Were the criticisms of D'Amato during Patterson's reign justified?

The Mafiosi Sammy the bull even train in Cus gym, tedy atlas said that

 

If “the mob” controlled boxing, and Cus was a mortal enemy of “the mob” ... how is it that Floyd, a light heavyweight, got to fight a single eliminator at heavyweight and then fight another (non-mob-controlled) heavy, Archie Moore, for the vacant title?

Was the mob asleep when this happened? Why would they allow someone who wasn’t one of theirs to control the sport?

Cus was calling the shots when his paper champion sullied the title “heavyweight champion of the world” by defending against an AMATEUR with literally ZERO pro fights on his record (and managed to get knocked down in doing so).

Oh, and after that, Floyd and Cus went on vacation FOR A YEAR before defending again.

Nah, but Cus was a crusader for everything good in boxing. A gift to the sport from the heavens.

SMH.

 

Only it hasn't been shot to pieces.

Its one thing to throw around pointless, and incorrect, platitudes about D'amatos mob connections without actually walking it through. So lets have an exercise. Since you and Unforgiven are really smart and have done a lot of research into this, why don't you spell out exactly how Cus was so bad for making the choices he made, why he was no better than the IBC etc.

Lets start with Salerno and Black. Why don't you explain to me, as you understand it, their relationship with D'Amato. Why don't you elaborate and tell us the exact nature and why it casts Cus in such a bad light? We can debate that when you reply.

As far as the boxing managers guild is concerned your criticism is comical. Boxing in the late 1940s and all through the 50s was controlled by the IBC from the top down. The IBC was proven beyond any doubt in a court of law to be a predatory monopoly, disbanded, and some of its members serves jail time as a result. This monopoly was controlled by one of the wealthiest men in North America and backed by some of the most dangerous killers in the country. The IBC controlled all of the national TV dates and large chunk of the local dates, the controlled the radio, they controlled the major venues, and the controlled all or most of the champions and contenders either directly through exclusive promotional contracts or through Carbo and his front managers. If a manager wanted himself or his fighter to progress past the local arena in this sport during that time and do REAL BUSINESS he had to give a piece of himself and/or his fighter to Carbo. Period. That's not even a debateable premise, its just what happened.

If you tried to branch out on your own, independent of the IBC and compete with them you got what Ray Arcel got. A lead pipe to the head and a 20 year retirement from the sport. Again, not even debateable.

So put yourself in the shoes of a blue collar manager like Cus. You aren't taking on one of the wealthiest men in the country or one of the most dangerous killers in the country and a national monopoly by yourself. The only way you can compete with that is by banding together and that's exactly what the managers guild was all about. To attempt to paint that as a predatory entity rather a movement borne out of necessity is asinine.

But I'll be here waiting for your reply on how exactly you think the Cus/Salerno relationship worked because right now I'm amused by your simplistic view of those events as black and white.

 

Simple first of all Patterson was an Olympic hero. That counted for a lot initially. Secondly D'Amato was smart enough to put him on cards in the metro area in venues that weren't controlled by the IBC. On the rare occasions that Patterson did fight in a Norris controlled venues D'Amato was able to negotiate deals on a short term basis due largely to Patterson's popularity with the fans. In fact his title fight with Tommy Hurricane Jackson was fought specifically to fulfill an obligation to the IBC and as a result, unless I'm mistaken its the only title defense of his entire reign that was broadcast on television and not closed circuit, which is how D'Amato was circumventing the IBC's lockdown on air dates. You hinted at a lot in your own obtuse question: Patterson coming out of virtually nowhere and winning the HW title was a massive coup and totally upset the apple cart for the IBC. They lost the jewel of the crown and the idea that D'Amato had no interest in, and had nothing to do with, putting a huge dent in the corruption in boxing is nuts. Cus created a huge gaping hole in their empire and over the next several years chipped away in a myriad of ways at their monopoly that allowed others to come in and question the way the IBC did things as well. To be fair D'Amato isn't the only one but having the biggest crown in the sport, and leveraging that to bring his talent to the masses using alternatives meant he was a huge factor in that.

Patterson defended against Rademacher three weeks after satisfying his mandatory. He was paid an enormous purse, largely through Rademacher's fund raising acumen, and would have been an absolute fool to turn down such a huge risk/reward differential fight. Beyond that you do realize that by the rules of the NBA, THE SANCTIONING BODY IN POWER AT THE TIME that Patterson had 1 year to defend his title after fighting Rademacher and fulfilled that responsibility. Its like complaining that milk is white or that the sky is blue. You are the first person Ive ever heard refer to Patterson as a paper champion and given your complete unfamiliarity with the circumstances of the day I can see why.

He was great for the sport. In your ignorance of the context of the times you missed that. Its ok, you aren't the first. Its a little like the dumbasses who criticize LaMotta for taking a dive to get a title shot. They say: "See, he was working with the mob and benefitted from it. Hes just as bad as they are." Its a dumbass argument that blames the victim. They didn't create that mess they were just trying to live in it. But nice try.

 

Yes, the Ring, which as I said was operating out of an office owned by the IBC. The same Ring that rarely RARELY ever spent any ink discussing the corruption and collusion of the IBC when better, far more crusading journalists did. Nat wasn't ever interested in rocking the boat. Liston was looming but he didn't really get wider support until he beat Folley in July of 60, one month after the second Patterson-Johannson fight. By then a rubbermatch was guaranteed. Even after his defeat of Folley there was a huge swath of the public that didn't want him anywhere near the title and this only got worse when he was arrested in 61 for a seriously shady incident. Ive said before and I'll say again: Patterson did not have to fight Liston. He could have taken the "moral high ground" and refused based on Liston's unsavory reputation and I guarantee that while he may have been criticized in some corners that's all that would have happened. The NBA wouldn't have stripped him. The president of the United States himself asked Patterson not to give Liston a shot. You think the Attorney General, his brother, isn't going to lean on anyone who would have tried to sanction Patterson for refusal? No. Its to Patterson's credit that he fought Liston at all.

 

Crushed how? His reputation? Im not so sure. He might have been. But in light of the recent convictions of Carbo, some of his cohorts, and Truman Gibson, the senate hearings and the disbanding of the IBC I think at least in the short term he could have easily avoided Liston without too much blowback. How long that would have lasted depended on the career moves of Liston. However its likely a moot point because if Patterson doesnt defend against Liston he probably goes one of two routes: 1. He defends against the up and coming Ali and loses. Or 2. He defends against either Folley or Machen and wins and then defends against Ali or Liston and loses. Either way it only temporarily extends his reign. Ali was simply getting too much press to be avoided (not that I think Patterson would have) and would have presented too many problems for Patterson to beat. The writing was on the wall for Patterson in 1962 and only Ali getting stripped and banned reopened his championship window. When you consider that the real top dogs after him throughout his final retirement were Liston, Ali, and Frazier it becomes apparent that only outside forces were going to converge to allow Patterson back as a real threat in the division and that happened in the form of Liston's disgrace after Ali (whether it was fair or not), Ali being banned, and Frazier refusing to set aside his number 1 ranking for the WBA tournament thereby not taking part in it. Patterson was still a great fighter by all means but in my opinion his latter career, which is really impressive and helps his legacy, was sort of a perfect storm.

If you mean that he would have been crushed in hindsight then maybe. Im still not sure though. Dempsey isnt crushed for avoiding his top guy for 7 years. Johnson isnt crushed for seemingly avoiding Langford. Sullivan isnt crushed for avoiding Jackson and neither is Corbett. All of those instances were much more extended in duration and didnt have the real stigma of corruption hanging over them. Some people to this day think Liston was a disaster as champion and threw the title for one nefarious reason or another. The same people who predicted his corrupting affect on the sport and who hate him today are the same people who would defend Pattersons right not to fight him and they would do so with a much better argument and Liston's own history to back them than those who defend Dempsey for not fighting Wills.

Its all conjecture and supposition though. My point is that is patently ridiculous to over simplify what was going on with D'amato, the IBC, and the Mob and thats what some above have done.

 

Cus was tied to the mob. The mob isn’t one large organization where everyone is always on the same page (hence why so many bosses have been knocked off by other bosses). He was tied to one mob faction while the IBC was run by another.

The Rademacher defense, no matter how much money was put up, was a travesty — the worst ever to blight the heavyweight championship.

And to not defend for an entire year after that while other contenders awaited was a complete joke and showed further disregard for the championship.

 

I mostly consider myself a neutral boxing fan. When I watch a fight I rarely root for or against someone. I like Lennox Lewis, I like Vitali a lot, although not Wladimir so much. I must admit I'm becoming a Wilder fan, little by little. When I go on YouTube, I'll watch guys like Lance Whitaker, Jimmy Thunder, Maurice Harris, Wolfgramm, Jeremy Williams, etc.

 

It depends what the criticism is ..

If it is that he invented boogeymen and was a complete quack, then it is incorrect.

If it is that he was a bit eccentric, saw things through a bit of a self serving lens but was fighting a crooked industry, there are grains of truth to go around.

If it is that as a result of his quest to defy the powers that be Patterson's title reign was severely tainted by avoiding the best fighters (Foley, Williams, Machen and Liston) as long as possible and instead had him fight the most pathetic opposition he could get away with, then it is yes. McNeeley, Harris, Rademacher, London were all among the worst title challengers in the history of the heavyweight division. It's certainly not that other unqualified fighters fought for the heavyweight title but that they were all given shots during Patterson's reign at the expense of far better and more deserving men. Hurricane Jackson was a touch better but his skill was his ability to take exceptional punishment in proportion to the rest of his severely limited arsenal.

Cus was a quack. He was also not a saint. He saw the underbelly of a horrific business and choose to go his own route. I have no doubt much of his intentions were to circumvent a corrupt business but he could and did put his fighters second at times while he chased his windmills .. Patterson's poor opposition denied him the opportunity to fight the best while he was at his best, undermined his fragile confidence and hurt his public perception. Years later he would turn a blind eye time again to Tyson's troubled behavior as an enabler to the fighters personal detriment to keep his dream of another heavyweight champion alive ..

My point, it is a question with multiple layers as answers.

 

If a managers job is to secure the best paydays for the least risk,D'Amato was the best manager ever. Patterson was getting very good purses for fighting average heavyweights.Wilder is defending against the same sort of opposition but his purses aren't a patch on Floyds!

 

You arent answering my question and Im not going to let you off the hook like that. What exactly is your understanding of Cus' relationship with Black and Salerno. Dont just give me generalities such as "he was tied to the mob" and then by extension infer that he and his motives were no better than men like Carbo and Palermo or even Norris. Thats a huge leap and takes a lot of work in the middle to come to. So spell it out for us.

Nonsense. He was completely within the rules of the sanctioning body at the time. To ignore that and hold him to some kind of fairy tale standard is stupid.

 

Yes, I have done the research.
I don't have to spell out anything. Cus D'amato did "go to war" with the IBC once he had Patterson as champion. I think we agree on that.
But to imply he was going against them because of their "mob connections" is just to perpetuate the myths.

Charlie Black was D'amato's dear friend by all accounts. And he seemed to be a fixture in D'amato's company. He received money from promotions when Patterson fought, rather inexplicably.
He was also a convicted bookmaker and an associate of Tony Salerno and other underworld figures such as Gil Beckley (national lay-off bookie), who he continued to meet whilst Patterson was champion.

Whether D'amato ever met Salerno, I don't know. He publicly denied knowing those people.
But then D'amato also failed to show up for NYSAC hearing (or was it the grand jury investigation, or both? I believe it was both) to claify these matters during the second half of 1959.

Salerno ended up with a slice of the promotion of the first Floyd-Ingo fight due to some strange arrangements that were somehow foisted on the promoter Bill Rosensohn, at the suggesting of Charlie Black, who he knew through D'amato. Bill Rosensohn was almost a complete greenhorn in the world of boxing, and didn't last long.

If you do the research you'll find the story becomes ever more convoluted. Tony Salerno's lawyer Vincent J Velella becomes a two-thirds owner of Rosensohn promotions. Rosensohn ends up being muscled out completely and running to the DA's office, which started a full investigation.
So, this all went on without D'amato's knowledge ? That's doubtful.

D'amato relationship to all this remains obscure because he refused to take the stand when ordered, twice I believe. At one point he instead travelled to Puerto Rico under an assumed name when he was subpoenaed.
The actions of an innocent man ? Who knows. I doubt it.

The idea that D'amato was carefully vetting the promoters/managers he worked for because of anything to do with "mob" or "underworld" connections is laughable - and in fact, I don't think D'amato ever claimed that. His fight was with the IBC, not the mob or mob-connected managers as you say.

Charlie Black - D'amato's close friend and confidant - was banned from even attending fights.

That doesn't address the nature of the Boxing Guild or D'amato's place in it.

The Guild was just as much under the control of Carbo as anything. It was a classic racketeering tool. Just like in other businesses where racketeers set up employers' protecton organizations on the one hand and infiltrate the unions on the other, and disrupt both sides and "fix" the problems for a reward. The same principle.
Except neither the IBC nor the Guild actually represented the fighters.
Managers may have been using the Guild to get a better share and deal of TV money for their fighters BUT they also used the Guild as a tool against the freedom of their fighters.
Fighters who tried to break from their managers were blackballed by the Guild. Managers were fined by the Guild for breaking boycotts against other managers/promoters/fighters.

The Guild was banned for being monopolistic and shadowy. That is not even debatable. It stunk of mob influence too.
D'amato acted as the man who collected money from the mangers for Guild. And he refused to disclose the details or played dumb under questioning.
His only critcisms during those hearings was towards fighters, not the managers.

Wrong.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say boxing was totally dominated by the "mob-connected managers" and then pretend the New York chapter of the Boxing Guild was some sort of benign merry band of "blue collar managers".

The Guild was dominated by mob-connected managers and it hid its financial dealings.
Hence why it was banned. It was beyond the pale, it was obviously a racketeering venture.
D'amato was the loyal "treasurer" who kept his mouth shut on questions of this money, that's a fact.

The IBC was, of course, a lot harder to get rid of than the Guild, because it was a sophisticated large scale corporation. The Guild, by contrast, wore it's illegitimacy on its sleeve.

You seem to have a remarkable shallow understanding of these affairs but perhaps you're holding back.
Carry on.
Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

Oh god. You must be a glutton for punishment. Need I refer you back to the half dozen other identical posts youve trotted out over the years that Ive completely obliterated with one simple tool that you consistently lack in your arguments: An actual historical timeline. You have never once been able to illustrate, and again, there are pages and pages on this forum youve dedicated to it, that Patterson was wrong for fighting the men he fought, in violation of any rules of the day, and that anyone beyond Liston (who actually got his shot) should have gotten a shot over anyone Patterson defended against within the context of the defenses. You armchair quarterbacks (and thats exactly what you are HE: a guy who sits at home and plucks ideas out of the ether that are not tethered in any context and then formulates a weak ass argument around them) never feel the need to do any actual research into an era you dont understand but feel you understand it enough to pontificate on it. You snatch single, un-tethered factoids out of the air and then build these broad generalizations around them without going back and trying to understand for instance why Patterson didnt defend against Machen and Folley, that Williams was never Patterson's top contender by a long shot, and that Patterson defended against Liston exactly when Liston had the ranking and support to justify that defense. The criticism of his defense against Jackson is puzzling in the extreme. Basically you are saying: Jackson was Patterson's number one contender, Patterson was contractually obligated to fight Jackson as a condition of his title shot against Moore, but I dont like Jackson's style so Im going to ***** about that defense. Thats not an argument at all.