Originally Posted by Senya13
I'd advise you to look up Fox's hometown, and think when do people from that town come to see the fight? As I said, two commissions investigated the bout, and they obviously looked to find suspicuous bettors who'd offer enormously large sums on Fox, but they didn't find anything.
He discusses it during the hearing in June 1960? Do you have a link? If he accepted to take a dive, why did he not take the $100,000, and why did he have to pay $20,000 to get a title shot?
Joey had several decades after that to admit or refute the thing. If he admitted it in 1960, he'd have endangerd himself. If he refuted it, he'd have endangered his own brother for false testimony. I'm not shooting anyone.
Fox was ranked in Top 10 at light heavy, and wasn't about to lose his ranking. LaMotta was ranked in Top 10 at middleweight, if I recall correctly.
I'm not denying it, but there's no evidence at all except LaMotta's vague (I didn't do anything, my brother arranged everything, I forgot the names and everything) testimony. And there's hard proof (not refuted by Jake himself) of an injury which could not do otherwise than make him fight timid, punching very little and not rushing as was usual for him.
I never denied there was a fix. Why would I if I were not born yet when the fight had taken place and I have never met anybody involved in it. Only people who were there and were directly involved can deny or admit anything. I can only serve as a judge and evaluate the evidence to come to conclusion. If your legal system is different that doesn't mean I can't evaluate the facts or other evidence to prove one or the other version more or less probable. The same way the judges in your and my country do.
Once again you dont know what you are talking about. Joey never refuted it. By the time he died he couldnt have been prosecuted for it and neither could his brother, so your little theory is flawed.
A link? No, go to the library of congress, order a copy, and be enlightened. Dont be content with just sitting on your ass and waiting for it to pop up on youtube. Your problem is you are limited to what you can find on the internet when that isnt even 1/10 of what is available.
Just because a half assed investigation didnt find anything doesnt mean it didnt happen. How do you prove it? Have you read about the DA's invesitigation? Everybody refused to talk, or denied it, as would be expected. You say they would follow a betting trail. Back to what? The people who won? Ok, once you find them they have to be willing to talk. If you have no witnesses, no body, and no smoking gun you cant really do anything. LaMotta was fined and suspended for 7 months for not reporting his spleen injury. Years later his sparring partner said the fight was an obvious fix. He never mentioned anything about LaMotta being in such bad shape from the injury that he couldnt even spar, yet he was a kitten against Fox, so bad that several New York papers reported the fight as an obvious fix and prompted an investigation. James Dawson, Lester Bromberg, Dan Parker, Jim Jennings, were all outraged by the fight. You realize that the Kefauver hearings didnt directly impact boxing either despite the tesimony of numerous fighters and managers going back to the 1920s of organized crime involvement in the sport, including direct testimony given of fixes, you do realize that right?
You also realize that Carbo and Palermo werent caught until a year after the Kefauver Hearings in a sting set up as a independant operation by the Los Angeles Police Department for Carbo and Palermo's violation of the Hobbs Act. Had nothing to do with the Kefauver hearings, but was the direct result of an investigation going back two or three years into an attempt to strong arm Don Jordan and his manager.
What is your point about Fox's ranking? Fox had already been beaten by Lesnevich once convincingly. They needed to legitimize another title shot for him and being the first guy to stop LaMotta would add some legitimacy. That was the thinking anyway. I guess you think all of Fox's fights were legitimate. Or maybe you think all of them except this one were fixed? Too many people who know far more about the sport and this period of boxing disagree with you to give your misguided claims any credence.
You say you can only serve as a judge and evaluate the evidence before you but you obviously dont have all of the evidence and arent looking at what evidence you do have with a correct frame of reference.