LaMotta and the mob

I disagree with the premise. I think he resisted beyond what most anyone would, broke and regretted it for the rest of his life.

 

True enough i guess if you buy that he wouldn't know. I dont see who he would needed help with prior to Fox, and he had too much heat post Fox.

 

"The mob" (or more accurately, some individual mobsters) controlled most the top fighters in those days anyway.
I don't think they were especially concerned with fixing fights, no more than modern promoters are anyway.
Yes, LaMotta might have had some fights fixed in his favour. You can say that about every fighter though, then and now.

 

LaMotta was as clean as person could be in a day when you either played ball or went no place. In those days, a champion did not have to fight his #1 contender if he did not want to. LaMotta never would have gotten a title fight if he did not take a dive for Fox. Graziano told him over and over to play ball and make a lot of money, but Jake was very stubborn. I can't think of any fights that were fixed in Jake's favor. Graziano used to say "you want a lot of a little or a little of a lot" meaning a small percentage of a huge check is better then clearing and keeping a stinking $5000 purse.

 

There's no "clearly" regarding LaMotta-Fox fight. That he lost the fight because of a confirmed injury is just as believable an explanation.

 

Oh boy. Here we go with Senyas crazy alternate realities. I guess he was just so embarrassed that he lost that fight "on a confirmed injury" that he went before congress, lied facing perjury charges, placed his life at risk by implicating the mob in his loss, and became a pariah in the sport for over a decade rather than have people believe he lost that fight on its merits. Go watch that testimony and read about its outcome and what led up to it and tell me with a straight face he didnt throw that fight.

 

Go read the results of the first official investigation by the boxing or athletic (don't remember which) commission and tell me with a straight face they didn't know s*** and the results of the investigation and the reports of the injury were bogus and LaMotta had no injury going into the fight that could affect his performance.

 

How many "official investigations" have EVER confirmed a fixed fight?

I didnt think so. LaMottas whole point in the senate investigation was that he knew he had an injury (and thats if you believe whatever doctor he got to cover his ass) and any other time he would have postponed but seeing as how he agreed to throw the fight he saw it as a perfect excuse to use for losing. Like I said, why exactly would he go before the senate in one of the most publicized investigations of its history and willing put his reputation and life at risk by saying he took a dive in ONE of his several losses if he didnt and if he had the ready excuse of an injury? If he was so worried about his record why not say he threw 6 fights? Why that one specifically that just so happened to help a mob controlled fraud gain a title shot?

 

The investigation concluded that LaMotta concealed an injury. I don't think LaMotta ever denied having an injury afterwards. The senate just wanted proof for the accusations made against the mob, it didn't investigate anything regarding this fight as far as I know, it only had LaMotta's testimonial, it didn't investigate whether the injury could be the cause of LaMotta's loss, it wasn't their goal to find out the truth.

 

And simply having an injury doesnt prove that Lamotta wasnt paid to lay down either with money, a title shot, or both (as he testified). You are going to believe what you want but the rumor of a fix was in before the fight and written about, nearly everyone live thought it was a fix and that LaMotta was faking, LaMotta himself later confirmed not only the fix but all of the details about how it transpired with a lot more to lose by doing so than to gain. If you want to believe LaMotta went into that fight with a supposed injury intending to win so be it but you csnt have it both ways, either he knowingly went into a fight with an injury serious enough to prevent any chance of winning (in short he went in to lose) or he was bribed to lose with or without the injury. Either way your belief that Billy Fox beat Jake LaMotta in a fight fought on its merits doesnt hold water.

You can hide behind the commissions investigation but again how many investigations into fixed fights have ever proven a fight was fixed regardless of how much smoke there was. Very few, because as any boxing fan knows fixes are very very hard to prove. The other issue is exactly how bad the commission wanted to uncover corruption rooted in their state. Those same men knowingly allowed the sport to get rapidly taken over by mobsters rooted in their state so how hard were they really trying to shed light on the fact that they had very little control over the sport and how much of the spleen injury was damage control to placate crusader journalists like Dan Parker who were shouting from the rooftops about a fix and corruption in NY boxing?

 

I could counter your polints, but don't care to do so when debating with you, you obviously have no wish to listen, not in your character.

But there are two points I want to make clear:

1) The fix may or may not have been the reason LaMotta lost that fight. There's high probability he couldn't win it or last the distance if he wanted to.

2) There are two versions, which have pros and cons. Neither version has been proved false. It's only a matter of which one sounds more convincing to you. But you can't outright dismiss the other one, it doesn't, or rather shouldn't work that way if you are doing your research honestly and objectively. That is my main point, not just regarding this particular fight, but any situation. Do I think Gans-McGovern was fixed? I do. But I would never have used words "definitely" or "certainly" regarding it. And if I ever deside to do a write-up on that fight, I would provide reasoning for both versions, fix or no-fix, let the reader deside for himself and would express my willingness to listen to counter-reasoning. Same thing regarding LaMotta-Fox.

 

Theres only one of us who is ignoring the majority of first and second hand accounts and taking a weak "investigation" as evidence that that the fight was fought on its merits. There is only one of us acknowledging both sides of the story. You are the one who came on here saying that it was believable that LaMotta lost the fight not because of a fix but because of an injury. I explained both the injury (if we are even to believe such was the case) as well as some of the other factors. Its laughable that you talk about presenting both sides of the story but routinely downplay any aspect that doesn't jive with your alternative reality.

You can say that LaMotta might not have won without a fix due to the injury but if IF there really was an injury to his spleen the simple fact that he took a fight in which he was so impaired as render him not only comically ineffective but also unable to finish four rounds begs the question why ANYONE would take that fight. If he was really that sick to the point that he was that unable to defend himself he was not only risking a loss (if you really believe he went into the fight to win) but also serious bodily injury (unless of course he planned to quit early). The best explanation for him fighting with such an injury if such an injury existed is the fix. Otherwise we have to believe the injury wasn't that bad and he just tanked it or he didn't have an injury and tanked it anyway. And again, that's if you even believe the injured spleen story. That came from LaMotta and his personal physician. Dr.Vincent Nardiello examined LaMotta before the fight and declared him in perfect condition. Anyone who has ever seen any of the films of those old physicals can tell you that one of the things they do is lay the fighter down and examine their abdomen by feeling around and pressing on it. The two most common symptoms of an injured spleen are fever (which LaMotta didn't have) and severe pain which Nardiello would have surely noted had he gone poking around LaMotta's mid section. But you would rather believe it was some injury story cooked up by LaMotta as damage control over the swing in betting, the rumors beforehand, the rumors after, LaMotta's non effort, and then finally his admission before the senate which resulted in death threats before hand, actually named names and details as tohow and why it happened, and just so happened to fit the entire scenario perfectly. LaMotta wasn't that smart Im sorry to say, he couldn't have cooked all of that up out of thin air.

 

Leave that tone for somebody else if you actually want to debate in the first place.

You want to believe LaMotta was honest testifying before the senate about the fix, but him stating in his autobio that he had a spleen injury prior to Fox fight is so much doubtful to you.