Re: how fake was the lamotta vs fox dive?
Whatever, he had a reason not to make a fool of his brother, even if they didn't get along well.
If we go by your logic, any unexpected loss had mafia involved. So who stood behind Lesnevich that he had beaten Fox twice (when in their first bout Fox was a 4 to 1 favorite, due to Lesnevich poor performances prior to that)? How was Palermo involved in Jake getting a title shot at Marcel Cerdan?
LaMotta had a reputation, but not a very big one at the time, not big enough, and not at light heavyweight, to be worth an offer of $100,000 to throw a fight.
You should read the definition of primary/secondary sources and how it is different from first-hand source. They are two different things. Jack Dempsey made a lot of first-hand claims in his multiple bios and auto-bios, which were contradicted by primary sources.
If you haven't read many write-ups from that time, you should spend some time doing that. Then you will indeed come to conclusion that almost every big fight was fixed one way or another, as the rumors were flying in the air most of the time. Why, most of the time they turned out to be bull****, but we'll still believe in them, or at least the ones that suit our opinion/mood/whatever. I repeat, the 1960 commission investigated not only his fight with Billy Fox, but also with Tony Janiro and with Marcel Cerdan. Both fights have must have been fixed by your logic, there were enough rumors to be worth to be investigated.
It's a double-edged blade. You have come up with not a single shred of a motive as to why LaMotta had done that. That certainly wasn't going to whiten his reputation, over a decade had gone and everybody forgot that he lost, but many cherished the memories that it was a fix, despite the lack of evidence. Why get back to it? If you are so familiar with the hearings, what did he say about the offer of $100,000 to lose the Janiro fight?
For every fight that was "found out" (yeah) to have been fixed, you can find ten bouts that had rumors flying in the air prior to the bout, but where there turned out to be no fix. You are using induction and deduction selectively. Sorry, that doesn't work.
As I said, Graziano stated that he was offered bribes for two of his bouts in 1946/1947 already. The same commission consequently investigated the LaMotta-Fox bout. Graziano didn't get killed, even though it was more dangerous than in 1960.
I don't deny it existed, all I'm doing is not accepting old-time stories blindly. Certainly not trusting LaMotta's words per se, without hearing more proof. There was revealed none, not even a testimony of his brother when there was no danger to either of them.