Fixed Fight series part 2 Larry Holmes

I'll cut you.

 

I am keen to hear conspiracy theories in boxing so dont stop wih the theories just dont dress them up as fact.

Norton was not selected as a champion to deliver a belt to the mafia. Norton remained the top contender since his close loss to Ali and win over Jimmy Young. He remained the fighter to beat to become regarded as the best heavyweight in the world because Ali blew his title to an unranked kid whilst Norton could still beat contenders. Nobody was regarded better at that time. Nobody dug norton up. He was current. Holmes beat shavers and Tiger Williams to get his ranking. Nobody dived in either fight. Thats more than Spinks and Evangelista ever did to earn a shot and they both got title shots too.

Holmes beat Norton. I dont think it was close but accept many think it was close. Norton blew his rematch when he was blown away by shavers who got the shot instead.Shavers was a good challenger.

The fact that King and the WBA orchestrated a paralel championship along side Holmes and keeping both belts separate has more to do with King making more from running 2 heavyweight championshilps simultaneously than Holmes ducking the best men.

Beating weaver, witherspoon, bey, berbick and smith allowed Holmes not only to beat future title claiments but also prove superiority over other claiments thay beat that Holmes did not fight like Tate, Thomas and page. All of the alternative chapions to Holmes could not string enough championship wins together to build a showdown with Holmes anyway.

I think King wanted to build Page for a showdown with Holmes but he could not beat Witherspoon. He also wanted to build Coetzee but he couldnt win a title and when he did he lost to Page! Likewise Thomas blew his title to Berbick (who Holmes already beat) and up to the HBO serries the entire paralel run of WBA champs started and ended with men Holmes beat. Tyson had to beat Holmes victims to win two titles. Was Tyson a paper champion too?

I am sure King talked Holmes into paying the WBC, I am sure Holmes felt he had to do what was necessary. All professional sport is full of coruption and stories of governing bodies making rules that are more about making money for the non participants of the sport. There will always be monopolies. There always has been. In all walks of life there are closed doors unless you have the right freinds.

 

The only fights that Holmes had that could be disputed as champion were the Witherspoon, Truth Williams and the Spinks fights. Thats a 2-2 record, hardly much value for $5000 when champions are expected to get the advantage. Maybe he should have paid more! The two Holmes did not get the benefit were under the mafia run IBF.

Joe Louis had to hand over 25% of himself to "Braddock". I dont doubt most champions have had to pay protection or employ certain people. the IBC and the managers guild were under the mafia banner. They dont all carry guns but its the same thing. Holmes paying the WBC because he was told to is not unlike every manager who ever got their fighter rated having to take people to lunch. It is not a pay off to ensure results.

When Holmes fought Scott Frank he was told to employ Jersey Joe Walcott in some kind of bull**** "no show capacity" all because that was the deal if he fought at that particular casino. He did not want to employ him. Was Walcott dirty? I doubt it but he proberbly was owed something or "his people" were owed something from unofficial partners somewhere down the line and that was their way of doing business. Fighters are mascots a lot of the time for people who helped or had part of them along the way. Its just how it is.

 

You know it as a fact?

Were you a judge paid by Holmes or his backers? Or were you the one who on behalf of Holmes paid the judges? Or did you happen to be on the same room when that happened and heard everything?

And no, saying that you've been told about somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody is not credible evidence, it is hearsay.


What are your sources? Tell us the books you've read, and the credible newspaper articles that says that those people admitted, or if not, those close to them, those in a position to know if these things indeed happened. Link to it, so we may see your evidence, and judge for ourselves. If you think your case is so strong, you'll show it to us.

Show us the bank account details of Larry Holmes, his handlers, the IBF, etc, to trace the cash flow. You know, actual evidence, rather than conjecture.

Do you have videotaped testimony of those judges admitting that they took bribes?

Unless you have those, you cannot say that that is fact.

Larry Holmes is an American. A heavyweight boxer. That is fact.

Larry Holmes is a jerk and a meanie. That is just opinion.

Larry Holmes participated in fixed fights. Speculation and opinion. Which unless backed by definite proof, will remain just that. Just like Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and, of course, WWE is real.

What you've say is just speculation.

 

Which "a lot" of those fights did he lose and get an unjust opinion. Look up his record, idiot.

And show me a conviction -- you say the feds wiretapped Larry and targeted him and claim proof that he broke laws and was tied in with the mob. First you claim to know this first-hand, like you were the bagman, then you post snippets of articles instead.

WHICH judge did he pay? Cash or check? Where did the handoff take place?

If he broke the law, surely I missed the trial.

 

How do we know which is which?
We don't.
We love boxing and we like to think it's mostly on the up and up. We try to explain away the obvious fixes.

Ali who never one punch KOed anyone, knocked out the baddest MF on the planet with a fly swat. Right?

 

Tell us EXACTLY what you witnessed: names, dates, places.

If you saw half of what you say you saw, that should be easy. In fact, I'm wondering why you didn't go to the FBI and become a witness.

 

Hey, dumbass, it doesnt work like this: "Santa Claus is real, prove me wrong." It works like this: "Santa Claus is real and here is the proof." You are offering nothing and telling us to trust you because you were there. Im sure I speak for most when I say dont be surprised that you are met with skepticism by posting all of this anonymously on the internet 30 years after the fact.

By the way, you were there 30 years ago and you are still worried about it ruining your boxing ability and your ability to get a gym membership (haha)? Who are you Saoul Mamby? Thirty plus years in the sport, thats quite a career for an internet troll.

 

A fixed fight is when one of the fighter is in on it.

An unpopular decision is when the judges go with what the majority feel is the wrong choice of winner. An unpopular decision is not always the wrong decision. If a hometown blue eyed boy is corectly outpointed in front of his town it will go down as unpopular with the locals. The reverse happens and that stinks but it will always go on.

Judges and officials often do show biase and so do fight crowds. So do promoters and TV company's. Most fighters are aware and prepare for this.

A fixed fixed fight is so different.