Is there any substance to the rumor of Carnera KO Sharkey being "fixed"?

[raylawpc]

Dempsey's ex-wife made the claim that he threw the fight after they were divorced, and when she was trying to shake him down in the midst of his draft-dodging problems with the government. Abe Attell was a great fighter, and an equally corrupt individual according to all I've read about him. Rocky, these aren't exactly unimpeachable sources for the claim.

On the otherhand, Flynn could punch a bit - 34 of his 43 wins came by KO. I think if Dempsey was truly "broke [and] living a street life at the time," it is not unlikely he went into the Flynn fight out of shape an got cold-cocked by the proverbial "lucky punch." I agree it was unlikely for Dempsey to lose to Jim Flynn, but it is within the realm of possibility. That's what makes boxing a great sport.

[PeteLeo]

Which Conn and Duran fights were fixed? Was the quit job in the second Leonard bout believed to be a fix, or were you referring to the wacky mixed match in Japan that looked pretty smelly? PeteLeo.

[mike]

dempsey- over the years even told tunney. flynn knew it also- "well ,it was like this. i hit him with a one-two and that was it.---just, put it down i didnt exactly knock out dempsey. he forgot to duck."

[raylawpc]

Mike, do you have a published source for all of these statements?

[rocky111]

No source is unempeachable. True. Only Jake Lamotta (a guy that rarely got knocked out. Never up to that point) and Harold Green admitted it. But when guys do things that are just not in their history ya gotta wonder.
Abe Attell was a shady guy. But "shady guys" know alot.
Billy Conn's partner in several shady deals, his partner in lots of partying, his buddy in social things, and no boxing fan with no axe to grind, told me that Billy threw the second Louis fight, and told him details of who was involved and why he did it.
Its always money. Boxers earn money by boxing. Like everyone else they get in money trouble and need favors or owe favors.
I was knee deep in a game that I dont need any second hand info in. "Was". Not anymore. I know it for a FACT that Duran was in serious money trouble with guys that were not "buying" it. That second Leonard fight was part of a obligation to get out of debt. The Hearns fight was part of it also. Durans performances against Hagler and Barkley (true middleweights) counterparted with his performances against Leonard and Hearns should tell you something.
You can go on and on with this thing.
But one thing is very very true. Sports fans will simply not accept that their idols and heroes and icons are buyable and corrupt and will fix events.
The great English writer Frank Harris, founder of the Saturday Review, friend of most great personages of the 19th century and early 20th ,and a great fight fan, (he saw most of the great Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, and Jackson fights) said that if you ask a real prizefighter if boxing and baseball was on the level all the time, they would laugh in your face.
I imagine a curious intellegent individual like Harris got his face laughed in alot.
So did I when I was in the same position and asked the same questions.

[mike]

well-raylock--check out the tunney website. the new tunney book--re. flynns statemnets--monte coxs article on this--four both kkearns and hayes knew the reasons and mentioned auberbach--five--as rocky said--it didnt come out of nothing. if anyone needed reasons to chuck it --dempsey did at that time--but immediately wished he had not--he was still travelling by the rods and not eating raregularlly--but was being crushed by family obligations ,as well. while many young felloews were half starved at those times--sometimes certain frustrations can mount up on even a street wise tough, but sensible kid. in coxs corner--you could see that he regrerrted it and preferred it was a one round ko --perhaps out of guilt--than to say what realley happened. again--it most certainly did nto come out of nothing and rocky knows this also.

[hawk5ins]

And I will say that I think Carnera Sharkey II has many unansweed questions about how it unraveled.

I don't KNOW it was a tank job by Sharkey, so I will not declare that to be the case. I do think becuase of the mob ties and influence behind Carnera's career, Primo's lack of power and merely moderate Skill, that his KO over a vastly superior Sharkey leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But simply becuase there are fights in whihc you come away shocked and surprised, are we supposed to conclude that something sinister was at hand?

I have no idea why Duran quit agianst SRL. I suspect he was a bit overconfident and expected to be able to drag Ray into the same trenches he did in the first bout. When that didn't happen and Ray began to mock and embarrass him, I think Roberto made a snap judgement that he rerets to this day. Duran threw that bout becuase he needed money? How much debt was he in? He was pullling in $8 million dollars for the New Orleans bout.

Are we saying Leonard was part of the "set up"? Becuase Duran quit becuase he was being mocked. Was that part of his Plan? And Ray didn't DOMINATE Duran for the whole bout. Heck it was 4 rounds to 2 with one even on my card after 7 rounds. Where does this come from?

Duran threw to Hears fight? Like the intimation of Moore taking a Dive agianst Marciano, me thinks there had to be an easier way of tanking a bout.

YES Duran looked flat coming in to the ring. He didn't looked like there was the fire we were used to. So becuase of THAT, you know he threw the fight?

Manny Steward says in Duran's book that Robert was always spooked by Hearns. Maybe there is some legitmacy to that.

What is the evidence that points to Duran NEEDING to throw the fight becuase he was in debt? Roberto lived very large and was very generous with his cash. He also made a bout 2.5 mil for the Hearns fight. His Clear decision loss to Hagler, coupled with the Moore performance, but Duran back in the big time. What would throwing the Hearns fight and then briefly retiring, have done to his financial status? After that performance, he needs to fight ham and eggers to get back to the real money. Heck, he was clearly superior to Robbie SIms, was the that a tank job as well?

And the performance agianst Barkley, while very spirited and inspiring, may not have been enough to even have won him that bout. He EASILY could have wound up on the short end of that split duke. I had him BARELY winning. And if ANYONE points to that bout as vintage Duran.....yikes. He looked very good for an old man. Let's leave it at that. THAT, was not Roberto Duran.

Duran lost to SRL and to Hearns, becuase on those nights, the better man, and both fighters WERE actually great fighters, beat him those nights.

Any comparison to THESE fighters and Carnera and Sharkey......I just don;t get it.

I do however agree with the comments about Abe Attell. Attell was a very shady charecter, when it came to lining his own pockets. What does he gain by telling what he knows or THINKS he knows about Dempsey Flynn?

Personally, I have no idea either way on that fight. Doesn't seem likely that Flynn could Stop Jack in 1 round and seeing how Jack turned the tables in the rematch, it does seem like it is very probable that it was a tank. But then agian, I don't have anything concrete that I can lay my hat on to say it WAS a dive.

I personally do beleive that there are enough questions and curiousities tolend doubt to fights such as Carnera Sharkey and Flynn Dempsey. But becuase something isn't explainable beyond a shadow of a doubt, doesn't mean there was chicanery going on either.

THink you need to look at the situations individually and weigh everything. I think there is enought evidence to QUESTION Carnera Sharkey II and Flynn Dempsey I. I haven't really seen a whole lot that would make me beleive that Duran INTENTIONALLY, or more appropriately, had a premeditated intention, to Throw the second Leonard and the Hearns bouts.

Hawk

[raylawpc]

Rocky:

Like you, I was at one time "knee deep in the game." Also, I never said that Dempsey didn't go into the tank against Flynn. He could have; I don't know, I wasn't there. But I am not going to make a catagorical statement that he did based on the statements of Abe Attell or Dempsey's embittered ex-wife.

If Mr. Harris had asked me whether boxing was on the level all the time, I, too, would have laughed in his face. Every sport - not just boxing - has corrupt elements. But, that said, I will not make a catagorical assessment based on "he said; she said" or "so-and so- told me once that such and such told him." That doesn't have anything to do with hero worship; that's just being fair - particularly when the party accused - Dempsey - is no longer with us and can't defend himself.

[rocky111]

Jake Lamotta is a hall of famer. He defeated Sugar Ray Robinson AND Marcel Cerdan. He was one of the toughest of fighters and fought his heart out on many occasions rather than go down and take a easy way out. He also admitted under oath that he threw the Fox fight to get a title go. The toughest of fighters threw a fight to a average guy, to get a title shot and the big money.
Roberto Duran made millions for the fights he might have thrown? Well he also owed millions..................
Life is not black and white. Its shades.............

[Mr E]

Jake Lamotta is a hall of famer. He defeated Sugar Ray Robinson AND Marcel Cerdan. He was one of the toughest of fighters and fought his heart out on many occasions rather than go down and take a easy way out. He also admitted under oath that he threw the Fox fight to get a title go. The toughest of fighters threw a fight to a average guy, to get a title shot and the big money.
Roberto Duran made millions for the fights he might have thrown? Well he also owed millions..................
Life is not black and white. Its shades.............

Any of you guys ever read, "Men of Steel"? It's a history of the middleweight championship and a very good one at that. I forget the name of the author, Peter something, I think. In any event, he does a very good job of documenting the corruption in boxing during the 20s and 30s, which was extreme. IMO, between 1915 and 1955, you cannot just assume that any fight was necessarily on the level. No doubt most were, but I bet there was a SIGNIFICANT percentage of fights that were not. Dempsey-Flynn I, several of Fred Fulton's late-career losses (Tony Fuente, Bearcat Wright), Carnera-Godfrey, Carnera-Stribling I & II, Carnera-Sharkey II, and Walcott-Layne are just a few of the fights that I personally believe were fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if several of the supposed "off" nights suffered by Jack Sharkey and Jersey Joe Walcott (including Sharkey-Walker and Marciano-Walcott II) were also pre-arranged. Don't forget that Mickey Walker was tied to the hip to Al Capone and that Walcott's management team was completely corrupt.

Just thinking out loud. I also believe Seabiscuit was coked to the gills every time he stepped onto the track as a 4-year-old on.

[hawk5ins]

But what, in the way of any type of evidence do you have that would SUPPORT a claim that Duran threw the second SRL and the Hearns bout.

He ran himself into bankruptcy?

Yes he actually did do this. Three times as a matter of fact. But not when he was coming off of or going into EITHER the Leonard or Hearns bouts. As a matter of fact, it happened each time when the cash and big paydays were NOT coming in. Going into BOTH the second Leonard and the Hearns bouts, Duran was actually at two of the financial HIGH points of his life.

If there is any type of tangible evidence that Duran was suffering financial difficulties FOLLOWING the first SRL bout in which he was forced to throw the second one, please present it. And if there is any evidence that following the Moore and Hagler bouts that Duran was in a similar situation, again, please present that evidence.

Duran DID have financial difficulties, multiple time throughout his career. But if one is going to claim that he threw these two bouts, then one should be able to show that he was having finance issues going into those bouts.

We can't throw a blanket statement out there saying: "DUran had money woes throughout his career. ANd That is why I beleive he "threw" those two fights."

Well if he wasn't having Cash flow issues going into those two fights, then claiming he threw them becuase he needed money, really doesn;t add up.

Hawk

[Mr E]

Dempsey's ex-wife made the claim that he threw the fight after they were divorced, and when she was trying to shake him down in the midst of his draft-dodging problems with the government. Abe Attell was a great fighter, and an equally corrupt individual according to all I've read about him. Rocky, these aren't exactly unimpeachable sources for the claim.

On the otherhand, Flynn could punch a bit - 34 of his 43 wins came by KO. I think if Dempsey was truly "broke [and] living a street life at the time," it is not unlikely he went into the Flynn fight out of shape an got cold-cocked by the proverbial "lucky punch." I agree it was unlikely for Dempsey to lose to Jim Flynn, but it is within the realm of possibility. That's what makes boxing a great sport.

One thing about what Maxine Cates said:

Don't forget that she made that statement in Court, under oath and under penalty of perjury, and don't forget, too, that Dempsey's lawyer did not put him on the stand to contradict her under oath. Why the Hell not????? The ONLY reason you wouldn't have your client deny that kind of allegation would be if you knew it was true. I'd bet a small fortune that Dempsey told his lawyer it was the truth, which meant the lawyer's ethical obligation not to suborne perjury meant he could not ALLOW Dempsey to contradict her.

I would LOVE to see that lawyer's notes of his conversations w/ Dempsey. If they still exist somewhere, I bet they would clear up the matter of the dive once and for all.

[raylawpc]

One thing about what Maxine Cates said:

Don't forget that she made that statement in Court, under oath and under penalty of perjury and don't forget, too, that Dempsey's lawyer did not put him on the stand to contradict her under oath. Why the Hell not????? The ONLY reason you wouldn't have your client deny that kind of allegation would be if you knew it was true. I'd bet a small fortune that Dempsey told his lawyer it was the truth, which meant the lawyer's ethical obligation not to suborne perjury meant he could not ALLOW Dempsey to contradict her.

I would LOVE to see that lawyer's notes of his conversations w/ Dempsey. If they still exist somewhere, I bet they would clear up the matter of the dive once and for all.

There are lots of reasons why a lawyer doesn't put a client on the stand. Also, in this case, the trial wasn't about whether Dempsey took a dive in the Flynn fight; it was about whether he violated the terms of the Selective Service Act.

[kikibalt]

There are lots of reasons why a lawyer doesn't put a client on the stand. Also, in this case, the trial wasn't about whether Dempsey took a dive in the Flynn fight; it was about whether he violated the terms of the Selective Service Act.

Tom
Are you a lawyer?

LOL

Frank

[Mr E]

There are lots of reasons why a lawyer doesn't put a client on the stand. Also, in this case, the trial wasn't about whether Dempsey took a dive in the Flynn fight; it was about whether he violated the terms of the Selective Service Act.

Lots of reasons, sure, but somebody just testified from personal knowledge that your client committed a fraudulent act at a time when your client's credibility has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with keeping him out of jail and you don't have him contradict her???????? That's malpractice per se, unless Dempsey didn't take the stand at all (but he did).

[raylawpc]

E: The proof is in the pudding. The strategy worked; Dempsey was acquitted.

[Dan1213]

One thing about what Maxine Cates said:

Don't forget that she made that statement in Court, under oath and under penalty of perjury, and don't forget, too, that Dempsey's lawyer did not put him on the stand to contradict her under oath. Why the Hell not????? The ONLY reason you wouldn't have your client deny that kind of allegation would be if you knew it was true. I'd bet a small fortune that Dempsey told his lawyer it was the truth, which meant the lawyer's ethical obligation not to suborne perjury meant he could not ALLOW Dempsey to contradict her.

I would LOVE to see that lawyer's notes of his conversations w/ Dempsey. If they still exist somewhere, I bet they would clear up the matter of the dive once and for all.

Eric, as you recall, in September 2000, the late Bob Soderman ran a 13 page article on Jack Dempsey's early career in the IBRO Journal. He delved quite heavily into the first Dempsey-Flynn fight.

[raylawpc]

Dan, I would like to see the article. This has always been an intriguing issue for me. I will send you my personal e-mail address and Fax number, if you can send it to me. Thanks.

[Mr E]

E: The proof is in the pudding. The strategy worked; Dempsey was acquitted.

True enough. But that doesn't mean that, before the jury came back, Dempsey's counsel didn't wish he'd been able to let Dempsey call Cates a liar!

[Mr E]

Eric, as you recall, in September 2000, the late Bob Soderman ran a 13 page article on Jack Dempsey's early career in the IBRO Journal. He delved quite heavily into the first Dempsey-Flynn fight.

It's a wonderful article-- very convincing, IMO. I sent a copy to Monte Cox, once upon a time, who summarized it very nicely on the Coxcorner website. Mr. Soderman was a tremendous historian.

[raylawpc]

True enough. But that doesn't mean that, before the jury came back, Dempsey's counsel didn't wish he'd been able to let Dempsey call Cates a liar!

Wait a minute. Actually, as I think about it, I don't think Maxine Dempsey actually testified in court about the Flynn fight. I think she made her claims in the newspapers at the time, but not under oath in court.

[kenmore]

Duran lost to SRL and to Hearns, becuase on those nights, the better man, and both fighters WERE actually great fighters, beat him those nights.

As to why Duran quit against Ray Leonard in their second match, Ring Magazine wrote an article offering what I think is the best guess of all. The article speculated that: 1) Duran was not in peak shape mentally or physically, and knew he couldn't win the bout, and: 2) Duran had gastrointestinal problems in the ring, and was looking for an excuse to end the bout early. Both of these reasons together explain Duran's tempermental behavior that night.

In other words, Duran was to boxing what John McEnroe was to tennis: petulant, disgusted, and inclined to go home early if things weren't going his way.

The Ring Magazine article pointed out that Duran did not prepare properly for the rematch. Just a couple of weeks before the bout, Duran was still about 13 pounds overweight, and he had to starve himself to make weight. After weighing in at the 147 lbs. limit, Duran then went on a massive eating binge, and he was sluggish by the time he got into the ring.

It sounds like Duran just could not find the mental intensity necessary to put himself through an adequate training program for the Leonard rematch. Maybe his motivation was gone.

I agree that Duran was not being outclassed by Leonard in bout number two. Duran was losing, sure, and he was on his way to dropping a unanimous decision that night to Leonard. But Duran was not being whipped.

[hawk5ins]

Mentally and physically, probably did come into play here. Hell I won't even rule out that he did have stomach cramps (to the degree that he HAD to quit, no, but it was a resonable exscuse, to him at the time.)

What I would like to hear from Rocky is what evidence he has to support Roberto's premeditated intention to throw the bout becuase of financial reasons.

And evidence to support the same claim for the Hearns bout.

I am willing to listen and then form an opinion once I've heard something substantive. But "blanket" Duran had financial issues throughout his career, really doesn't offer anything IMO.

Hawk

[Mr E]

Wait a minute. Actually, as I think about it, I don't think Maxine Dempsey actually testified in court about the Flynn fight. I think she made her claims in the newspapers at the time, but not under oath in court.

You know, it's interesting that you say that. I read an article -- can't remember where now -- referencing Maxine's testimony ON THE STAND. My first thought was, well, Hell, that settles it. If Dempsey's lawyer didn't have him contradict her on the stand, then either he was a complete idiot (which he very clearly was not), or he knew she was telling the truth (which means Dempsey admitted that to him under the protection of the attorney-client privilege).

But I couldn't believe I was the first person who ever drew that, fairly obvious, conclusion. So, it could be that the author was mistaken re Cate's testimony on the stand... ? [Might have been in Roger Kahn's book where I read that.]

IMO, if she testified on the stand that Dempsey threw the fight, and if Dempsey did not contradict her on the stand, then that is proof positive that Dempsey took a dive. Simply no other explanation.

If not, then I am still personally convinced that Dempsey took a dive for the reasons outlined in the very excellent Bob Soderman IBRO article, but I could see how others might not be as convinced as I am (and Mr. Soderman was).

I wonder if I can get my hands on the trial transcript? I think I'll take a run at that, now that my curiosity is piqued....

[hawk5ins]

Kahn's book states that She was forced to repeat here allegations about Jack, that were originally published in the infamous Article that accused Dempsey among other things of Bruising her jaw, throwing the Flynn fight, etc. to the Grand Jury.

I too drew that seemingly obvious conclusion.

Buuuut, when Kahn covers the trial, it does not specifically cover the Flynn bout.

So I think we have some grey areas here. Obviously Kahn can't cover the entire trial and her testimony. But agian, it doesn't specifically mention Maxine on the stand stating Jack threw the Flynn fight.

-the book covers her allegations made in the paper, including throwing hte Flynn fight.

-States that she then forced to repeat those allegations. But this is a General comment. It does not state SPECIFICALLY waht she had to retell.

-It thne covers the trial, but does not cover any testimony from her on the Flynn bout.

I drew the same thing you did E. But I can't point to a line in the book that SPECIFICALLY states that she said this under oath.

Hawk

[rocky111]

Its not that Duran had "financial" difficulties. Its WHO he owed the money to. Ditto Sonny Liston. He OWED the wrong guys and got took out like he was a little kid. The "streets" are not pro sports with rules and commissions and reporters and magazines and tv commentors on the take who will say any lie to promote. Duran is a "street" guy. He lived that kind of life and paid that kind of dues and looked UP to certain guys just because..........Ditto Jake Lamotta. He knew who he owed and for what. The word I got from the people who were there say that Jake really threw the Fox fight in exchange for his brothers Joey's life, because Joey disrespected the wrong guy physically. Problems like Duran and Lamotta had you cant call a cop on.

[hawk5ins]

I understand that you were very involved in the fight game at one point. So given that, I have a great amount of respect for that.

But you are not offering anything other than "It was so".

Let's not obfuscate this with Lamotta or Liston or anyone else. We are talking about Roberto Duran. And specifically The Second bout with Sugar Ray Leonard and his bout with Thomas Hearns. No need to bring in any other fighters to cloud any of this up.

You have made, what I consider a rather startling accusation in stating that: " I know it for a FACT that Duran was in serious money trouble with guys that were not "buying" it. That second Leonard fight was part of a obligation to get out of debt. The Hearns fight was part of it also. Durans performances against Hagler and Barkley (true middleweights) counterparted with his performances against Leonard and Hearns should tell you something.
You can go on and on with this thing."

I have asked for specifics from you based on this claim becuase quite frankly, I have never heard from ANYONE, who was "Knee Deep in the Game" that this was the case for either of these two fights.

Personally, if you are going to make this direct and specific of an accusation, I think you are obligated to back it up with something a bit more substantive than: "I was there and I know this to be the case."

I doubt anyone on this board would accept that from a Gil Clancy or an Angelo Dundee or a Teddy Brenner or an Eddie Futch with out him bringing more to the table than just "thier word".

All I'm asking for, and I don't think I'm out of line or being rude here, is a little more meat to go with these potatoes.

Respectfully yours,

Hawk

[raylawpc]

Hi E:

The contemporary accounts of the trial which I just spent the morning going through - and pissed my wife off in the process - say nothing about Maxine testifying that Dempsey threw the Flynn fight. However, the only accounts I have are wireservice accounts; the best accounts would come from the San Francisco newspapers to which I don't have access.

The judge, however, had ruled that Maxine could not testify as to any spousal communicatons between her and Dempsey (marital privilege) so, under his ruling, she couldn't have testified about any statement made by Jack regarding the Flynn fight. And she couldn't have testified as to any statements made by others that she may have heard; that would have been hearsay. Finally, one can wonder if the judge would have permitted the testimony as to the Flynn fight anyway because it probably was irrelevant to the issues at trial: that is, whether Dempsey violated the Selective Service Act.

So, I don't think it is too likely at all that she testified as to the Flynn fight during the trial. Maybe somebody with access to the San Francisco newspapers can tell us for sure.

Interestingly, Dempsey himself did mention the Flynn fight in his own testimony. He said that a promoter told him he "wasn't worth 30 cents" in light of Maxine's allegations that he threw the fight. So, apparently she had made those allegations before 1920.

Good luck getting that transcript. If you want to try, the first place I'd check would be the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern California District. The clerk's phone # in San Francisco is 415-522-2000.

[hawk5ins]

You know what? I beleive I misrread the Dempsey Flynn comments by Maxine altogether in Kahn's book.

It doesn't actually state that she made these comments in the paper. Rather they were spouted off by her in the bar.

I'm not only doubting she ever said this under oath, but now if it ever made it into print in a direct quote from her to the interviewer.

I think hearsay comments have rolled up into a big ball of snow possibly.

Hawk

[10-8]

Mentally and physically, probably did come into play here. Hell I won't even rule out that he did have stomach cramps (to the degree that he HAD to quit, no, but it was a resonable exscuse, to him at the time.)

What I would like to hear from Rocky is what evidence he has to support Roberto's premeditated intention to throw the bout becuase of financial reasons.

And evidence to support the same claim for the Hearns bout.

I am willing to listen and then form an opinion once I've heard something substantive. But "blanket" Duran had financial issues throughout his career, really doesn't offer anything IMO.

Hawk

I can't remember if it was Freddie Brown or Ray Arcel but I seem to remember an interview they did prior to their death regarding the second Leonard fight in which it was stated that the 'stomach troubles' excuse was a fabrication that was thought up in the dressing room afterwards to put forth as a plausible explanation when there was no other excuse other than Duran out and out quit.

As for Duran throwing the Hearns fight, you could line up every reputable inside boxing expert and they could never convince me otherwise from what my eyes see. Duran was cut early, floored legitamitely and out on his feet before being KO'd in the second round. There's easier ways to throw a fight than letting Tommy Hearns unload his best right hand on your jaw.

This claim is so unbelievable that it's barely worthy of discussion.