Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Jan 9, 2019.
Let's have less of this Brexit stuff, it's getting in the way of valuable King-bashing!
That would be taking thread creep to another level!
This is really friggin funny Nighttrain ...
You've just made some more claims here and haven't backed up those claims.
Don King wasn't responsible for the era being characterized by divided titles. That's just nonsense.
The WBA and the WBC were dividing and disputing the boxing titles years before King had any influence in those weight divisions at all.
ALL promoters have been known to play the game with the alphabet organizations of dividing titles, getting boxers stripped, so they can put on their own championship fights with fighters under their control. Don King didn't do more of that than anyone else, and it pre-dates King by several years .... and it certainly isn't any better now in the "post King era".
Except fighters get paid what they were promised now?
Who went to jail, and which fights were fixed?
People have been talking about it for 42 years. The fixed fights and the people who went to jail for fixing them should roll right off your tongue.Right?
You are a LIAR.
Prove me wrong.
Who went to jail? Which fights were fixed?
I doubt that's always the case.
You have no credibility here.
Who went to jail over the 1977 US Boxing Tournament and which fights were fixed fights?
And King wasn't IN the mob. The mob blew up his house and his partner because they wanted a bigger cut of his numbers business for "protection." He paid them. King was IN the mob just like "Stacks" (Samuel L. Jackson's character) was IN the mob ... he wasn't. Black guys weren't members of the Irish (which ran Cleveland) or Italian mob. Take a guess why, Einstein?
And who went to jail for the 1977 U.S. boxing tournament? Liar.
What decade (and planet) are living on?
Now it's Don King's fault that the WBC created new belts?
Do you actually follow boxing?
So you said the era when King controlled boxing was the "lost" generation in all divisions because the most important fights never took place ... but you refuse to name one.
And when we name the GREAT fights from that time in many divisions ... you say we shouldn't talk about those because, WHY? Because that would be giving King credit for making great fights? And those were as easy to make as the sun coming up in the morning? (WHAT?)
So, because EVERY great fight THAT COULD HAVE EVER GOTTEN MADE in your mind didn't get made, that era was "lost?"
Does that mean EVERY era in the sport's history was "lost?" When did every great fight that ever could've gotten made HAPPEN?
I must've missed that era.
For example, we got every conceivable matchup involving Leonard and Duran and Benitez and Hearns, and King promoted many of them, but it was a LOST era because why?
You can't say you're being unbiased if you REFUSE to acknowledge great fights King made, and the good he did for the vast majority of the fighters he worked with ...
And you only talk about fights you think COULD'VE gotten made but didn't, and BLAME KING.
And how was King getting $5 million for Foreman and $5 million for Ali like praising him for the sun rising in the morning?
How was the Rumble in the Jungle AS EASY TO MAKE as the sun coming up in the morning?
Are you freaking serious? Jesus Christ. Of all the dumb things said by some King-haters on this thread, that's one the biggest.
Here is one example of Jack Newfield's bias. It's in the book and the documentary.
He talks to David Bey. Bey says he was offered a title fight with Gerrie Coetzee in South Africa, but Bey didn't take it because of Apartheid and black athletes had agreed not to fight there. That's all true.
What Jack Newfield doesn't say is King signed David Bey as an amateur. King quickly got him fights with quality boxers (Bey beat Buster Douglas in his pro debut). King offered David Bey a fight with #1 contender Greg Page. Bey won, in only his 14th pro fight. King then offered Bey a title shot with Coetzee. Bey declined. Said he was sorry. Said he couldn't fight there. King said he understood. King wasn't mad. Then King got Bey an immediate title shot with Larry Holmes.
King didn't yell at Bey. He didn't badmouth him. He didn't say he was lucky to get a title shot, because some fighters never do. Despite Bey turning him down, King continued to look for a title shot for Bey like he had before. And they were on great terms.
AND King turned around and offered Greg Page (who had just lost his #1 ranking to David Bey) a shot at Gerrie Coetzee. And Page accepted it and WON the belt.
An objective observer, from a boxing standpoint, would say: King treated both Bey and Page pretty good in that situation. King didn't "step over" Page and "leave" with Bey.
King got Bey a title fight with someone else, and he got Page an unexpected title shot and Page WON. (Without King offering Page that opportunity, Page likely never would've fought for a title again.)
Newfield looks at the same situation and doesn't see anything positive. In fact, he views it as an example of how King is EVIL.
Newfield focuses on APARTHEID. And how King was TERRIBLE for promoting a fight there.
Regarding Apartheid, Newfield DOES NOT interview Coetzee, who was barred from the 1972 Olympics because he was South African (even though he was never a supporter of Apartheid like Kallie Knoetze was). Coetzee was proud to defend his title in South Africa. And the WBA recognized South Africa fighters.
Newfield also did not speak to GREG PAGE .. who won his title in South Africa. And was no doubt thrilled (thanks to King) to get an unexpected opportunity and win the title.
Newfield also did not speak to or mention fighters like Bob Foster, Richie Kates, John Tate, Mike Weaver, Randy Stephens, Davey Moore, Dwight Qawi or other black U.S. boxers who fought in South Africa in title fights during Apartheid and had no problems going there or fighting there.
Newfield doesn't mention Bey had no problem going to South Africa a couple years later to fight Johnny DuPlooy.
Newfield also didn't speak to Bob Arum, King's chief rival at the time, who promoted fights in South Africa during Apartheid.
No, Newfield just used that as an example of King being a bad guy.
King bad. Bey good.
Even though David Bey liked King. King liked Bey. Other top black boxers were fighting there.
Forget all that. King was satan.
If you read Jack Newfield's book with open eyes, it's laughable how biased it is.
There were two sides to all of those lawsuits though. People accused King of coercing their fighters to break contracts to sign with him or to throw fights, but this could be said about any big promoter. On the other hand if a fighter can be coerced to disregard a current contract that says a lot about the ethics and character of the fighter. Don King, Arum, etc. can't coerce a fighter that will honor all of his current contractual obligations. A perfect example is Ward, who wasn't cheated in anyway by Goossen, but Ward seen an opportunity to sign with a bigger promoter and tried to weasel his way out of his contract by suing Goosen without any justification.
Also, Holmes was a great fighter, but he never was the sharpest tool in the shed. Holmes sued King because he said he was cheated in the Cooney fight and even called King the Devil, but still worked with King again years later for a fight with Tyson. Going back to Larry's lawsuit regarding the Cooney fight Larry made a complete fool out of himself in court, since he admitted that King paid him his guaranteed $5 million purse, but that he was also due 30% of all revenue that the event produced, but when the Judge asked Larry to produce the contract stating that Larry said he no longer had a copy of his contract.
Norton was also a few fries short of a happy meal. Do you remember the Hypnotist that Norton hired for the Ali fight? Norton was dumb enough to publicly throw him under the bus by calling him a gimmick, which ended up with Norton being sued and losing in court.
A lot of fighters also have a bad habit of signing contracts without reading them. From my own experience I've seen fighters sign very bulky contracts without reading a word of the contract, but to be fair boxers aren't the only people that are guilty of this.
Every promoter in boxing has been sued or badmouthed by fighters. All of them.
I remember when Joe Gatti (Arturo's brother) got signed by King. Gatti was 20-2. King signed him and offered Gatti a title fight with Terry Norris. Gatti was thrilled. Accepted. Trained. Got a nice check. Fought Norris and got destroyed.
Then Gatti went to the press and complained that King rushed him into a title fight. Then King dumped Gatti for badmouthing him and being ungrateful, and Gatti complained about that.
King signs the guy and immediately delivers with a title shot, and all Gatti does is complain.
That's the life of MOST boxing promoters.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Dan Goosen was on his deathbed, and Andre Ward kept suing him.
Names and stories.
Give us names and stories.