Was boxing promoter Don King really as unscrupulous as he was portrayed in the film Rocky V?

For God's sake. Do you know anything about Cleveland and the mob wars that went on during the 60s and 70s? HUNDREDS of people were blown to bits.

A guy getting kicked in the head was the worst the cop had ever seen? REALLY? That's your story?

It was so bad, King wasn't even charged with murder. Because he clearly wasn't trying to kill the person. The cop (I think you're referring to) said the guy was talking to King as King was arrested.

Guess what? You can talk to a guy who has been blown in half ... with his lower torso and legs over there ... and one of his arms over there ... like Shondor Birns or Danny Greene ... but they don't talk back.

The place was a war zone.

But that one time Don King kicked that guy in the head ... that was the worst thing this hard-bitten cop had ever seen in all his years on the beat?

Please. Grow a pair, Nancy.

Who is being disingenuous?

 

Exactly.

 

There sure were some strange cards in favor of fighters tied to King. Most blatant was probably that Tyson was even on one card and ahead on another when Douglas stopped him. But Pea vs Ramirez and Chavez ere also shameful decisions imo. It was quite a while ago I watched DLH vs Tito, but when I did I had it comfortably for Oscar. Was King involved in Holy-Lewis?

Canelo vs GGG will probably be brought up as a counter, but while I thought the card that had Canelo widely winning the first fight was crazy, I don't think the decisions as a whole were that bad. That's my personal opinion, many think otherwise. But there were some very strange decisions in King's time, that's for sure. Many would name Ali-Young and Ali-Norton III among them. And the card that had Ali beating Spinks in the first fight. There definitely was a fair number.

 

So still being disingenuous and maybe English isn't your first language. Some corrections here:

I said the policeman said he'd never seen anyone take a beating like that.

Your response was: people were getting blown in half... dismembered... and you think seeing a guy getting kicked in the head in the worst he's seen.

Summary: I said the policeman said it was the worst "beating" he'd seen a man take. The key word there, and one which I may need to define for you since you skipped right over the word as if you had no clue how it pertained to the sentence. Even if you don't exactly know what the word beating means, and why I used it, you wouldn't think one would still act like the policeman was including people being blown up... when he was specifically talking about someone taking a beating. Odd deduction there, and you spent 75% of your paragraph listing things that aren't what the policeman was referring to when making that statement.

Next, you continue to say, "kicked that guy in the head" seems to imply he kicked him once, when in fact, he was kicking and stomping on him multiple times while he lying on the ground not responding. That's the reality of what happened. He didn't just kick a guy in the head and stop there or walk away. He stomped on him to death. He was convicted on the crime, even though they reduced the charge for some suspect reasons. Just because he was pardoned many years later, doesn't change that fact that he committed murder, and was charged as such. Next time you decide to address one of my posts, try and actually read what I write and try to express your points factually instead of disingenuously.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sWYN6cETROQC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Witnesses+to+Don+King+vs.+Garrett&source=bl&ots=qIbZ0TMV4d&sig=VhLdOLAx-MVdj-cM5oOpmXWmmbg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp8ua83ObfAhUEE3wKHXA1CD44ChDoATAHegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Witnesses to Don King vs. Garrett&f=false

 

As you'll notice from my post... I quoted somebody saying... "He did nothing wrong" . It doesn't matter if you turn your life around after murder... if you commit murder... you did something wrong correct?

 

Don't forget the bad scoring in Chavez/Randall I and Ii

And the way he avoided having Chavez fight Randall again after Chavez got the bad decision after quitting in the second fight.

Or that the WBC stripped Chacon for defending against their #1 Contender CBE. It's true King had options on Chacon but King wanted him to fight Camacho and would not have put Chacon v. CBE together.

He had the WBC in his pocket

 

I was duped by Mr. Sanders it seems.

 

That's not true. The guy was talking to King while King was being cuffed. He kept apologizing saying he'd pay King back.

They got into a fight over money, and the guy died later from his injuries.

King WAS NOT convicted of MURDER because he didn't MURDER the guy. He didn't STOMP the guy to death, the guy was talking to King and the police when they showed up.

People who are stomped to death don't carry on conversations with you.

Just like NO ONE went to jail for the 1977 U.S. Boxing Championships and NO FIGHTS were fixed (like someone in this thread also insisted happened).

Just like the Irish mob didn't make a black guy whose house they blew up because he didn't pay them enough protection a MEMBER.

Just because you guys keep repeating lies over and over doesn't make them true.

That's the whole point.

I got an idea. Read something about King that just doesn't use Jack Newfield as a source.

Christ. For a Message Board that prides itself on doing all this in-depth research on fighters and matches and characters no one has even seen fight ... people seem to have read one story about King and just regurgitate the same five stories over and over again embellishing them each time.

Quit being so lazy, for God's sake.

 

King didn't "SCORE" Randall-Chavez II, just like he didn't score Randall-Chavez I.

King also got Randall a title shot at the WBA belt five months after the Chavez rematch, and Randall was in world title fights over his next six straight bouts.

Yeah, that evil Don King. Working hard for Frankie Randall and getting him EIGHT STRAIGHT TITLE FIGHTS IN A ROW. What a despicable guy. Clearly not a promoter anyone would want.

Not like all the other promoters in boxing who delivered Randall ZERO title fights.

 

King didn't promote either Ali-Spinks fight and he didn't promote Ali-Norton III.

And he didn't score any of the fights you mentioned.

But clearly you have no problems with blaming him. Maybe you should just blame him for Canelo-GGG, too, since he was involved with that one about as much as many of the others you brought up.

I swear this is board has the LAZIEST, LIE-REPEATING posters I've ever come across.

Seriously. This thread is exhibit A.

 

So you didn't read the article. The original charge was second degree murder. Because of what some people cite as witness tampering and connections... it ended up being negotiated down to manslaughter. He spent 4 years in prison for it. Do you think he was spending time in jail because he wanted to work on his figure? He spent time in jail because he was convicted on killing a man. Period, end of story. He was pardoned many years later for the crime, do you think they issued him a pardon for a crime he was never convicted of? What kind of logic is this?

Next, one of the most ******ed things I've ever seen posted, you say that you don't murder somebody who can talk. LMAO. You can't be this dumb. If you stab somebody and leave, the ambulance gets there and he tries to talk and tell them who did it... so the person who stabbed him didn't commit murder if the gentlemen dies... wait for it... because he was seen talking after being stabbed. Holy sh1t that might be the dumbest thing anybody has said on this site. Just because somebody is talking after they are hit, shot or stabbed, doesn't mean if that person dies, the person who inflicted the damage isn't charged with murder. Likely not first degree if it's heat of the moment, but somebody talking after being stabbed doesn't preclude the offender from being charged with second degree murder at a minimum. Are you trying to act ******ed here or do you actually believe this stuff? A guy lying on the ground who's has blood coming out of his ears, who face is grossly deformed from being beaten, is seein telling the offender he'll pay him the money. Then imagine a defense attorney trying to get a case thrown out because... the person who died uttered some words before he passed away. Oh he did, oh ok, murder charges dropped. WTF.

To say nothing of the fact that he wasn't "talking" to King and "repeatedly" apologizing. More disingenuousness eh? Nice, par for the course for you. The policeman said he faintly said that once, and then lapsed into a comma. Where do you gets this idea he was on the ground repeatedly apologizing. Post your source for that contention. Even if true (which it isn't), he could be talking for days after being shot, if you end up dying from it, guess what, the person who did the shooting will be charged.

I think this conversation has about run its course with the nonsense I'm seeing posted here.

 

He was convicted of manslaughter because it was a classic manslaughter case.

Don King had a gun on him. Did he walk up to him and shoot him? No. Did they get into a fight? Yes. Did he shoot him when they were fighting? No. Did the police break it up? Yes. Were both guys still alive and talking when they got there? Yes.

Did one guy die later from injuries suffered in the brawl? Yes.

That's manslaughter.

You don't need to tamper with anyone to figure that out. Genius.

 

I think so, too, although I'd still love to know where you hear Don King was a member of the Irish Mafia and how his MAFIA brothers got him out of the slammer. Did the Mafia get him out so they could try to blow him up again, like they did Carl King's dad?

Or maybe you could tell me why David Bey is a hero, like Newfield said he was, for not fighting in South Africa, when David Bey fought in South Africa in a high-profile fight years before the documentary and book came out?

You know, nonsense like that.

If you take a step back from the Jack Newfield fiction, most of the crap Newfield wrote is ridiculous.

Like I said, it doesn't age well. Most lies don't.

 

Are you seriously this dumb?

Don King had a gun when he approached the guy. Don King had a gun when he was fighting the guy. Don King had a gun when he was kicking the guy. Don King had a gun when the police arrived. Don King turned over the gun when he was arrested. Everyone was alive.

Don King never shot the guy.

Therefore, one can reasonably deduce (AND DID), Don King was not trying to kill the guy. Or he could've done so with a simple pull of the trigger.

So how is your example remotely similar? It's not.

Enough already. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

So tell me again, that you can't murder somebody who is seen talking after the crime is committed. You literally just said that. Will you admit you misspoke and you can be seen talking after a crime, and that doesn't preclude somebody from being charged because they are seen talking after being assaulted. That is literally the dumbest and funniest thing I've heard on here in quite sometime. Let's see if you'll be honest or continue the disingenuous tone you've done perfectly so far.

So waiting for these sources that he was REPEATEDLY apologizing to King. As if that matters really, but still, where do you get this notion from?

Again, you should learn the legal system before you start acting like it's a clear cut manslaughter case. It's certainly anything but that, and If you knew law, you'd also know this already. Part of what determines 1st or 2nd degree murder is consider intent and premeditation. The reason he was charged with 2nd degree murder was that there was a form of premeditation there. Once you go seeking somebody out... you're now initiating and escalating the situation. Planning to go visit somebody to likely commit a crime, and bringing a weapon.. is about as cut and dry a second degree murder case there can be. The reason they likely didn't charge him with 1st, is that they likely didn't have enough evidence to support that King planned it all, and knew this would be the result. They knew he planned to go there to get his money or inflict harm... they knew he brought a gun to aid in the crime for whatever reason. That is some form of planning and an easy second degree murder case. Manslaughter is car accidents... you're at a bar and get into a fight with a random person and he dies. It wasn't planned, that wasn't why you went there, and you didn't know that guy. That is MILES away from... This guy owed me money... I grabbed a gun.. I went to the bar to see the man. There is some planning there... they likely just didn't think it was enough to get a 1st degree murder, and they were likely right. That is how they ended up charging him with second degree. Than later on they further reduced it, again because of the claims of witness tampering.

Is any of this making it through your Don King goggles or no?