Originally Posted by Senya13
I express my opinion, no more, no less. If Joey admitted there was a fix later (many-many years after 1960), it'd be accepted with "we knew it". If he admitted there was no fix, it's hurt his relationships with his brother as well as hurt Jake's reputation, that he lied all this time. Silence can be interpreted too.
Three investigations started immediately or soon after the bout, two of which were looking into that particular bout only vs. general anti-mafia investigation more than a decade later that didn't find any proof of a fix except Jake's words, some of which he even took back. Let me see, what should I trust more? If somebody is naive here, it's not me.
Things like this are conspiracy theories, that contradict the principle of Occam's razor.
I repeat, LaMotta was a middleweight, who was thought to have gone back after making 154 1/2 pounds for Janiro fight (which bout also was investigated as being a fix, same as Marcel Cerdan bout). LaMotta had just lost to Cecil Hudson prior to Fox bout. Give me a break with your stories about his immense reputation at the time.
You didn't seem to read what I wrote. I said he was waiting for counters. Fox was fighting at long range at the time, something that didn't suit LaMotta, thus he invited him to come in close. Fox didn't do that, Jake figured his trick didn't work and didn't do it again. How would he counter if the opponent didn't get tricked and didn't come closer?
I know plenty about the crime in boxing at the time. I also know logic and theory of knowledge very well, and have a lot of experience in historical research so as not to trust somebody's words without seeing actual evidence, and to have less faith in secondary sources than in primary ones. I certainly don't trust Jake LaMotta's words as blindly as you do, and have done plenty of my own research on this bout using multiple primary local sources.
Why would Joey care about Jakes feelings. They didnt get along later in life and rarely spoke.
Ive already covered the investigations. If you choose to believe a failed investigation is proof of anything fine. Enlighten us on the results of the general investigation into organized crime's involvement in boxingn in 1948. What did they find? Nothing. Oh well, I guess organized crime had absolutely no involvement in boxing then. Thats good to know. Poor Carbo, Dragna, Palermo and all those other gangsters must have been sent up the river unjustly and were just as pure as the driven snow. Or maybe they just didnt get involved in boxing until much later than is commonly accepted or was testified to later on everyone who knew the inside story. Talk about burying your head in the sand.
So now LaMotta had no reputation? He had a loss but he was also a top ten middleweight, and had been for years, usually right near the top. He weighed 167 for Fox in a fight that the winner was going to get a title shot at Lesnevich. The winner being Fox, as it was prearranged... But thats ok, according to you he had no reputation.
You say you wont listen to secondary sources but you wont listen to any first hand sources either. You ignore LaMotta, you ignore Fox, you ignore the plethora of writers who thought it was a fix and reported on it both before the fight and after. Instead you latch onto Joeys silence, and an investigation that went nowhere, and pick and choose tidbits from articles that only suit your argument. For a guy with so much background in historical research you dont sound very reliable. Who is positing conspiracy theories?
You have never once given any shred of a motive as to why LaMotta would concoct such a story which not only made him look bad but also threatened his safety. He never made any excuses about any other losses that I can see. So why do that? If he was just trying to save face for a loss why go before the Kefauver hearings and testify under oath? Why go through everything he went through for a story? Have you seen the kefauver hearings? Have you seen how those went for him? I doubt it. If you had I dont think you would question this or the impact that it had on him.
Do you think Ike Williams wasnt offered a bribe to throw a fight to Gavilan? Or that Carmen Basilio didnt pay for his title shot? Or any of the other dozens of revelations that came out in those hearings? What about Robinson's claim that he was offered a bribe to throw the Graziano fight? Or Graziano's claim of a bribe? Did Ray Arcel lie about the death threats and eventual attack he was a victim of when trying to go up against these guys for TV rights? Was Cus Damato just crazy when he slept with his bed blocking his bedroom door and loaded shotgun next to him when he tried to break their monopoly? For every one of those instances there are a dozen more at least that I havent named and probably a dozen for each of those that went unreported. Why would these guys lie about it? I guess it was just vogue to make up meaningless claims under oath about guys who could kill you.
You come off as one of those people from this time period who refused to acknowledge that organized crime even existed.