Who does? I'd rather discount such a result, entirely. What I don't do is pretend that it's "an outright and bad defeat", use it to assess the form of the fighter in question and underpin the same by stating "It is still on record" (regardless of the fact it is a fake result). The 'W' result of a bad decision, is "still on record". To treat it as a loss and as counting against a fighter's form, without having seen the fight or really having a thorough enough understanding of the nature of the controversy, does little to enhance your argument - especially, when it's clear that you're only happy use the "still on record" rule, when it suits your purposes. It's quite evident that your take on this is malleable, based on what you need it to be.
We should agree to disagree because I don't consider the Fox fight a fake result. If a fighter enters the ring supposedly to give his best and then throws the fight, it is a real result. He lost. I feel the same way about claims made about Dempsey or Liston "throwing" fights. If you don't give your best you have no complaints about someone taking the result at face value. On the LaMotta-Villemain fight, it is true the official decision for LaMotta was by the officials assigned to judge the fight. It is certainly reasonable to adduce evidence that the decision was in fact correct. Do so. But on the face of it this decision doesn't seem to have been generally viewed as correct. Suspending officials for their votes is unusual. As to what is consistent, that is subjective, I think. These are clearly two different situations. Anyway, I have enjoyed your posts on this topic. You argue your case well.