Billy Fox - Jake La Motta fight

Let's get Jake on the horn.

 

Here's a couple more opinions from the New York writers as reported in the day-afters;

"Instead of fighting in close as he had done with such good results in the first round, LaMotta stoof off, dropped his quard and snarled what was supposed to be defiance at Fox. From that moment on, Jake was in danger of being picketed by Equity at any moment for not having an actors' union card. Once he forgot himself and threw an authentic right cross. But when it was halfway to its target, he applied the brakes sharply and saved the night for Fox - and himself. Fullam should have called it no contest." - Dan Parker of the New York Mirror

"Your reporter regrets that he didn't like the look of last night's fight, and if this doesn't kill boxing in New York, one more like it will. Somebody got rich in the biggest betting fight in years, and our august administrators should waste no time in looking into whatever link may exist between the outcome and the sinister switch in odds which made Fox favorite at ring time." - Bill Corum of the New York Journal and American

"Never in his 12 previous Garden main events had LaMotta been such an unrealistic facsimile of himself. He has always been a charging bully, but he waited timidly. He is a body puncher of fire and accuracy, but he was htting Fox on the arms. He took countless jabs without firing a return and pulled up in the third after rocking Fox with two rights to the head." - Lester Bromberg of the New York World Telegram

As far as LaMotta having a reason to make up the 'bad back' story (it's entirely possible that he did have a sore back to some extent and still threw the fight), let's remember that it is and was a crime to partake in a fixed fight, so it's certainly understandable of LaMotta to claim the injury in the immediate aftermath, especially considering what was supposedly promised to him as a result of this fight.

Also, here's a quick quote from Billy Fox that was said to be printed in a Ring Magazine article in 1981 (I'm getting this second hand from Thomas Myler's book, so I don't know what issue it would be in);

"When I put it to him (Blinky) that I was sure the fight was crooked, he said he would swear on his wife and children that everything was on the level, but when I got home to Philadelphia, the scandal was all over the papers.

I felt hurt. It affected my whole life. Made me feel despondant, downhearted, disgusted. Why did he have to do it to me? Why couldn't he have done it with a guy who didn't give a damn? Then I read in the papers that most of my fights were fixed. I discovered that Palermo made up my supposed record of 49 knockouts and doubled up with some of the names. When I put it to him, he said 'Look, you do the fighting, I'll do the managing.' That was his line."

Fox also claimed that Palermo told him he was deducting $1,000 of his purse for the LaMotta fight as a way to "bribe the referee", but Fox himself thought that was a lie and that "He just put the $1,000 in his own pocket and never went near the referee".

 

The front page New York Times article in 1960 when LaMotta testified before the Senate investigating commission does give some devastating information:

1. "In a signed deposition to Senate staff investigators last month, LaMotta said he had recieved an offer of $100,000 to throw the bout with Fox. He named Bill Daley and Frank (Blinky) Palermo as the men who set up the bribe money."

2. "But in his testimony today, he said he didn't know who had put up the bribe money. He said word of the bribe affair had been passed along to him by his brother Joey."

3. "Joseph LaMotta, who had served as Jake's trainer and sometimes as his manager, also testified. He invoked the 5th Amendment in refusing to answer questions about bribe money. He said his answers might incriminate him."

4. So Jake now said he refused the money but threw the fight anyway in order to get a shot at the championship.

5. Why would he change his story? This little excerpt might give some idea: "Reliable sources said racketeers had telephoned LaMotta and warned him he would be 'hit in the head'--meaning murdered--if he implicated certain persons in his testimony before the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly subcommittee."

"When the Senate investigators asked LaMotta if he or members of his family had been threatened with bodily harm, LaMotta hesitated, then said he hadn't been.
"'I'm not afraid for myself,' he said quietly. Then he suddenly became angry. 'And I'm not afraid of none of them rats,' he shouted."

6. Why was he involved with this committee at all? I don't know for certain, but the article mentions that Jake had some legal troubles concerning contributing to the deliquency of a minor, a 14 year old girl. Remember that old law, the Mann Act. If Jake ever drove across state lines with the girl, the Feds could have put him away for quite a while. On the other hand, Blinky and his boys might cool him down to room temperature rather abruptly. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

Personally, I think he took the bribe to toss the fight and the 'I only did it to get a shot at the title' bit was pure bull****. Can't blame him for fibbing in 1960, though. He was in a tight spot. If he wasn't such a creep, I might even feel sorry for him.

 

The "main argument" has nothing to do with the odds the day of the fight. LaMotta named names of gangsters who offered him bribes to investigators of a Senate committee, and then when threatened with being murdered if he repeated those names before the committee, he came up with the story that his original story was hearsay and his brother Joey told him the names. Joey took the fifth. Jake LaMotta is getting into pretty deep water here. Give a reason why he should lie himself into the grave. If the fight was on the level, why didn't he just say so?

If you are not going to take testimony before a Senate committee as "actual facts", what would be actual facts?

Reread the New York Times report quoted above.

 

"The fact of his brother refusing to testify works against the fix also"

Your argument makes no sense. Why did Joey not just testify that there was no bribe and there was no fix? Why would he have to take the fifth? I think the implication is obvious. There was a bribe and there was a fix and Joey was advised by counsel that it would be wise to refuse to testify as he would be wide open for perjury if the government had evidence they had not yet made known.

 

Seriously, if LaMotta had a hemotoma on the spleen as his physician testified, why did he not ask for the fight to be postponed? Dr Vincent Nardiello testified that such an injury normally took about two months to heal. LaMotta fought about one month after his injury. Why? If his side was tender, why didn't he wait until it healed to fight? One possible reason--he had already accepted money to throw the fight and he thought it best to go through with it.

 

You are carrying skepticism too far. The New York Times specifically said that Joey refused to testify about a bribe because his answer would incriminate him. Perjury is also the logical reason not to testify.

You are just not facing up to the evidence. You sound to me like someone who sees the fox running out of the chicken coop with feathers all over his snout and finds the bones of a dead chicken in the coop, but whose attitude is how do we know the fox did it. Okay, no convincing evidence is possible in your case.

 

So LaMotta decided to give the names of two well-known and very dangerous gangsters, thus endangering himself and his family, although there was nothing to it. Be real.

Fox says Palermo swore to him the fight was legit. I believe Fox, but find Palermo's word to be a tad short of on the same plane as Abe Lincoln's when it comes to a reputation for honesty. If the fight was indeed fixed, it would be dangerous for Palermo to admit it to Fox, thus creating another potential witness.

 

all im interested in is a copy of that fight on film. any help?