1992: Michael Franzese testifies regarding fixed fights, Vito Antoufermo, Don King, Duran vs. Moore

Franzese published an autobiography earlier that year. Never read it myself, but I'd be interested to know whether he provides this level of detail in the book. I suspect these kinds of events were omitted and perhaps for good reason.

The video clip in the OP does not show the whole of Franzese's testimony.

A New York Times article covering the Senate hearing, primarily discussing the final day and that Bob Lee had invoked the Fifth Amendment, also mentions Franzese...

____________________________________________________________

The New York Times


SPORTS

Thursday, August 13, 1992



BOXING; I.B.F. President Refuses to Answer Senators' Queries


By Phil Berger

[excerpt]
In his statement and under questioning, Franzese made several references to fixed fights, contending that he had inside information on Larry Holmes's 1982 title defense against Gerry Cooney. But when Senator William Cohen, Republican of Maine, expressed skepticism about the fixes, Franzese seemed to back off. For instance, on the Holmes-Cooney bout, he ended up saying, "

This content is protected

"

____________________________________________________________



While this can still be considered as "Direct information from Gerry Cooney," it is somewhat different from the initial framing of being "aware of the outcome of that fight in advance".

 

If I remember correctly Duran had looked horrid against Kirkland Lang less than a year earlier. He had beaten a shot Cuevas to get the shot at Moore. Duran was not a big favorite to beat Moore.

Here's some info I looked up:

"Davey Moore was installed as a 5–2 favorite going into the June 16, 1983 fight for the WBA super welterweight title at Madison Square Garden BoxRec. This meant the odds were heavily in Moore’s favor, reflecting his undefeated record (12–0, 9 KOs) and his confidence that Durán, then 32 and perceived as “over the hill,” was no match for him Wikipedia.

Moore’s 5–2 odds indicated that most bettors expected him to win easily, while Durán, ranked WBA No. 7 in the division, was considered the underdog. Despite the odds, Durán came in in better physical shape than in years, training intensely with Ray Arcel and believing his conditioning would be the key to overcoming Moore "W

So using their inside information about Moore's condition they bet heavily for Duran, beat the odds and won a lot of $

 

Cooney’s has been searching for excuses for that fight since the night it happened.
The pressure he was under to win from the majority of the American and European public was tremendous.
When he lost, it mentally ruined him, and he never recovered, and especially since the majority of the American public turned on him, exacerbating his pain.
He fought his heart out, and to the best of his ability the night he lost to Holmes...
It makes no sense for him to throw a fight of that magnitude, when considering the millions, possibly the 1st athlete to earn a billion dollars if he won. Consider the media exposure, like TV commercials, movies, political favoritism, (Ronald Reagan had a direct line to his room if he won)
He could've literally fight the bum of the month until Tyson came on the scene in 1986.
His ring earnings would've been beyond imagination.
And quite a few of the boxing world today would consider him the greatest heavyweight in history though his best opponents may have been a David Bey, or Marvis Frazier ( Some of Larry Holmes opponents)
This is more about Cooney’s excuses than anything reasonably true.
Or another Mob guy telling stories to stay relevant...

 

Fair chance it's your last sentence IMO.

 

Firstly, this is not simply a matter of semantics. Stating that you knew the outcome of a fight in advance is not the same as asserting that one of the fighters believed he could not win. Those are materially different claims, not hairs being split.

Secondly, "direct information" matters only once we establish what that information actually was. If it were merely that Cooney allegedly believed he could not win, that is not the same as direct information that the fight was fixed, that Cooney intended to lose, or that the outcome was predetermined. Direct or indirect, misrepresenting the information in this way bears on the reliability of Franzese’s testimony more broadly.

Finally, in trying to minimize the difference between the initial and clarified testimony, you are effectively providing your own version of events. Cooney is not alleged to have said that he did not intend to win or did not want to win. Nor is there anything in the quoted excerpt to suggest that Cooney reached out to Franzese, or to anyone else, for the purpose of telling them that he could not win.

Moreover, there is no evidence here that Cooney even said those words himself, still less any context for how they were supposedly spoken. Even if he had said something to that effect, it could have ranged from a moment of passing self-doubt to a realistic assessment of his chances. That is a long way from establishing advanced knowledge of a fixed outcome.


Looking at the fight itself, there's no doubt in my mind that Cooney went in with the intention of winning.

 

and add to that, if there is any truth in it, Cooney wins anyway in that maybe there was a pay off to himself or even Betting - Inside Trading if you will...

I know nothing about this but, I know plenty about Boxing being as legitimate as Figure Skating lol, and we all now know even that is bent.

there's more straight activity in a Pride Parade than there is in Professional Boxing with so many ways to cheat, effect outcome or just have some folks "on the books".

I doubt it about Cooney, but there is No Doubt about Boxing and King is a walking Bill Board for Crookedness.

 

Nothing in the statement categorically asserts that there was a "conversation" at all. Franzese opens with what sounds like a firm claim – that "we were aware of the outcome of that fight - in advance" – But that begins to look much weaker once he later softens what he actually says about Cooney. In other words, he more or less walks back the stronger implication of his earlier testimony.

Where, exactly, does Franzese say Cooney called him? He does not even say Cooney spoke to him directly. When he refers to "direct information from Gerry Cooney", that could simply mean information that supposedly originated with Cooney. It does not, by itself, establish that Cooney personally passed the information to Franzese, that there was a phone call, that the information was given for betting purposes, or that Cooney was knowingly helping a mobster.


It is also worth looking at Dennis Rappaport's response at the time, as it directly challenges the idea that Franzese's account should be treated as an accepted fact. Rappaport, Cooney's co-manager, left little room for ambiguity. Speaking to the New York Times, he dismissed the claim outright: "It's absurd. It sounds like this guy has lost grasp of reality and is on Fantasy Island."

So, whatever one makes of Franzese's story, Cooney's camp clearly did not accept it. They rejected it in no uncertain terms.

 

No way this happened.

Gerry was Irish. With a Puerto Rican trainer. And two managers known as the Whacko Twins — Dennis Rappaport was a Jewish real estate guy and Mike Jones had a longer association with boxing (starting with Ronnie Harris) and whatever he was, he certainly wasn’t Italian. None of the above have ever been accused of association with the Mafia in any way.

So I’m sure that if Mike Franzese ever wandered into the gym or called Cooney, the answer would have been **** off, either politely otherwise.

Maybe word got around among gym guys that Gerry wasn’t likely to beat Holmes and the greaser got wind of that … but most people probably figured that out anyway.

Franzese probably figured he could con his way into some kind of book or movie deal.

 

1. Franzese is a BS artist.

2. Boxing has been crooked as frick literally for centuries, honestly in a perverse sort of way that’s part of the attraction for me, the sideshow that you sit back and pop corn to watch.

3. I don’t believe Gerald Arthur Cooney threw that fight but I also don’t believe that at any point in his nearly 70 years of existence on this planet he’s ever had a true fire in his innards to be a part of this sport, it was just something that he was fairly good at and people often gravitate to things they’re good at even if they’d really rather be somewhere else.