which era had the highest ratio of crooked top level fights?

[kingfisher3]

the lack of convictions makes much of this guesswork on my part, i have not included too many individual fights as it would distract from the question.

bareknucklers were fighting illegal fights with a low volume of illegal gambling(ringside basically), lots of room for foul play tho, although the loser(and often winner) tended to sustain obvious damage, i would think the early finishes/claimed injuries were the most suspect fights. the reporting on suspected fixed fights was vocal, to an extent that would be impossible today.

the early 1900's had a number of bouts that caused press scandal, they likely weren't all crooked but some must have been, lots of good points on this in the race based thread. referee's being sole judges makes a easy target for gamblers or managment looking for influence. the relatively low purses for most fights works both ways, fighters need money but they know they also need future fights so should be wary of making it too obvious.

20/30's to 50's the italian organised crime era, carnera had fights fixed for him, although his title win seems legit, also lamotta fox was in '47. standard logic says this era would have the most, but it also had more fights overall. i have seen a quote that over 50% of fights in NY in the 40's were fixed but that seems so high i dont believe it. the depression, and the poverty it caused must have led to name fighters needing the money and being influenced.

the 60's to 80's aint my favorite era of history, so i spent most of this morning reading about this, organised crime didn't seem have the same control as previously in america but was obviously still present. An italian crime boss is said to have owned a % of the middleweight title during this time. i could go on for ages about don king, sanctioning bodies and corruption but yous know it anyway(or search for some of senor pepe's threads)

90's to modern day, more legal gambling options allows fighters to collude without deciding the outcome, although mismatches(a basically decided outcome) are the obvious place to do this. haye harrison is the only fight ive been told would be fixed before hand that looked like it was(although the same guy told me haye would throw klitchsko but i didn't and dont believe that).
the rise of eastern european fighters has happened at the same time as the rise in eastern european organised crime, but they're slick and not media friendly like the N.american mob, so the obvious conclusions(that some of the fighters will have shady backers) can only be guessed at.

my conclusion: the highest % was probably around the 40's but i doubt its that much higher than throughout the rest of boxing history

[thistle1]

here's a 3 part YouTube interveiw with British Contender, Jock Taylor from the 1940s - 50s.

a good & interesting interveiw, he mentions it 'rightaway' in part 3...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

He mentions numerous times throughout about 'fixed' fights, and you can't win, and don't take the fight. I know well about these matters from my own research and it wasn't just in America, Britain was swimming in it, and still does.

[frankenfrank]

D 1980s had Don King manipul8ing d HWs, d 1960s-1970s had d holy trinity of Mirena , King , Ali . d 1990s had fights like Liles vs Littles #2 (jast watched it 2day), Bernard Hopkins fights, Jones vs Griffin #2, Jones vs Griffin #1 (which ultim8ly ended uncrookedly thanks 2 Larry Hazard), and Bert Cooper's "losses" 2 Moorer&Holyfield which both came due 2 a repeat of Clay vs Henry Cooper #1.


But, I believe that d most crooked era was d "old times" b4 WW1 and maybe a bit past it which will simply remain mainly unknown. Well, maybe it was Lamotta's, Satterfield's and Markegiano's era.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by kingfisher3

the lack of convictions makes much of this guesswork on my part, i have not included too many individual fights as it would distract from the question.

bareknucklers were fighting illegal fights with a low volume of illegal gambling(ringside basically), lots of room for foul play tho, although the loser(and often winner) tended to sustain obvious damage, i would think the early finishes/claimed injuries were the most suspect fights. the reporting on suspected fixed fights was vocal, to an extent that would be impossible today.

the early 1900's had a number of bouts that caused press scandal, they likely weren't all crooked but some must have been, lots of good points on this in the race based thread. referee's being sole judges makes a easy target for gamblers or managment looking for influence. the relatively low purses for most fights works both ways, fighters need money but they know they also need future fights so should be wary of making it too obvious.

20/30's to 50's the italian organised crime era, carnera had fights fixed for him, although his title win seems legit, also lamotta fox was in '47. standard logic says this era would have the most, but it also had more fights overall. i have seen a quote that over 50% of fights in NY in the 40's were fixed but that seems so high i dont believe it. the depression, and the poverty it caused must have led to name fighters needing the money and being influenced.

the 60's to 80's aint my favorite era of history, so i spent most of this morning reading about this, organised crime didn't seem have the same control as previously in america but was obviously still present. An italian crime boss is said to have owned a % of the middleweight title during this time. i could go on for ages about don king, sanctioning bodies and corruption but yous know it anyway(or search for some of senor pepe's threads)

90's to modern day, more legal gambling options allows fighters to collude without deciding the outcome, although mismatches(a basically decided outcome) are the obvious place to do this. haye harrison is the only fight ive been told would be fixed before hand that looked like it was(although the same guy told me haye would throw klitchsko but i didn't and dont believe that).
the rise of eastern european fighters has happened at the same time as the rise in eastern european organised crime, but they're slick and not media friendly like the N.american mob, so the obvious conclusions(that some of the fighters will have shady backers) can only be guessed at.

my conclusion: the highest % was probably around the 40's but i doubt its that much higher than throughout the rest of boxing history

Late 1890's eary 1900's, and the late 40's early 50's.
"Jacobs Beach" is a good read on the latter.

[jdempsey85]

Only last week betting was suspended on a uk title fight involving
Curtis Woodhouse vs Shayne Singleton after irregular betting patterns were found.

Most ringside observers had woodhouse winning 8 rounds to 2

Shayne Singleton won on sd

[rantcatrat]

Good thread. I'll check out Jacob's beach.

[rantcatrat]

I haven't read it, but perhaps Barney Nagler's James Norris and the Decline of Boxing would provide a good view into the fifties' crooked fights.

[Vockerman]

Which era had the highest ratio of crooked top level fights?

The Current Era - everyone is juiced to the gills fighting at 1/4 lbs catch weights with weigh in three or four days early so Welterweights come in the ring over 160 and the scoring looks like it is done by a little old lady sunday school class. Don't get me started on the ref's either, they let one guy damn near get killed in the ring and stop another for a flash KD that he is up at 4 on. The alphabet soup constant corruption concerning ratings for a shot at a title seems to be based mostly on hearsay and not actual real life performance in the ring. How can anyone possibly defend this "modern" mess we call Professional Boxing? All this crap is why MMA is even a major sport. IS it really more exciting to watch two grown men play grabass? No - Boxing is just too crooked to be entertaining anymore... Even when (if?) you get the champ off his yearlong vacation to fight some luckless halfwit recently made a contender because the REAL fighters are to dangerous and not big draws... There has always been and will likely always be some corrupt BS in any major money sport, but the current modern level of crooked crap is absurd and detremental to the continued existance of the sport.

[thistle1]

Originally Posted by Vockerman

Which era had the highest ratio of crooked top level fights?

The Current Era - everyone is juiced to the gills fighting at 1/4 lbs catch weights with weigh in three or four days early so Welterweights come in the ring over 160 and the scoring looks like it is done by a little old lady sunday school class. Don't get me started on the ref's either, they let one guy damn near get killed in the ring and stop another for a flash KD that he is up at 4 on. The alphabet soup constant corruption concerning ratings for a shot at a title seems to be based mostly on hearsay and not actual real life performance in the ring. How can anyone possibly defend this "modern" mess we call Professional Boxing? All this crap is why MMA is even a major sport. IS it really more exciting to watch two grown men play grabass? No - Boxing is just too crooked to be entertaining anymore... Even when (if?) you get the champ off his yearlong vacation to fight some luckless halfwit recently made a contender because the REAL fighters are to dangerous and not big draws... There has always been and will likely always be some corrupt BS in any major money sport, but the current modern level of crooked crap is absurd and detremental to the continued existance of the sport.

Yes, your right!

maybe this is the most corrupt time in the sport.

every fucken fights a 'title' fight, don't Contenders ever fight anymore to ligitimately climb up the ranks. you know it's so hard to take as it is, but just reading your post here has brought it all home.

Boxing fucken sucks!!!

[BillB]

I don't know which era was the worst.

Mobsters Frankie Carbo and Blinky Palermo controlled most of the welter and middleweight fights during the '40s and '50s. Kid Gavalan fought a number of fixed fights under Carbo. Carbo also owned Liston for a while.

I don't think Marciano and Patterson fought fixed fights. Marciano said he was offered more money than he had ever seen before to throw the Cockell fight and turned it down. I believe him.

I think the Liston-Clay fights were fixed- I'm certain the second one was.

I believe Ali fought several other fixed fights. I don't think his opponents threw the fights, but I think the judges and ref were in the tank.

Worst era- Who knows. Maybe they were all the same including now.

[thistle1]

Britain GRAVED the Big Boy titles, so Soloman & Co pitchin for Cockell is not surprising at all. I said early in the thread, British boxing was/is swimming in filth!