his hand (and the ref definately would've noticed something). And thirdly, Sports Illustrated, right after Jack Kearn's "confession" (which should be meaningless, considering him and Dempsey had a bad falling out while Dempsey was still fighting), did a study by putting Plaster of Paris on the hand wraps of the hard hitting, Cleveland Williams, and the study shows the plaster would not be able to stay intact while punching with the force of Williams or Dempsey. And also, Dempsey took off his gloves and had his wraps cut off (which would be next to impossible to cut off with plaster on it) in front of many eye witnesses on both sides.
Kearns made up that "Plaster of Paris" story, as he needed the money, and since him and Dempsey were on each other's bad side, he didn't care what the consequences were.
And that "metal rod" story that said Dempsey dropped something in the corner after the first round (there's two versions shown, one with Dempsey appearing not to drop something, and one that appears he did drop something, which was edited by a member of Willard's family), is easily disputed by watching the fight. There's many instances in the first round where Dempsey grabs the ropes with one hand, then the other (which are open, and happen after various knockdowns), and that would be impossible to do if Jack was holding onto something in either of them.
Willard's injuries were examined by a man who wasn't even a doctor, and those are the injuries that the press got a hold of. But if those injuries had any truth to them (a number of broken bones in his jaw), do you think Willard would've been able to do a newspaper interview, the day after the fight took place? The obvious answer is no, because if you had that many broken bones in your jaw (reportedly a dozen), there's no chance of you speaking to anybody for quite awhile, yet that is exactly what Willard did the very next day.
Jack Kearns was a money hungry bull****ter, the fight film dispells the metal rod theory, and Willard's injuries were exaggerated by someone who wasn't even a doctor.
That about sums it up, but if you want more specifics, just ask.Comment
Comment