Billy Fox - Jake La Motta fight

I know Pep was banned from ever fighting in New York again after the Lulu Perez fix and yet LaMotta was not...:think

 

Well, look. LaMotta owning up in 1947 might have led to him taking a one-way trip to Jimmy Hoffaland--vanishing from the earth for those who don't know who Jimmy Hoffa was. I don't think you can quote what he said then to rebut what he said before a Senate committee in 1961.

I repeat, why would he perjure himself in 1961? He injured his reputation for honesty and if he didn't toss the fight, going before a Senate committee and fingering the Mafia might not have been the swiftest move anyone ever made. Once more, he would be setting himself up for a one way trip to a Mafia crematorium someplace. Give a reason for him lying to a Senate committee.

Also, why did LaMotta come clean? Most likely the committee had gotten up quite a bit of evidence of a fix, perhaps enough to get LaMotta a perjury rap if he stuck to his 1947 story.

 

senya,


dont be blind. everyone knows lamotta-fox was a dive.

 

on film its quite clear lamotta is not even trying with his hands down allowing fox to hit him at will and the funny thing is his punches dont even hurt iron chinned lamotta who has to pretend like hes hurt. horrible actor.


by taking a dive, lamotta was granted a title shot.that was the deal.

 

so your saying that fox legit knocked out lamotta and it should be held against his legacy? LMAO

 

I think to be fair any fighter who has or has been suspected of being involved in suspect fights will have his legacy hurt. That is why it is so hard to rate an Attell or Kid McCoy...

 

My own reaction to this article is that although the author states in the introduction and his conclusion that in his judgement the fight was on the level, the evidence he produces concerning the circumstances of the fight point to a fix.

1. The obvious betting coup and overall suspicious gambling surrounding this fight.

2. The reaction of most of the ringside press

3. Why did Carbo and Palermo refuse to answer questions if they had nothing to hide?

4. The whole spleen excuse sure sounds fishy.

5. This author does not deal with why LaMotta would lie in 1961 before a Senate committee. I want to point something out here. I don't know if lying before the NYSAC would even be a crime. Lying before a Senate committee is a Federal offense and carries with it big prison time.

6. Fox was clearly a built up fighter who was exposed by Lesnevich.

 

How do you know that the evidence of the NYSAC in 1947 wasn't presented to the Senate. It is also possible that others had come forward to testify, probably as a way of getting their sentences reduced for other crimes. That is usually what happens.
It might be legitimate to doubt LaMotta's confession, but I think someone should actually go through the Senate report and find out what evidence they had besides LaMotta spilling his guts.

Bookies not covering bets on Fox strongly indicates that someone had prefight knowledge.

 

What exactly are these supposed to prove? Daley comes down on the side of it being a fix, his only doubt that it was "too bold-faced a fix to be a fix". He also avers that the investigation will run into a stone wall as there is no way to force LaMotta to tell the truth.

The first writer dwells on LaMotta slipping, but LaMotta won 14 of his next 16, including three championship fights, and defeated every fighter he fought in one fight or another, except for Robinson, until his defeat by Nardico five years later. Fox, on the other hand, never won another important bout.

Both mention that most ringside observers thought it was a fake.

 

LaMotta withstood everything that the murderous punching Bob Satterfield could land on him before taking him out in 7... yet we are supposed to believe that Billy Fox who was involved in several fixed fights somehow managed to legitimately defeat him?