Boxing is famously the so-called red lights district of sport. For most of its history boxing has been controlled by the mob and there are a number of fights where one competitor admits to having taken a dive. Fight fixing even still takes place at the world title level today. So, how well can we be certain of the veracity of any given fight when there is not an impossible chance of its result being predetermined and one of its competitors being given money to lie down? I recognise some of this sounds conspiratorial admittedly but how much can we know what was fixed in the sport's history?
You say that fight fixing at a world level goes on today...what proof do you have of that? How much do you have to pay a guy to throw a multi million dollar fight when winning would earn him millions more? Why wouldn't a guy, in this day and age, or any other, for that matter. just go on social media (or to the newspapers) and tell that he was threatened and by whom? It has certainly happened but... At lower levels, as a prospect is being brought along, just about every fight is 'fixed'. That is done in the way that those fights and it is way better than paying a guy to lose on purpose. In the vast majority of the fights made today it is widely known that one guy has no chance of winning and is not there to try and win. How do you do that? Like this...On January 1, I know that my fighter, signed to a major promotional company, is fighting in February and in May against TBA for both fights. My fighter is getting good sparring and preparing his weight. The TBA for the fight in February finds out about the fight one week before the fight; he takes afight at 135 and he was in the gym at 138 and has to make weight in 5 days. Come fight time, my guy weighs 156 and has had good sparring, the other guy weighs 138 because he isn't going to 'rehydrate' bigger than he was when he started to cut. We do the same thing in May and those two fights were essentially fixed. When my fighter's manager is picking the opponents it is even better. Sometimes the sacrificial lamb fights back. Then the judges do their thing. I can speak on 2 examples that I have personal knowledge of, First, a friend of mine from Montana fought on a card put on by RJJ's company against a 17-0 guy. He was supposed to get smoked but he won the fight and lost a split; RJJ himself apologized to him and explained how much money they had invested in the 17-0 guy. Second, I have seen a member of the IBHoF tell a heavyweight- a short fat heavyweight that has a lot of heart- that he was sorry to have robbed him twice. I would like to point out that none of the fighters that benefitted from those decisions went on to better things. Boxing fans contribute to this every time they say that so and so was a 'good test' because he tried for a round. What most of you don't understand is that, most time aq prospect loses, it was on purpose. In some way or another he was an annoyance to the promoter so they made him take a fight he didn't want. A lot of time you see aguy freeze when he steps up because it his first fight in which the other guy is trying to win too.
The great philosopher Randall “Tex” Cobb once told me this: Big money always takes an angle on small money. That was his way of saying what you described above. There’s lots of ways decisions are swayed without any funny money changing hands or an agreed-up ‘he goes down in the fourth’ type thing. Short-notice matchups as you noted. I’ve handled fighters and we very, very rarely took a fight on short notice because even if my guy wasn’t of the caliber of the opponent I wanted him at his best, he wanted to have his best chance and we wanted to be prepared — even if you lose to a top guy, a good showing can make your man a commodity and in line for good paydays. (Maybe a few times some fighter would tell me, ‘Hey, I need money fast — rent’s due and we’re going to get kicked out so I’ll take any fight’ and I’d put feelers out and try to find him the best payday. There’s a word for that: life. I wouldn’t throw away a guy’s career on it, but if he’s, say, 8-3 and I can get him top dollar AND he really, really needs it then sure, we’ll do business.) Judges are often swayed, rightly or wrongly, by who’s in the corner or which is the house fighter. Why is that? Well, for one thing, the freaking promoter pays the judges — imagine the Boston Celtics paid the refs who worked their games or whatever. You want to keep being used so you may lean a certain way … maybe not if it’s a terrifically one-sided fight but say there’s four close rounds in a 10, the house guy might get all those on some card(s) and that sways it his way. You’ll notice that often the promoter will be standing in the corner of his guy during introductions to send a *wink wink* message. And if an Emanuel Steward or Angelo Dundee or Eddie Futch was working a corner in a six-round fight, the judges knew he must be a prospect and if it’s close … subconsciously or otherwise maybe they don’t let him lose a close fight. (I once had a guy on one of those short-notice, I-need-cash-now fights — he wasn’t my fighter but I worked with him a bit and looked out for him when I could, about a .500 fighter iirc — and Eddie Futch was in the other corner with some up-and-comer. We’re walking toward the ring and both fighters come through the same entrance to the arena. A guy nearby when we were waiting to be called said ‘Eddie Futch is in the other corner.’ I knew my fighter heard it so I said in a loud, clear voice, ‘F*** Eddie Futch, he’s not going to be in there fighting.” Looked over my shoulder and literally right behind me was Eddie Futch. I said, ‘Hi Eddie,’ and he just grinned and said ‘Hi,’ haha.) You want to talk about a corrupt sport, look up basketball scandals. There hasn’t been a decade without a point-shaving situation — not speculation, mind you, but cases where people were convicted and did time — since like before the 1950s.
You can only know what is admitted to if you’re the average fight fan, but I have my suspicions, & more, about many a fight. Top of the pile, the Ali-Spinks con. Those fights are like a psychologist’s dream - people love Ali that damn much they even bristle at that obscenely obvious set up being called out. Im more than halfway convinced Ali could lose a fight to a Flyweight & people would defend it as on the level. Plenty more beyond Ali, of course. Just pointing a big one out where I can’t know, but I sure don’t take it on faith.
I am not in the know with the history but I believe at the time it was a 4th fight with Ken Norton being called for with Larry Holmes at the top of the totem pole better to be a 3 time champion then be 2-2 with Norton with a 5th as a possibility... or have "The Easton Assassin" undress Ali and possibly damage him beyond money making capacity.
I believe Canelo has fixed a couple of his fights in recent years, the Kovalev fight being the most blatant example. With that much money on the table to made off some of the cash cows in the sport, why leave to chance what you could make certain? For the Kovalev fight for example, Sergey fought in a completely alien style to how he usually does, he gave Canelo free shots. DAZN offered him a contract specifically for losing. Right after the fight, his assault case suddenly disappears also. There are a number of fights I have suspicions about, not just corrupt refs or judges but with fighters specifically fighting to a lower level they usually do or flopping to the canvas from grazing or light shots. Like Barrios violently throwing himself to the canvas when Tank had barely grazed him. On the back of that performance also Barrios was put on another PPV main event with Keith Thurman right after, he was just on a Canelo undercard not that long ago, I don't think he was threatened but incentivised to lose by being paid off and being told he will receive preferential treatment from PBC. I imagine big promoters could tell a guy to lose or otherwise be ostracised and frozen out of title shots. That's what happened when Rigo beat the cash cow Donaire wasn't it? When a big promoter is trying to create a new big star, why leave anything to chance when you could just as easily ensure that the man in the opposite corner performs worse than usual or lets a couple cheap shots in, or by having a ref in your pocket, or by sending brown envelopes to a couple judges. There are multiple ways to skin a cat, just like there are multiple ways to fix a fight. I don't doubt fights are fixed at the lower levels but also at the top level having their opponents lie down for them once or twice.
Wh What are you saying EXACTLY that you suspect about Ali-Spinks 1? That Ali threw the fight? If so, how do you think he went about it? Spinks clearly won, so it wasn't payoffs to the judges that decided the outcome. Ali was done, plain and simple. Even a cretin had to know. He didn't look like himself in the rematch, either. So what do you think happened?
a LOT. Money - greed, power, control Crime Backers Promoters Boards Managers Judges Refs Fighters... Ratings Negotiations Demands for every champion, there is at least 1 Contender who 'could' for every top 10, there are dozens more, especially in stronger more prolific eras. Even today, Fury 'gets' Big Klit and a mauling spoiler victory, 3 Wilders and NO One else until Usky... he didn't belong there in the beginning and has been 'secured' there since. a MARKETABLE Commodity = MONEY = all or some of the above. Boxing History is false at worst, inaccurate at best!
Im saying that Ali & his team found their guy & set up his becoming the first three time Champion. Ali couldn’t stop talking about it all through the rematch build up. His ego demanded it.
Then you're saying he lost the fight intentionally. He took a dive with the understanding he'd win the rematch. Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Floyd Patterson never did anything of the kind. Those were honest gladiators. Muhammad Ali wasn't, is what you're alleging. I will just say that I choose not to believe it. By 1977, Muhammad Ali was a shell. He didn't have to go in the tank for Leon Spinks. Having faded so obviously, he was just an average fighter losing to a younger, more energetic man.
