Primo Carnera

[jhar26]

I would like to know how you guys feel about Primo Carnera. On the one hand I read everywhere that his legacy is false, on the other hand some posters here are arguing that he was really a very good fighter who even could have been the possible champ if he were fighting today. If he really was that good, why did his mobster entourage feel the need to bribe even mediocre opponents to take a dive, and how can his wins that were considered to be on the level be trusted considering his history?

I'm not arguing one way or the other myself, I'm not knowledgable enough to do so.

[McGrain]

Well, as you say, it's impossible to know exactly what went on in all of his fights on account of his involvment with the mob.

Look to the fights he lost for clues.

I think he was a reasoneably tough man, capable enough if not outstanding. He had some power, though nothing like you'd expect, but some boxing skill, perhaps more than he's been given credit for.

He's basically underated, IMO.

He was also a thoroughly decent man. I don't think he shipped his dignity even after he realised he'd been robbed blind.

[Luigi1985]

I would like to know how you guys feel about Primo Carnera. On the one hand I read everywhere that his legacy is false, on the other hand some posters here are arguing that he was really a very good fighter who even could have been the possible champ if he were fighting today. If he really was that good, why did his mobster entourage feel the need to bribe even mediocre opponents to take a dive, and how can his wins that were considered to be on the level be trusted considering his history?

I'm not arguing one way or the other myself, I'm not knowledgable enough to do so.


Ask yourself, if Carnera was such a bum like many people think, why should some people make him a champ with so many fixed fights who cost so much, when there were talented fighters around? Carnera was a good HW with enormous pysical strength, a very good and hard one-punch, good stamina, and some skills (jab for example). The only mistake his managment made was, that they tried to fast to promote world-wide, he fought too often. And against Young Stribling, a great fighter with much experience, they wanted no risk and he all know what happened, which is for Carnera´s legacy very unfair, because now some idiots really think that all of his fights were fixed except his losses, what´s of course total bullshit...

[young griffo]

He looks very limited to me on the film I've seen.
He had an okay jab which he used to keep the much (much) smaller opponents he was fighting at bay,but he had little power (couldn't put Tommy Loughran away even with a 80+ pound advantage),no head movement, and ponderous footwork.
But I'll give him one thing he had a big,big heart.He kept getting off the floor when the murderous punching Baer kept hammering him there (10 times in all from memory) which showed he had a champion's heart which is something to be proud of.

[Duodenum]

Carnera probably didn't have a single fast twitch muscle fiber in his body. He did use his reach and movement very well in deploying his long peskey jab, and he had a number of quality decision wins on his dossier. Against Campolo and Impelletier, he demonstrated that he could handle bigger opponents than himself, and he decisioned the bull-strong Paulino Uzcudun twice. He also posted two decision wins over King Levinski, and avenged a points loss to Jimmy Maloney with one of his own, as well as legitimately outpointing a Tommy Loughran who, while fading at 34, was nonetheless coming off a decision win over the aforementioned Impelletier.

With his jab and movement, he was certainly a better boxer than the equally large Buddy Baer. He may have been slow in the ring, but he wasn't dumb.

He was as well conditioned as necessary for going 15 rounds, and was wearing Loughran down at the end. Stepping on Tommy's feet may not have been clumsiness, but shrewd rule bending on Primo's part. He also pulled Max Baer down with him repeatedly, buying Carnera additional time to recover from his knockdowns. After Sharkey floored Primo with a hook in their first match, Primo immediately bounced right back up, then down to one knee to take the benefit of a full count, demonstrating alert and intelligent ring savy. (Unlike Jerry Quarry, Primo did not lose the count.) As large as Da Preem's feet were, I haven't seen any footage of him tripping or stumbling over them.

Mike Tyson and George Foreman had numerous quick kayos as they originally moved up through the ranks, but Carnera's inability to punch with leverage resulted in him going a significant distance with a number of quality opponents. He had won 13 matches lasting ten rounds or more by the time he won the title with 82 matches under his belt. That's a fairly respectable level of experience, too many fights for Primo to have behind him and still be totally clueless about what to do once the bell rang.

His reputation might be considerably better if he didn't appear to quit against Baer. (If he'd been on his feet by the end of 15 rounds with Maxie, he might have been more respected, as Jimmy Braddock came to be admired for, "going out on his shield," against Louis.)

Was his knockout of Sharkey legitimate? Primo certainly had his moments in their first 15 rounder. When he delivered the uppercut which won the title, Sharkey was in an awkward posistion on the ropes, trying to get away. Primo squared up against him, and pivoted with his right foot directly facing Sharkey, as he drove up with all his bodyweight behind that right uppercut. As slow as Primo was, when I look at his form in that instant, it appears to be a genuinely forceful punch.

During his title run, he defeated top heavyweights in four consecutive matches. It wasn't his fault that Ernie Shaaf chose to get out of his hospital bed ill with influenza to face Carnera in their title eliminator.

In defending the title against Uzcudun and Loughran, he decisioned two contenders who held wins over Max Baer. He may not have been a great fighter, but he was a good champion, the only one to defend the title thrice inside a year's time between Jack Johnson in 1915 (Willard), and Joe Louis in 1938 (Thomas), a span of 23 years. Carnera deserves to be acknowledged as a fighting champion, who didn't sit on the title for three years, and defended it against worthy challengers. And unlike Sharkey, Baer, and Louis, Primo always got up in his biggest fights after being floored.

[janitor]

I would like to know how you guys feel about Primo Carnera. On the one hand I read everywhere that his legacy is false, on the other hand some posters here are arguing that he was really a very good fighter who even could have been the possible champ if he were fighting today. If he really was that good, why did his mobster entourage feel the need to bribe even mediocre opponents to take a dive, and how can his wins that were considered to be on the level be trusted considering his history?

I'm not arguing one way or the other myself, I'm not knowledgable enough to do so.

I have looked into the matter in some detail and it seems that the alegations of fixed fights were largley malicios. The alegations were originaly made by a former manager of Carnera with a grudge and were readily seized upon by the xenphobic press of the day. Carnera was involved in a couple of dodgey fights but probably no more than say Max Baer or Jimmy Braddock. I am certain that the fight where he won the title from Jack Sharkey was on the level.

How good was he?

He was prety decent. He beat most of the top contenders of the period and has a resume that stacks up well against the other champions of the 30s. He fought the best and fought them regularly including some opponents that many other top contenders avoided.

In the final analysis he should be remembered as a good champion. Not a great one but a good one.

[jhar26]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Very informative, thanks.:good

[amhlilhaus]

to anyone's knowledge, did sharkey ever claim to have thrown the title fight? I would think that if he had, eventually he would have come clean, especially as how carnera wasn't treated kindly by historians.

[janitor]

to anyone's knowledge, did sharkey ever claim to have thrown the title fight? I would think that if he had, eventually he would have come clean, especially as how carnera wasn't treated kindly by historians.

Sharkey to his credit always vheamently insisted that the fight was on the level.

He was not a man troubled by modesty but he gave Carnera his due.

[Duodenum]

One thing which hasn't been touched on in this thread, which may have undermined Carnera's treatment by the unsophisticated English language media of that era, is the fact that Primo was Italian. Just as Max Schmeling was smeared unjustly by the brush of Nazism, so too was Carnera by Fascism at that period in time. But there can be a huge difference between partisan party politics and patriotism. Like Schmeling, Carnera seems to have been another perfectly fine fellow caught between a rock and a hard place. (Decades later, Gerrie Coetzee would face the same sort of sociopolitical conundrum.)

I wonder how Carnera might have been treated by the press if he'd been French (like Carpentier). I suspect his nationality might have coloured it adversely, outside the Italian-American community.

[red cobra]

Why has everyone lost their perspective on Primo Carnera regarding whether he was good or bad? Any student of boxing history knows that the Italian was just a big, simple, overgrown (particularly for his time) freak who had basic, rudimentary boxing skills, no real chin and really, really crooked men who fixed many of his fights and manoevered him skillfully into a fight with a tempermental, hot/cold, erratic fighter named Jack Sharkey, who, believe it or not, actually got himself ko'd in the 6th round, with what sime people might call a "lucky punch". Carnera fought after that, in defense of his title, a great, brilliant lightheavyweight champion named Tommy Loughran, who was outweighed by nearly 100 pounds, and who couldnt punch at all as a heavyweight (and not too hard as a lightheavy), so guess what? Primo wasn't gonna lose THAT fight, with all the natural physical advantages he had. He also fought a slow but rugged trialhorse named Paulino Uzcudun, who he was able to decision without too much trouble. That brings us to Max Baer. Max wasn't even in shape, and he wasn't even trying to devastate Primo, but he scored 11 or 12 knockdowns to take the title from Primo on a tko in 11. Even halfassed, grazing punches from Max put poor Primo on the deck. Max couldn't really land a finisher on Carnera because Primo hurt his ankle after the first knockdown, and went down rather easily from the breeze generated by Max's punches (otherwise he would have killed Carnera). In Primo's next fight, Joe Louis nearly killed him. So what is it so hard to understand about Primo Carnera? He wasn't too bad against a gut who was much smaller than him, or who couldnt punch that hard, but most of all, he was great against guys who were whispered to by some thug wearing a trenchcoat and told to lie down in a given round after being tapped on the chin.

[Luigi1985]

Why has everyone lost their perspective on Primo Carnera regarding whether he was good or bad? Any student of boxing history knows that the Italian was just a big, simple, overgrown (particularly for his time) freak who had basic, rudimentary boxing skills, no real chin and really, really crooked men who fixed many of his fights and manoevered him skillfully into a fight with a tempermental, hot/cold, erratic fighter named Jack Sharkey, who, believe it or not, actually got himself ko'd in the 6th round, with what sime people might call a "lucky punch". Carnera fought after that, in defense of his title, a great, brilliant lightheavyweight champion named Tommy Loughran, who was outweighed by nearly 100 pounds, and who couldnt punch at all as a heavyweight (and not too hard as a lightheavy), so guess what? Primo wasn't gonna lose THAT fight, with all the natural physical advantages he had. He also fought a slow but rugged trialhorse named Paulino Uzcudun, who he was able to decision without too much trouble. That brings us to Max Baer. Max wasn't even in shape, and he wasn't even trying to devastate Primo, but he scored 11 or 12 knockdowns to take the title from Primo on a tko in 11. Even halfassed, grazing punches from Max put poor Primo on the deck. Max couldn't really land a finisher on Carnera because Primo hurt his ankle after the first knockdown, and went down rather easily from the breeze generated by Max's punches (otherwise he would have killed Carnera). In Primo's next fight, Joe Louis nearly killed him. So what is it so hard to understand about Primo Carnera? He wasn't too bad against a gut who was much smaller than him, or who couldnt punch that hard, but most of all, he was great against guys who were whispered to by some thug wearing a trenchcoat and told to lie down in a given round after being tapped on the chin.


You´re an idiot who hates Carnera without any reasons. Stop it, it would really be better...

[UpWithEvil]

That brings us to Max Baer. Max wasn't even in shape, and he wasn't even trying to devastate Primo, but he scored 11 or 12 knockdowns to take the title from Primo on a tko in 11.

Max Baer was in magnificent shape for that bout. See if you can scout up a photograph of their weigh-in, or film of Baer's training camp for the fight. Max did have a tendency not to train for fights, but he was in corking shape for this one.

[janitor]

Why has everyone lost their perspective on Primo Carnera regarding whether he was good or bad? Any student of boxing history knows that the Italian was just a big, simple, overgrown (particularly for his time) freak who had basic, rudimentary boxing skills, no real chin and really, really crooked men who fixed many of his fights and manoevered him skillfully into a fight with a tempermental, hot/cold, erratic fighter named Jack Sharkey,

What actual evidence is there for Carnera having all these fixed fights you talk about?

As far as I can see the alegations are based on inuendo, and half truths. The person who made the alegations had a grudge against Carnera and much of what he wrote is self contradictory.

[red cobra]

Max Baer was in magnificent shape for that bout. See if you can scout up a photograph of their weigh-in, or film of Baer's training camp for the fight. Max did have a tendency not to train for fights, but he was in corking shape for this one.
Of course Max Baer LOOKED like he was in shape. Max didn't dissipate between fights and get all fat and sloppy. The point is, he didnt train with savage, serious intent for Primo like he did for Schmeling. Saying he wasn't in shape was meant as a metaphor of sorts to suggest that he wasn't dead serious about this fight like he was for Max Schmeling for instance. He destroyed Schmeling as you know, and if he wasn't so over confident with Primo and didnt clown so much as he did, he would have ended it much sooner.

[red cobra]

What actual evidence is there for Carnera having all these fixed fights you talk about?

As far as I can see the alegations are based on inuendo, and half truths. The person who made the alegations had a grudge against Carnera and much of what he wrote is self contradictory.
So all the written history on Primo Carnera is false? The mob DIDN'T fix his fights and steer him to the title? He got there legitimately and just fell apart one night against Max Baer? I guess you're free to believe anything you want. Just revise history all you want to. There are already revisionist idiots out there who are saying that Joe Louis was NOT a great champion, and that Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano were over rated, rank amateurs and nonsense like that, so I guess it's time to rewrite the book on Primo Carnera too and make him a "good champion".

[red cobra]

You´re an idiot who hates Carnera without any reasons. Stop it, it would really be better...
An idiot because I don't buy into revisionist history about Primo Carnera? I have nothing against Carnera. I have no reason to have anything against Primo Carnera. Is it because he was Italian that you'e so defensive about the guy and you want to tweak it so he's something that he wasn't? Were the great sportswriters like Paul Gallico and others who wrote about him just full of shit or something? It's like me building up Jerry Quarry, who was Irish, up into something far greater than he was because I happen to be Irish too. Where's your evidence to support saying that he was anything than what he was widely reported that he was? I happen to admire the fact that he gave it his all against the big hitters he faced who slaughtered him, and had the balls to keep trying until the end like he did against Louis. He had courage, and thats all he had left after the mob betrayed and then deserted him. He had courage and like I said, he had size and rudimentary boxing skills. That and the infuence of some very crooked men led him to the top, where he did, if you'll remenber from my first post, win his title legitimately with that right uppercut against Sharkey. The guy couldn't take a damned punch, get it? This was made painfully obvious when he fought Baer, Louis and Haynes, and by then, it was time for Primo to switch to pro wrestling. He seemed like a good hearted, likeable, somewhat childlike kind of man, so you're wrong, he was impossible to hate. Just dont rewrite boxing history for the sake of some whim of yours.

[UpWithEvil]

So all the written history on Primo Carnera is false?

I think calling the various innuendos and whispered rumors "history" is overstating the case.

For many years I, like yourself, openly believed the derogatory tales of Da Preem, a talentless lummox who couldn't fight a lick but was pushed to the top through a series of fixed fights arranged by his mobster handlers. Upon further investigation, however, I find myself increasingly unconvinced on that score; which fighters have admitted to taking a dive? What firsthand accounts exist of the flim-flammery?

When I was a lad doing a bit of boxing myself, a grizzled old-timer confided in my that when you go to see a major boxing show, you can assume that 25% of the fights are not on the level to some extent. I don't doubt that Da Preem benefitted from a few paid divers in his day, but do completely discredit his accomplishments and assume that all of his wins were shams is amazingly unfair.

And the final nail in the coffin of "Primo's fights were all fixed" is to watch the video for yourself. Far from being a talentless oaf, on-film Carnera looks like a credible and skilled contender. His jab was a solid weapon, and his footwork was nowhere near as ponderous as legend would tell you. Make the effort to view some of this footage yourself - vs. George Godfrey, vs. Ernie Schaff, vs. Sharkey (both fights), Kingfish Levinsky, Ray Impelletiere, or whatever else you can scrounge up. I think you'll be a bit surprised.

[joe33]

Why are all the super size guys called frigging freaks all the time?,valuev gets it to,poor fuckers may well be different looking,but come on guys its not here thought there so big,i like valuev and bet carnera was a decent guy to,he seemed it,considering he got so badly ripped off,and in fact made more money through wrestling then being HW champ,how sad is that.

[Duodenum]

I think calling the various innuendos and whispered rumors "history" is overstating the case.

For many years I, like yourself, openly believed the derogatory tales of Da Preem, a talentless lummox who couldn't fight a lick but was pushed to the top through a series of fixed fights arranged by his mobster handlers. Upon further investigation, however, I find myself increasingly unconvinced on that score; which fighters have admitted to taking a dive? What firsthand accounts exist of the flim-flammery?

When I was a lad doing a bit of boxing myself, a grizzled old-timer confided in my that when you go to see a major boxing show, you can assume that 25% of the fights are not on the level to some extent. I don't doubt that Da Preem benefitted from a few paid divers in his day, but do completely discredit his accomplishments and assume that all of his wins were shams is amazingly unfair.

And the final nail in the coffin of "Primo's fights were all fixed" is to watch the video for yourself. Far from being a talentless oaf, on-film Carnera looks like a credible and skilled contender. His jab was a solid weapon, and his footwork was nowhere near as ponderous as legend would tell you. Make the effort to view some of this footage yourself - vs. George Godfrey, vs. Ernie Schaff, vs. Sharkey (both fights), Kingfish Levinsky, Ray Impelletiere, or whatever else you can scrounge up. I think you'll be a bit surprised.Well stated. During the time Carnera was boxing, it was still illegal to transport boxing films across state lines in the US, so the scribes and radio announcers were the gatekeepers of whatever information the public which didn't witness his matches in person received. These were often sources of negative information about Primo's boxing.

By the time interstate ban on shipping films was lifted, WW II was underway, and Primo's Italy was on the side opposing the English speaking world. The real truth about what caliber of heavyweight Primo really was then got confined to the acquisitions of fight film collectors.
It is only with the advent of services like youtube that a wide audience can finally see with their own eyes just what level of performer Carnera truly was. It's about time!

[janitor]

[quote=red cobra]So all the written history on Primo Carnera is false?

I would not go as far as to call it writen history. Just a series of improbable alegations made by one man with an axe to grind.

The mob DIDN'T fix his fights and steer him to the title? He got there legitimately and just fell apart one night against Max Baer?

Yes. That is about the size of it.

I guess you're free to believe anything you want. Just revise history all you want to.

I don't feel that I am revising anything. Just challenging an urban myth. If you go back to the original historical sources then there is not verry much.


so I guess it's time to rewrite the book on Primo Carnera too and make him a "good champion".


Unless you literaly accept the acusation that the majority of his big fights were fixed then yes he was a good champion.

[Luigi1985]

An idiot because I don't buy into revisionist history about Primo Carnera? I have nothing against Carnera. I have no reason to have anything against Primo Carnera. Is it because he was Italian that you'e so defensive about the guy and you want to tweak it so he's something that he wasn't? Were the great sportswriters like Paul Gallico and others who wrote about him just full of shit or something? It's like me building up Jerry Quarry, who was Irish, up into something far greater than he was because I happen to be Irish too. Where's your evidence to support saying that he was anything than what he was widely reported that he was? I happen to admire the fact that he gave it his all against the big hitters he faced who slaughtered him, and had the balls to keep trying until the end like he did against Louis. He had courage, and thats all he had left after the mob betrayed and then deserted him. He had courage and like I said, he had size and rudimentary boxing skills. That and the infuence of some very crooked men led him to the top, where he did, if you'll remenber from my first post, win his title legitimately with that right uppercut against Sharkey. The guy couldn't take a damned punch, get it? This was made painfully obvious when he fought Baer, Louis and Haynes, and by then, it was time for Primo to switch to pro wrestling. He seemed like a good hearted, likeable, somewhat childlike kind of man, so you're wrong, he was impossible to hate. Just dont rewrite boxing history for the sake of some whim of yours.


I read only until the part with " You defended him because he was Italian...", the silliest excuse you can make when you haven´t any other reasons with any sense...

[red cobra]

Ok, I get it! You believe it, so it's true! Don't let the facts of history, written by those who were there and saw it get in your way. Just remember, all those writers had axes to grind and wouldn't know a fixed fight from a hole in the ground. They all had it in for poor Primo, dont you know!

[UpWithEvil]

Ok, I get it! You believe it, so it's true! Don't let the facts of history, written by those who were there and saw it get in your way.

What are the "facts of history" in this regard? You'll need more specifics and less hand-waving if you want to convince.

[janitor]

Ok, I get it! You believe it, so it's true! Don't let the facts of history, written by those who were there and saw it get in your way. Just remember, all those writers had axes to grind and wouldn't know a fixed fight from a hole in the ground. They all had it in for poor Primo, dont you know!

It depends what you mean by people who were there at the time.

If you mean a group of xenophobic hacks most of who had not been to any of Carnera's fights then the facts of history are on your side.

If you mean people who actualy fought Carnera and sparred with him or trained other fighters of the period then you won't find anybody who took him lightly or beleived him to be a product of fixed fights.

[red cobra]

Ok, let's look at this from another angle, what grounds do you have to support that history isnt true? That it was all a case of sportswriters with grudges, and that Carnera did not have ties to the mob?

[UpWithEvil]

Ok, let's look at this from another angle, what grounds do you have to support that history isnt true?

I don't think anyone is making the claim, "history isn't true". We're just skeptical of the veracity of these nebulous rumors that you are clinging so tightly to.

[janitor]

Ok, let's look at this from another angle, what grounds do you have to support that history isnt true? That it was all a case of sportswriters with grudges, and that Carnera did not have ties to the mob?

The onus is on those who make the alegations to prove them not on those who question them to disprove them. You can prove a positive but you cannot prove a negative. For example you canot prove that there is not a purple penguin somwhere in the world.

Carnera did have ties to the mob but so did everybody back then to some extent. He was involved in a couple of questionable fights but so were most fighters of the period.

Why should he be singled out of all the fighters of this period for criticism?

[Robbi]

Primo Carnera was the greatest heavyweight champion ever.

[red cobra]

The onus is on those who make the alegations to prove them not on those who question them to disprove them. You can prove a positive but you cannot prove a negative. For example you canot prove that there is not a purple penguin somwhere in the world.

Carnera did have ties to the mob but so did everybody back then to some extent. He was involved in a couple of questionable fights but so were most fighters of the period.

Why should he be singled out of all the fighters of this period for criticism? Because he is historically implicated with much corroboration that you obviously havent heard of or haven't read. So just go and pick any historical fact and claim that since you cannot prove a negative that it must not be true. Again, I want to know how you guys can just arbitrarily say that historical allegations held against Carnera regarding the mob (a European mob) and their influence on the outcomes of his fights are not true. What grounds do you have that the sports writers were all just harboring grudges.

[janitor]

[quote=red cobra]Because he is historically implicated with much corroboration that you obviously havent heard of or haven't read.

Thankyou.

I have studied the primary evidence for Carnera's fixed fights in some detail and it dose not stand up to scrutiny.

So just go and pick any historical fact and claim that since you cannot prove a negative that it must not be true.

A historian must justify a historical event by providing positive primary evidence. If that evidence is not available then it is not a historical fact. It is just a rumour.

Again, I want to know how you guys can just arbitrarily say that historical allegations held against Carnera regarding the mob (a European mob) and their influence on the outcomes of his fights are not true.

The onus is on those making these alegations to prove them not vice versa.

If you stand trial for an ofense then the prosecution has to prove you did it.

If a historian wants to demonstrate that Abraham Lincoln had syphilis he has to prove it. He dose not ask other historians to disprove it.


What grounds do you have that the sports writers were all just harboring grudges.


What sports writers?

These legions of sports writers you talk about are one verry vocal individual who is not particularly reliable. Anybody else who makes the alegations is simply repeating what he said.

Carnera was an Italian who was used by Musolini as a poster boy. This meant that any acusations against him fell on verry fertile ground. The press did not want an Italian champion and especialy not one used as a propaganda tool by a fascist dictator.

[jhar26]

How about Leon See who said that at least 28 of Carnera's early fights were fixed, and all this before he made it big and American mobsters took over his management?

[janitor]

How about Leon See who said that at least 28 of Carnera's early fights were fixed, and all this before he made it big and American mobsters took over his management?

Leon See is the fly in the ointment.

He certainly had a grudge against Carnera and his testimony is contradictory if not incredible in some instances. This is where everything stemns from.

In a way it is a bit like the legend of the Bermuda Triangle. You have a huge and sprawling mythology which looks impresive but when you trace it back it all originates with a single source which is unreliable.

[jhar26]

Leon See is the fly in the ointment.

He certainly had a grudge against Carnera and his testimony is contradictory if not incredible in some instances. This is where everything stemns from.

In a way it is a bit like the legend of the Bermuda Triangle. You have a huge and sprawling mythology which looks impresive but when you trace it back it all originates with a single source which is unreliable.
So, without Leon See - Carnera wouldn't be the controversial figure he is? See is the only source?

[janitor]

So, without Leon See - Carnera wouldn't be the controversial figure he is? See is the only source?

Bingo.

[McGrain]

Bingo.


Aye...

Janitor this is a very heavy handed counter-position. You leave very little room for intuition and generalisation. I understand why you are doing it, but it should always be stated that the mob were heavily, heavily, heavily involved in boxing once it hit New York, and that Carnera was involved with these toughs.

I generally speak for him, because I think he gets one hell of a hard time from people who should know better. But Carnera is a contriversial figure because he was involved with mobsters, not because of one shady characters vendeta.

I have no source.

[janitor]

Aye...

Janitor this is a very heavy handed counter-position. You leave very little room for intuition and generalisation. I understand why you are doing it, but it should always be stated that the mob were heavily, heavily, heavily involved in boxing once it hit New York, and that Carnera was involved with these toughs.

I generally speak for him, because I think he gets one hell of a hard time from people who should know better. But Carnera is a contriversial figure because he was involved with mobsters, not because of one shady characters vendeta.

I have no source.

Don't get me wrong here.

Carnera was certainly controled by the mob and was involved in at least one fixed fight probably more.

What I disagree with is that he should be singled out among all the top fighters of this era for criticism. Baer and Braddock both had dubious fights.

Compared to Young Stribling for example, Carnera was a choir boy.

[mcvey]

Don't get me wrong here.

Carnera was certainly controled by the mob and was involved in at least one fixed fight probably more.

What I disagree with is that he should be singled out among all the top fighters of this era for criticism. Baer and Braddock both had dubious fights.

Compared to Young Stribling for example, Carnera was a choir boy.
What were Baer and Braddocks dubious fights Janitor?

[janitor]

What were Baer and Braddocks dubious fights Janitor?

Max Baer's fight against Dutch Weimar-

"A light slap to Weimer's ribs ended the bout, causing the crowd to roar its disgust. Someone threw an empty whiskey bottle at Baer. Leaving the ring, he turned to the crowd and shouted, "Well, you paid to get in - suckers."

The bout, termed "a fake, fiasco and disgrace" by Premier Mitchell F. Hepburn (who had been in the crowd), resulted in the reorganization of the Ontario Athletic Commission and the appointment of P. J. Mulqueen as Chairman to restore confidence of fans.

Jimmy Braddock has two dubious no contest bouts-

One against Maxie Rosenbloom

"Braddock and Rosenbloom were accused of a pre-arranged deal -- the MN Commission allowed each $350 in training expenses, the balance of their purses was donated to charity".

And one against Abe Feldman which resulted in his boxing liscence being revoked.

[McGrain]

What I disagree with is that he should be singled out among all the top fighters of this era for criticism.


Spot on. This is the core of the thing.

[mcvey]

What were Baer and Braddocks dubious fights Janitor?
You mentioned Young Stribling,he fought Carnera twice both fights ended in dsqs,one apiece,both are generally accepted as fixes,and that information doesnt come from Leon See,,but from writers who were present at the bouts ,Carneras fights with Ace Clark,Bombo Chevalier ,and George Godfrey are also highly suspect,when a new Heavyweight Champion is crowned ,traditionaly he is rated the fighter of the year by the Ring magazine ,the year Carnera won the title ,no award was given.doesnt it seem a little strange that a man with such a string of kos ,meets a light heavyweight whom he outweighs by over 80lbs ,a man past his best yet not only does he fail to ko him he never looks like dropping him ,in fact the light heavy ,[Tommy Loughran},who was almost devoid in punching power staggered Carnera in the 4th and 10th rounds.Though Jack Sharkey denied taking a dive to Carnera he did say in an interview in 1971 that Carneras results in fights were "sceptical and dubious",and that reinforced the publics view that his defence against Carnera wasnt on the level

[mcvey]

Max Baer's fight against Dutch Weimar-

"A light slap to Weimer's ribs ended the bout, causing the crowd to roar its disgust. Someone threw an empty whiskey bottle at Baer. Leaving the ring, he turned to the crowd and shouted, "Well, you paid to get in - suckers."

The bout, termed "a fake, fiasco and disgrace" by Premier Mitchell F. Hepburn (who had been in the crowd), resulted in the reorganization of the Ontario Athletic Commission and the appointment of P. J. Mulqueen as Chairman to restore confidence of fans.

Jimmy Braddock has two dubious no contest bouts-

One against Maxie Rosenbloom

"Braddock and Rosenbloom were accused of a pre-arranged deal -- the MN Commission allowed each $350 in training expenses, the balance of their purses was donated to charity".

And one against Abe Feldman which resulted in his boxing liscence being revoked.
I am not familiar with the Weimar fight and will of course take your word on it . The Rosenbloom one has several versions I beleive,in the Feldman fight ,I think Braddock came in to the ring with a broken hand ,but concealed it as he needed the pay day.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]You mentioned Young Stribling,he fought Carnera twice both fights ended in dsqs,one apiece,both are generally accepted as fixes,and that information doesnt come from Leon See,,but from writers who were present at the bouts

There is a serious question mark over the Stribling fights. Of course if they were fixed then it counts against Stribling as much as it counts against Carnera. Furthermore we would have to look into some of Stribling's other fights which would have far reaching implications for other fighters of the era.

Carneras fights with Ace Clark,Bombo Chevalier ,and George Godfrey are also highly suspect

Suspect on circumstantial evidence.

If we are going to pursue Carnera for the Godfey fight then lets look at some of Godfreys other DQ losses. Then watch how har the sh1t flies and how many contemporary fighters get covered in it.

when a new Heavyweight Champion is crowned ,traditionaly he is rated the fighter of the year by the Ring magazine ,the year Carnera won the title ,no award was given.

I don't think he fit their ideal of a heavyweight champion.

doesnt it seem a little strange that a man with such a string of kos ,meets a light heavyweight whom he outweighs by over 80lbs ,a man past his best yet not only does he fail to ko him he never looks like dropping him

Loughran was the best defensive fighter in the division at the time. Why should Carnera necisarily knock him out or drop him?

in fact the light heavy ,[Tommy Loughran},who was almost devoid in punching power staggered Carnera in the 4th and 10th rounds.

A light heavyweight with good punching technique can stagger a heavyweight with a good chin. Laws of physics.

[janitor]

I am not familiar with the Weimar fight and will of course take your word on it . The Rosenbloom one has several versions I beleive,in the Feldman fight ,I think Braddock came in to the ring with a broken hand ,but concealed it as he needed the pay day.

I get the idea that if these fights were on Carnera's record you and others would draw the obvious conclusion.

Once you acept in principal that sombody participates in a lot of fixed fights you will start seeing them.

[janitor]

Though Jack Sharkey denied taking a dive to Carnera he did say in an interview in 1971 that Carneras results in fights were "sceptical and dubious",and that reinforced the publics view that his defence against Carnera wasnt on the level

Jack Johnson explicitly claimed (incorectly) that he took a dive against Jess Willard.

If we are going to question the legitimacy of Carneras win over Sharkey based on a suggestive coment by Sharkey then lets look further-

Jim Jeffries claimed that he was poisoned against Jack Johnson.

Jack Johnson claimed that he dived against Willard.

Jess Willard claimed that Jack Dempsey beat him with loaded gloves.

Lets at least hold everybody else to the same scrutiny as Carnera.

[McGrain]

Jess Willard claimed that Jack Dempsey beat him with loaded gloves.

As a totally irrelevant aside, did you ever see the interviews Carpenter did with Tyson? He tells Tyson of interviewing Willard as a very old man, and the ex-champ produced the big-headed bolt he claimed Dempsey hit him with - held in the glove like you would hold an ice-cream.

Tyson was having none of it.

[mcvey]

Jack Johnson explicitly claimed (incorectly) that he took a dive against Jess Willard.

If we are going to question the legitimacy of Carneras win over Sharkey based on a suggestive coment by Sharkey then lets look further-

Jim Jeffries claimed that he was poisoned against Jack Johnson.

Jack Johnson claimed that he dived against Willard.

Jess Willard claimed that Jack Dempsey beat him with loaded gloves.

Lets at least hold everybody else to the same scrutiny as Carnera.
As I said Sharkey allways denied taking a dive against Carnera,I mentioned his comments to illustrate that some of Carneras fights were regarded as dubious,I never suggested that the Sharkey fight wasnt on the level ,though Sharkey handled Carnera with ease in the first fight even dropping him,possibly Carnera had improved,what makes me beleive some ,and I mean some not all of Carneras fights were fixed was his ko ratio,which was very high,yet he couldnt even wobble Loughran ,whom he outweighed by over 80lbs.Primo was better than he is generally given credit for ,he was a fair mechanical boxer with a ton of heart,but lets not go overboard and pretend he was one of the better Champs,he wasnt,his ko percentage compares favourably with most boxers yet noqwhere is he credited as a puncher in any list or AT ratings this suggests that some of his results are viewed sceptically ,at least.

[Joe E]

For many years I thought Primo was exactly what I read he was.He was called the worst HWT. champ of all time.This is what the so called 'experts' in the written and televised news media said.Then I watched Primo fight Baer on ESPN Classic Boxing.A losing effort to be sure but Primo did'nt look all that bad.He was knocked down 11 times but he also got up 11 times demonstrating he had the most important asset a fighter needs which is Heart.His Boxing skills were basic but he got the most out of what he had.His foot work was ponderous but his balance was decent and he was far from the clumsy un coordinated slob he was made out to be.His greatest problem was that he could not take a punch.Primo was a much better fighter than he was made out to be and dos'nt deserve the title"worst Hwy.champ of all time"Thank you.

[DaveTheWave]

The mob fixed fights for him, even against men Carnera probably would have beaten, to secure their large, marketable boxer. That's what people investing in novelty fighters do. This is nothing new, although probably more so at that time. Carnera's legacy is that he got his ass handed to him by Baer and Louis. Period.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]what makes me beleive some ,and I mean some not all of Carneras fights were fixed was his ko ratio,which was very high,yet he couldnt even wobble Loughran ,whom he outweighed by over 80lbs.

Lets not forget that Loughran was a defensive fighter and one with a track record of beating super heavyweights.

Do you have any reason to beleive that Max Baer wobled Loughran?

Primo was better than he is generally given credit for ,he was a fair mechanical boxer with a ton of heart,but lets not go overboard and pretend he was one of the better Champs

That was not what I intended to imply.

he wasnt,his ko percentage compares favourably with most boxers yet noqwhere is he credited as a puncher in any list or AT ratings

Not all fighters with high knockout percentages are big punchers. Take Muhamad Ali for example.

I would add that Carnera knocked Bearcat Wright through the ropes with such force that he broke a ring post. This suggests that Carnera could bang when he put his body into it.

[red cobra]

Primo won his title against Sharkey legitimately, in my opinion with that right uppercut, but in all succesive bouts, bout title fights and otherwise, you saw the true Carnera, "unenhanced" let us say, by the sinister hand of the mob. As stated in a previous post, you didn't see the "ko artist" as fashioned by the mob, but a guy who was unable to even faze a vastly outweighed Tommy Loughran, and his glass jaw, or, if you will, his propensity for getting decked was revealed. If he hadn't been protected in his early career by those thugs, then his cin would have been exposed much earlier, like it almost was against Sharkey the first time. He couldn't have been a total washout as a fighter, and he did have some skills, but you guys are painfully overrating him, and that is revisionism as much as those idiots who write those "Joe Louis wasnt a great fighter" threads.

[janitor]

[quote=red cobra]Primo won his title against Sharkey legitimately, in my opinion with that right uppercut,

Good start.

but in all succesive bouts, bout title fights and otherwise, you saw the true Carnera, "unenhanced" let us say , by the sinister hand of the mob.

He seems to have done better than any of the other champions between Tunney and Louis in terms of quality of title defences and results.

If that is the unenhanced Carnera then he was at least the equal of say Jack Sharkey.

As stated in a previous post, you didn't see the "ko artist" as fashioned by the mob, but a guy who was unable to even faze a vastly outweighed Tommy Loughran,

You fail to mention that Loughran had already beaten two ranked contenders who were of a similar size to Carnera. One of them in his previous bout.

This suggests that it was not merely Carneras size that won him the fight but also a measure of boxing ability.

and his glass jaw, or, if you will, his propensity for getting decked was revealed. If he hadn't been protected in his early career by those thugs, then his cin would have been exposed much earlier, like it almost was against Sharkey the first time.

Batling Nelson was decked a lot but nobody questions that he was a tough nut to crack.

He couldn't have been a total washout as a fighter, and he did have some skills, but you guys are painfully overrating him, and that is revisionism

Revisionism of what?

The testimony of one man with an axe to grind.

Do you think that this one man represents the voice of history?

Why don't you look at what some of Carnera's oponents and contemporary fighters said about him.

Why don't you look at what managers and trainers who had the chance to match their prospects against him thought.

Why dont you look how some fighters and journalists picked him to beat Joe Louis.

[janitor]

Carnera's legacy is that he got his ass handed to him by Baer and Louis. Period.

Arguably the hardest punching heavyweight of all time and the best heavyweight finisher of all time.

You could always add that before that he won the heavyweight championship.

[mcvey]

[QUOTE]

Lets not forget that Loughran was a defensive fighter and one with a track record of beating super heavyweights.

Do you have any reason to beleive that Max Baer wobled Loughran?



That was not what I intended to imply.



Not all fighters with high knockout percentages are big punchers. Take Muhamad Ali for example.

I would add that Carnera knocked Bearcat Wright through the ropes with such force that he broke a ring post. This suggests that Carnera could bang when he put his body into it.
As to Baer wobbling Loughran ,I havent seen the fight but the various reports Ive read make it seem doubtful that Baer actually made contact with Tommys chin,Loughran jabbed his face off,as he did Braddock,you say Carnera was the equal of Sharkey ,but Sharkey acheived something Primo didnt ,he floored and kod Loughran,you keep harping on this theme of "one man with an axe to grinds testimony"personally Ive never read anything by Leon See,on boxing or any other subject ,but I did read an article years ago written by Paul Journee,the french Heavyweight and sometime promoter,he was in on the ground floor so to speakfor the Carnera hype,he stated that several of Primos early contests were prearranged,the British boxing historian Gilbert Odd who saw several Carnera fights from ringside agreed as did Hype Igoe and Paul Gallico two US writers,weve covered this ground before ,and I didnt intend to take the bait this time ,but people calling Carnera a"good Champion" drew me in Nat Fleischer called him one of the worst,but I suppose he was influenced by Leon See rather than the evidence of his own eyes,rather like the Boxing Commissioner Bill Brown who called Carnera a "bum".Im done on this subject .

[fists of fury]

Carnera was groomed by shadowy people to become the next big (literally!) thing. Some of his fights were fixed, in other matches he had handpicked opposition. I was reading about Carnera last night incidentally in Harry Mullan's The Illustrated History Of Boxing and nowhere was it said that Carnera was good. Quite the opposite. According to the book, he was, among other things, "naturally clumsy" and "light hitting".
This was the situation painted not only in that book, but in almost every publication (including magazines) I have read over the years.
The overall consensus was that Carnera simply wasn't good. Not a bum certainly, but at best competent.

"The big bum kept standing on my feet." - Tommy Loughran.

[UpWithEvil]

"The big bum kept standing on my feet." - Tommy Loughran.

"I'll moider the bum!"
- Tony Galento

[amhlilhaus]

what I've found is that a lot of boxing 'historians' take a source, and run with it. I've read where john l. sullivan was described as a cruel brawler, and that's why he was handled so easily by corbett, but the primary sources on sullivan dispute that, although there were some who called him unscientific. taking eyewitness accounts of someone also has to be taken with a grain of salt, there's millions of boxing fans who will swear that john ruiz sucks, but they have a personal disagreement with his style, and will not acknowledge the fact he has a competent jab, a decent right hand and a lot of heart, who got up and kept fighting against golota and eked out a close win through determination.

ultimately it's helpful to read the historical record and see what those who saw the fighter live says, but always question.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
As to Baer wobbling Loughran ,I havent seen the fight but the various reports Ive read make it seem doubtful that Baer actually made contact with Tommys chin,Loughran jabbed his face off,as he did Braddock,


The bottom line is that nobody is necisarily going to take out or stagger a slickster like Loughran. I fail to see why Carnera's failure to do so is an issue.

you say Carnera was the equal of Sharkey

I am not saying that he is the equal of Sharkey. I just think that his resume is similarly impresive.

but Sharkey acheived something Primo didnt ,he floored and kod Loughran

He is one of verry few who did and in a later fight Loughran outpointed him.

The same Loughran who you criticize Carnera for not knocking out.

,you keep harping on this theme of "one man with an axe to grinds testimony"personally Ive never read anything by Leon See,on boxing or any other subject ,but I did read an article years ago written by Paul Journee,the french Heavyweight and sometime promoter,he was in on the ground floor so to speakfor the Carnera hype,he stated that several of Primos early contests were prearranged,the British boxing historian Gilbert Odd who saw several Carnera fights from ringside agreed as did Hype Igoe and Paul Gallico two US writers,

If you look at these sources they almost certainly trace back to Leon See. Certainly Galicos book is simply an unrefined rehash of See's alegations.

weve covered this ground before ,and I didnt intend to take the bait this time ,but people calling Carnera a"good Champion" drew me in

If you want to go into it Carnera has a better record vs common oponents than Max Baer dose. I would add that most of these fights are not among the ones that have been called into question.

That justifies calling him a good champion by any sensible definition.

[mcvey]

[QUOTE]


The bottom line is that nobody is necisarily going to take out or stagger a slickster like Loughran. I fail to see why Carnera's failure to do so is an issue.



I am not saying that he is the equal of Sharkey. I just think that his resume is similarly impresive.



He is one of verry few who did and in a later fight Loughran outpointed him.

The same Loughran who you criticize Carnera for not knocking out.



If you look at these sources they almost certainly trace back to Leon See. Certainly Galicos book is simply an unrefined rehash of See's alegations.



If you want to go into it Carnera has a better record vs common oponents than Max Baer dose. I would add that most of these fights are not among the ones that have been called into question.

That justifies calling him a good champion by any sensible definition.
Last word Paul Journee actually discovered Carnera,in1928 and it was he who trained Carnera for his first fights ,and him who introduced Carnera to See in the first place ,they agreed to act together Journee as trainer ,See as managerJournee had no need to repeat any allegations of See,s he started Carnera boxing in the first place,so knew exactly his limitations.Sharkey was finished when he met Loughran in the return,he wasoutpointed by Kingfish Levinsky and destroyed by Louis .[as a confidence booster after Joe had been kod by Schmeling].Ill go with Fleischer,Odd,Igoe,Gallico,Journee ,and Sharkey s opinion when it comes to Carnera,I dont know See,s and couldnt care less he was a non entity ,and a minnow ,who found himself swimming with sharks in the form of Good Time Charle Friedman,and Owney Madden ,Public enemy no 1 Carneras US managers,who pissed See off back to Paree.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Last word Paul Journee actually discovered Carnera,in1928 and it was he who trained Carnera for his first fights ,and him who introduced Carnera to See in the first place ,they agreed to act together Journee as trainer ,See as manager


Dose this not suggest that Journrr held the same grudge as See for the same reasons?

That they were muscled out and lost control of their most valuable asset. Incidentaly See had no small ambitions for Carnera before he was droped.

.Ill go with Fleischer,Odd,Igoe,Gallico,

I think that these figures either aped the opinions of the xenophobic media of the day or rehashed Sees alegations.

One group who seem to conspicuously speak of Carnera in more complimentary terms than these guys are the fighters who actualy shared a ring with him.

I dont know See,s and couldnt care less he was a non entity ,and a minnow ,who found himself swimming with sharks in the form of Good Time Charle Friedman,and Owney Madden

Any prosecution of Carnera would essentialy hang on See's alegations. That is why he is important.

[mcvey]

[QUOTE]


Dose this not suggest that Journrr held the same grudge as See for the same reasons?

That they were muscled out and lost control of their most valuable asset. Incidentaly See had no small ambitions for Carnera before he was droped.



I think that these figures either aped the opinions of the xenophobic media of the day or rehashed Sees alegations.

One group who seem to conspicuously speak of Carnera in more complimentary terms than these guys are the fighters who actualy shared a ring with him.



Any prosecution of Carnera would essentialy hang on See's alegations. That is why he is important.
Fleischer and Odds opinions are paramount because they actualy saw Carneras fights from ringside,Fleischer never aped another mans opinions on boxing in his life ,he was known as a man of integrity,as was Gilbert Odd,Britains premier boxing historian,to suggest otherwise is a slur on their impeccable reputations.Which boxers opinions are complimentary to Carnera? Not Larry Gains who not only fought and beat Journee twice but comfortably outpointed Carnera when Larry was a fading 31 year old veteran,not Loughran who stated in print that he was told before hand that the only way he could beat Carnera was by ko,not Sharkey who stated that Carneras fights were highly dubious,so which ones? If only George Godfrey who was easily outpointing Carnera for 4 rounds before inexplicably fouling out in the 5th,could give us the low down,or Young Stribling whose own reputation was a trifle unsavouryafter koing his chauffeur in hick towns all cross America he split a pair of DSQs with Carnera ,Terry Leigh Lye ,the british boxing writer was a closefriend of Stribling but even he didnt beleive these fights were kosher ,and said so in a book,you contend that all these people base their opinion on Sees allegations ,sour grapes because he was forced out of the picture ,but Carnera didnt force him out the mob didyour argument doesnt hold water Janitor your contention that all these well respected boxing experts got their opinion of Carnera from See ,who dissapeared without trace once he was sent packing back to Europe,is laughable,again I ask which opponents of Carnera gave him positive write ups?

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Fleischer and Odds opinions are paramount because they actualy saw Carneras fights from ringside,


If you are going to use the opinion of these gentlemen to justify your asertion that Carnera was not a good fighter then you must also put some weight on their more questionable opinions.

This would have far reaching concequences.

Fleischer never aped another mans opinions on boxing in his life ,he was known as a man of integrity,as was Gilbert Odd,Britains premier boxing historian,to suggest otherwise is a slur on their impeccable

I am not suggesting that theylacked integrity but they were both prone to biases.

Fleischer especialy downgraded fighters such as Sonny Liston who he did not regard as men of good moral character. It is therfore plausible that he would have been all to willing to acept acusations made against Musolini's poster boy.

reputations.Which boxers opinions are complimentary to Carnera?

Max Baer, Joe Louis, Max Schmeling all gave him a good write up. Jack Sharkey although you have fixed on a single coment of his was broadly complimentary.

There were also a significant number of journalists of the period who also rated him highly.

If only George Godfrey who was easily outpointing Carnera for 4 rounds before inexplicably fouling out in the 5th,could give us the low down,or Young Stribling whose own reputation was a trifle unsavouryafter koing his chauffeur in hick towns all cross America he split a pair of DSQs with Carnera

You have hit the nail on the head there.

Stribling and Godfrey were both far worse than Carnera in terms of participation in fixed fights. If you look into their backgrounds then Carnera will by no stretch be the biggest looser.

If you call into question George Godfreys DQ losses then it will do moderate damage to Carnera's reputation but absolutely trash the reputation of Larry Gains whose single biggest career win was a DQ win over George Godfrey for the coloured heavyweight title. His second biggest win over Carnera you are already well on your way to pulling down.

The extent to which people both then and now single out Carnera for criticism on this basis is like a group of schoolyard bullies kicking about a small child.

you contend that all these people base their opinion on Sees allegations ,sour grapes because he was forced out of the picture ,but Carnera didnt force him out the mob didyour argument doesnt hold water Janitor

See was targeting Carnera's handelers. Carnera himself was colateral damage although see might have felt some resentment towards him also.

your contention that all these well respected boxing experts got their opinion of Carnera from See ,who dissapeared without trace once he was sent packing back to Europe,is laughable

See is ultimately where the legend originates from.

Everybody else is repeating Sees alegations for the most part. Put together those who are not and you are left with the kind of intrigue which surrounds most fighters of the period.

[janitor]

In case anybody is wondering what Primo Carnera is up to today.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mcvey]

[quote]


If you are going to use the opinion of these gentlemen to justify your asertion that Carnera was not a good fighter then you must also put some weight on their more questionable opinions.

This would have far reaching concequences.



I am not suggesting that theylacked integrity but they were both prone to biases.

Fleischer especialy downgraded fighters such as Sonny Liston who he did not regard as men of good moral character. It is therfore plausible that he would have been all to willing to acept acusations made against Musolini's poster boy.



Max Baer, Joe Louis, Max Schmeling all gave him a good write up. Jack Sharkey although you have fixed on a single coment of his was broadly complimentary.

There were also a significant number of journalists of the period who also rated him highly.



You have hit the nail on the head there.

Stribling and Godfrey were both far worse than Carnera in terms of participation in fixed fights. If you look into their backgrounds then Carnera will by no stretch be the biggest looser.

If you call into question George Godfreys DQ losses then it will do moderate damage to Carnera's reputation but absolutely trash the reputation of Larry Gains whose single biggest career win was a DQ win over George Godfrey for the coloured heavyweight title. His second biggest win over Carnera you are already well on your way to pulling down.

The extent to which people both then and now single out Carnera for criticism on this basis is like a group of schoolyard bullies kicking about a small child.



See was targeting Carnera's handelers. Carnera himself was colateral damage although see might have felt some resentment towards him also.



See is ultimately where the legend originates from.

Everybody else is repeating Sees alegations for the most part. Put together those who are not and you are left with the kind of intrigue which surrounds most fighters of the period.
Can you post quotes by Joe Louis where he praises Carnera ,I only have these ,taken from his autobiography"old Chappie told me there was allways a cloud over his ability",the first thing that shocked Carnera and the crowd ,was that instead of him handling me like a babby ,I handled him.They were looking at his size not his talent.I moved him around easily."The fight moved along smoothly for me.I remember in the fifth round we clinched,and I picked him up off his feet.Thats when he spoke to me,the only time in the fight . He said I should be doing this to you.""Carnera had nothing.He couldnt punch." He pushed with his right and he was awkward.Mostly he tried to scare me with his weight"."He never hurt me once".Those are real ringing endorsements arent they? Let me guess Louis got that impression from See.these quotes can be found in the book Joe Louis My Life.,where are your quotes from Schmeling , Louis and Baer.? Larry Gains apart from beating Carnera comfortably also kod Schmeling,dont you find it curious that two of Carneras biggest" victories 2 ,were over Fighters known to " do business" Godfrey and Stribling? Where is your proof that the origin of Carneras fixed fights came from See? Do you really beleive that Fleischer ,Odd, Leigh Lye, Igoe,Gallico,and the boxers Ive quoted took their opinions from See,who was back in france before Carnera became a ranked fighter? a Man who acheived Jack Shit in the world of Boxing,See was a non-entity,the men Ive quoted were ,well respected figures in boxing at world level.Have you a quote from Joe Louis that rebutts or tempers the one I have provided?I fso Print it.or retract your aversion that Louis was complimentary to Carnera.

[mcvey]

[QUOTE=janitor]
Can you post quotes by Joe Louis where he praises Carnera ,I only have these ,taken from his autobiography"old Chappie told me there was allways a cloud over his ability",the first thing that shocked Carnera and the crowd ,was that instead of him handling me like a babby ,I handled him.They were looking at his size not his talent.I moved him around easily."The fight moved along smoothly for me.I remember in the fifth round we clinched,and I picked him up off his feet.Thats when he spoke to me,the only time in the fight . He said I should be doing this to you.""Carnera had nothing.He couldnt punch." He pushed with his right and he was awkward.Mostly he tried to scare me with his weight"."He never hurt me once".Those are real ringing endorsements arent they? Let me guess Louis got that impression from See.these quotes can be found in the book Joe Louis My Life.,where are your quotes from Schmeling , Louis and Baer.? Larry Gains apart from beating Carnera comfortably also kod Schmeling,dont you find it curious that two of Carneras biggest" victories 2 ,were over Fighters known to " do business" Godfrey and Stribling? Where is your proof that the origin of Carneras fixed fights came from See? Do you really beleive that Fleischer ,Odd, Leigh Lye, Igoe,Gallico,and the boxers Ive quoted took their opinions from See,who was back in france before Carnera became a ranked fighter? a Man who acheived Jack Shit in the world of Boxing,See was a non-entity,the men Ive quoted were ,well respected figures in boxing at world level.Have you a quote from Joe Louis that rebutts or tempers the one I have provided?I fso Print it.or retract your aversion that Louis was complimentary to Carnera.
Fleischer continued to carry recognize Muhamman Ali as Champion for some considerable time after he had been stripped by all governing bodies,he wasnt a man influenced by others ,neither was Gilbert Odd.who spent a lifetime watching and documenting boxing. Please provide evidence to the contrary other wise your argument is all smoke and mirrors,have you printed proof of Sees allegations? Ive never seen it or read of its existence in over 50 years of following boxing.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Can you post quotes by Joe Louis where he praises Carnera


Louis later said that Carnera was one of the better boxers he ever fought.

Don't recall the source but I will try to dig it out.

Baer.?

On March 27, Max Baer predicted that Primo Carnera would end the meteoric rush of Joe Louis, when they met in June.

“I think he will wear Louis down,” Baer said, “but no matter who comes out on top, I’ll be on hand to give the ultimate winner a trouncing. They all look alike to Maxie when he gets them in the ring.”

In the run up to the second Carnera fight Jack Dempsey said-

"Primo Carnera has improved beyond recognition since they last met. Sharkey is going to have a serious fight on his hands"

Larry Gains apart from beating Carnera comfortably also kod Schmeling,

He KOd an inexperienced teenage Schmeling. Hardly a tremendous victory.

Gains's legacy esentialy hangs on Godfrey and Carnera so why don't you crucify him?

dont you find it curious that two of Carneras biggest" victories 2 ,were over Fighters known to " do business" Godfrey and Stribling?

I regard both these gentlemen with caution but if we are going to go down the road of questioning all their loses then there will be biger loosers than Schmeling.

Why don't you argue that Godfrey and Stribling were not real world class heavyweights but merely products of match fixing?

There is far more dirt on either of them than there is on Carnera.

Where is your proof that the origin of Carneras fixed fights came from See?

Can you find a previous source?

I am not saying that there is not one but those historians who have criticaly analyzed the alegations agains Carnera tend to find that all roads lead back to See.

Do you really beleive that Fleischer ,Odd, Leigh Lye, Igoe,Gallico,and the boxers Ive quoted took their opinions from See,who was back in france before Carnera became a ranked fighter? a Man who acheived Jack Shit in the world of Boxing,See was a non-entity,

See was a major figure in European boxing throughout his career.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Fleischer continued to carry recognize Muhamman Ali as Champion for some considerable time after he had been stripped by all governing bodies


But still refused to rank him in his top 10.

,he wasnt a man influenced by others ,neither was Gilbert Odd.who spent a lifetime watching and documenting boxing. Please provide evidence to the contrary other wise your argument is all smoke and mirrors,

Every historian is influenced by contemporary sources to a greater or lesser extent as well as by the orthodoxy and media of the day.

You should have learned that on this site.


have you printed proof of Sees allegations? Ive never seen it or read of its existence in over 50 years of following boxing.


See wrote a book detailing his alegations “Le mysterie Carnera” in which he alleged that Carneras new handlers travelled all over Europe fixing dozens fights sometimes just days apart in different countries. He wrote the phrases “combat arrange” and “combat sincere” next to bouts to indicate which were fixed and which weren’t.

That is the body of the octopus here.

[janitor]

Do you really beleive that Fleischer ,Odd, Leigh Lye, Igoe,Gallico,and the boxers Ive quoted took their opinions from See,who was back in france before Carnera became a ranked fighter? a Man who acheived Jack Shit in the world of Boxing,See

Leon See founded the French boxing comission.

[janitor]

not Loughran who stated in print that he was told before hand that the only way he could beat Carnera was by ko,

Here is what Loughran said before the bout.

'I'll Outspeed Carnera,' Say Loughran,
Predicting Footwork Will Decide Bout



Philadelphia, PA
January 22, 1934
Loughran stated: 'When the final bell sounds I may be tired--I may be so fatigued that I will appear unable to hold up my arms--but before the match ends I will have given my all in my extreme efforts to take the title from Carnera.'
Loughran admits that he has been tired at the finish of ten-round bouts. 'But it isn't because I can't go a longer distance,' he explained. 'When I pace myself for ten rounds I give everything I have in that time. For fifteen I'll pace myself accordingly and will have all the necessary speed to show to advantage right on through to the final sound of the bell.'
Never Bothered by Wind
'In previous fifteen-round bouts,' added Loughran, 'my wind never bothered me. I would get my second wind along about the tenth round and then would breeze right on through the remaining five frames.
'Say, when the fifteenth sounds against Carnera I'll be just as strong as he is. However, at the closing bell--well, maybe I won't be so strong, but it'll all be over then.'
Loughran isn't worried in the least about the big difference in weight. 'I'll scale around 185, maybe a pound or so lighter,' said the former light-heavyweight champion. 'Suppose there is a difference of seventy pounds or so. What about it? It won't mean anything. Speed--speed, that's what will mean everything. Speed will win that fight and I'll outspeed that big Carnera fellow.'
When Tommy boards a train at Thirtieth Street Wednesday at noon he will be given a rousing sendoff by his Philadelphia friends. Several hundred are expected to be at the station to wish him luck and hope he returns 'with the bacon.'
Houghton in Camp
Loughran's manager, Joe Smith, and his chief spar-mate, Eddie Houghton, already are at Tommy's Palm Beach training camp. Turc Duncan, who will be in charge of the place, leaves next Sunday. Tom will start sparring next Monday.
In addition to Houghton, Smith has made definite arrangements to have Jack Pettifer, giant English scrapper, and Jack Hogan, of New York, act as Loughran's shock absorbers. It also is possible that Joe will accept Ray Impellitierre as a spar-mate for Loughran.
'Ray will be in Florida,' said Loughran, 'and he has offered to work with me. But it will be entirely up to Smith as to whom my sparring partners will be.'
Impellitierre, who recently was defeated by Loughran in New York, is even taller than Carnera. It was on the strength of his victory over Ray that Tommy was chosen as challenger for the February 22 championship match.
'They didn't think I could lick Impellitierre,' laughed the good-looking Loughran. 'Well, I did. And I'm going to lick Carnera, too, even though there are many who don't think I can.'

[fists of fury]

Janitor...so basically in a nutshell you're saying that Carnera was actually a good fighter, but somehow, someway, this was lost on leading historians and reporters of the time.
And to say Odd and Fleischer had biases? And to insinuate that other boxing writers simply ape and mimic the popular opinion?

It's in black and white (thanks Mcvey) that Joe Louis clearly didn't rate Carnera...and yet you still carry on that he was held in high esteem by Louis.

Well, I'm glad you've educated us on the great Carnera conspiracy for the bald-faced lie it's been all this time. I might have been fooled into believing what all those silly old biased historians were telling for years and years.

[janitor]

[quote=fists of fury]Janitor...so basically in a nutshell you're saying that Carnera was actually a good fighter, but somehow, someway, this was lost on leading historians and reporters of the time.


It was not lost on the historians of the time. Carnera was a fighter who divided opinion. Like with say Jess Willard you can find a range of contemporary observers who give him both a good and bad write up.

If you refer to a source such as the Galico book you will find a range of negative remarks about Carnera by contemporary figures. If you read a biography that treats the contemporary quotes in an even handed way you will get a mixed picture.


And to say Odd and Fleischer had biases? And to insinuate that other boxing writers simply ape and mimic the popular opinion?


Fleischer quite palpably had biases. After Sony Liston lost the title to Muhamad Ali he came into Fleischer's office and asked why he was not ranked. The answer-

"Because your record as a man outside the ring dose not justify it".


It's in black and white (thanks Mcvey) that Joe Louis clearly didn't rate Carnera...and yet you still carry on that he was held in high esteem by Louis.


He was not held in high esteem by Louis but Louis did clearly state that Carnera was one of the best technical boxers he ever faced.


Well, I'm glad you've educated us on the great Carnera conspiracy for the bald-faced lie it's been all this time. I might have been fooled into believing what all those silly old biased historians were telling for years and years.


You can laugh but what have you actualy bot when you break it down to the primary evidence.

And furthermore why dose Carnera particularly stand out among the fighters of the era in this respect. If you want to revise Carneras resume with a critical eye that is fine but cast the same critical eye over the other champions of the era.

At the end of the day the only outstanding diference between Carnera and the other top names of the era is that sombody wrote a book implying that most of his fights were fixed.

[fists of fury]

What have I got as primary evidence? Film for one, and the opinions of virtually every boxing writer that's ever lived.

If you have a different opinion then that's okay by me, but don't go throwing accusations around is if it were fact. You don't know that Fleischer or Odd or any other writer was biased against Primo. Why would they be? It's pure speculation on your part without a shred of concrete evidence.

[fists of fury]

PS-This is a Carnera thread, that's why we're limiting it to him, but I don't think for a second he was the only one who was 'connected' during that period.

[janitor]

[quote=fists of fury]What have I got as primary evidence? Film for one,

I happen to think Carnera looks prety good on film.


and the opinions of virtually every boxing writer that's ever lived.


No you don't.

If you have a different opinion then that's okay by me, but don't go throwing accusations around is if it were fact. You don't know that Fleischer or Odd or any other writer was biased against Primo. Why would they be? It's pure speculation on your part without a shred of concrete evidence.

If you are going to use the opinions of Fleischer and odd as testimony in this matter then you must plaqce weight on their other opinions like say Fleischer's top ten heavyweight list. Whether you call it bias or error their view can be radicaly wrong.

Now if you want to talk about concrete evidence then what concrete evidence is there that any of Carnera's fights were fixed outside of the testimony of L:eon See?

[fists of fury]

[quote]



If you are going to use the opinions of Fleischer and odd as testimony in this matter then you must plaqce weight on their other opinions like say Fleischer's top ten heavyweight list. Whether you call it bias or error their view can be radicaly wrong.

Now if you want to talk about concrete evidence then what concrete evidence is there that any of Carnera's fights were fixed outside of the testimony of L:eon See?

It's not purely two guy's opinions I'm speaking about, but you already knew that, didn't you? The majority of the public weren't sold on Carnera at all.
I read that part of the reason Carnera engaged in some fixed fights was because his 'backers' wanted to portray him as this monstrous, all-conquering heavyweight and Primo simply lacked the skills to pull it off without help. This is after the Wills fight, if I remember correctly.

You know that it's impossible for me to prove that Carnera had some 'arranged' fights, however where there is smoke there's fire, as they say.
Bottom line: I chose to believe the historians. You don't. Nothing more can be said about that.

[janitor]

[quote=fists of fury] It's not purely two guy's opinions I'm speaking about, but you already knew that, didn't you? The majority of the public weren't sold on Carnera at all.


The American public seldom are sold on a non American heavyweight champion.


I read that part of the reason Carnera engaged in some fixed fights was because his 'backers' wanted to portray him as this monstrous, all-conquering heavyweight and Primo simply lacked the skills to pull it off without help.

Bottom line: I chose to believe the historians. You don't. Nothing more can be said about that.


OK

Let's see what we can agree.

Carneras legacy fight is obviously his title wining effort against Jack Sharkey which I beleive was on the level. He established himself as challenger with wins over Art Lasky King Levinsky and Earnie Schaff.

De you beleive that any of these fights were not on the level?

Carnera has eight common oponents with Max Baer.

Joe Louis
Tommy Loughran
Earnie Schaff
Paulino Uzcudun
King Levinski
Bearcat Wright


Baers record vs these oponents is 4-4 while Carneras is 7-1 with his only loss coming to Joe Louis (arguably the greatest heavyweight of all time).

Do you beleive that any of these fights were not on the level?

If you beleive that all of these fights were legitimate than you would have to alow that Carnera was always of championship calibre.

You would further have to acept that he was one of the top five heavyweights of the period between Gene Tunney and Joe Louis.

[Luigi1985]

For some ignorant people it´s pretty easy, Carnera´s wins were all fixed, and his defeats happened only when his opponents didn´t agree with the price Carnera´s gangsters offered them...







:nut

[mcvey]

For some ignorant people it´s pretty easy, Carnera´s wins were all fixed, and his defeats happened only when his opponents didn´t agree with the price Carnera´s gangsters offered them...







:nut
No one has said or suggested that ALL Carneras fights were fixed,I said Some of them,and to call people stupid just because they hold a different point of view to you reflects more on you than them Luigi.You for example have stated on this forum several times that Carnera was a big puncher ,when it is widely acknowledged that one of his main deficiences as a fighter was his lack of punching power,backed up by first hand testimonies from Tommy Loughran,Joe Louis,and Larry Gains.No boxing writer rates Carneras power,he is not rated in any list I have seen concerning ko punchers,what does this tell you?Ihave enjoyed reading your posts ,from time to time we have disagreed ,but Ive never thought of you as stupid ,or called you stupid in print,we are each entitled to our opinions,but I do feel you have a fierce protective streak where Primo is concernedpossibly due to you being Italian,I have nothing against Carnera ,I beleive he was a good natured man with a ton of heart,who was shamefully exploited by low lifes,but that he was just an average champion at best,Janitor mentions his wins over Loughran,a light heavyweight who was outweighed by 89 lbs! and fighter who staggered Primo twice,and lost a decision ,Earnie Schaaf had been badly koed by Max Baer in his last fight and was comingfrom a sick bed ,getting over a severe bout of influenza,when Schaaf went down in that fight,the famous boxing writer Hype Igoe said ,"the only way Ill belive this is if the son of a bitch dies"which of course he did,so dubiously was Carneras ko record viewed by those in the know.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Janitor mentions his wins over Loughran,a light heavyweight who was outweighed by 89 lbs! and fighter who staggered Primo twice,and lost a decision

I am surprized that you view the win over Tommy Loughran in such a negative light. Although Loughran was past his best he was still the No2 heavyweight contender in the annual rankings that year.

Here is a case of Carnera not stopping but decisioning a master boxer. To my mind that is ironicaly better for his resume than knocking him out because it shows that he did have genuine technical ability.

Although Loughran was giving up a lot of weight he did have a track record of decisioning men Carnera's size such as Victorio Campollo and Ray Imelitiere both of who were ranked around the time. This also suggests that Carnera did not beat him on size alone.


Earnie Schaaf had been badly koed by Max Baer in his last fight and was comingfrom a sick bed ,getting over a severe bout of influenza,when Schaaf went down in that fight

Schaff was certainly ill and that resulted in his death. It must be said however that it was not unknown for fighters of this period and later to take bouts while ill. Rocky Marciano beat Lee Savold while sufering from flu for example.

Schaff was none the less a briliant young contender who might well have held the title if his life had not been tragicaly cut short.

What do you think about Carneras wins over Art Lasky and King Levinsky which together with the Schaff win propeled him into his title shot. Do you have any reason to beleive that these three fights were not on the level?

[Luigi1985]

No one has said or suggested that ALL Carneras fights were fixed,I said Some of them,and to call people stupid just because they hold a different point of view to you reflects more on you than them Luigi.You for example have stated on this forum several times that Carnera was a big puncher ,when it is widely acknowledged that one of his main deficiences as a fighter was his lack of punching power,backed up by first hand testimonies from Tommy Loughran,Joe Louis,and Larry Gains.No boxing writer rates Carneras power,he is not rated in any list I have seen concerning ko punchers,what does this tell you?Ihave enjoyed reading your posts ,from time to time we have disagreed ,but Ive never thought of you as stupid ,or called you stupid in print,we are each entitled to our opinions,but I do feel you have a fierce protective streak where Primo is concernedpossibly due to you being Italian,I have nothing against Carnera ,I beleive he was a good natured man with a ton of heart,who was shamefully exploited by low lifes,but that he was just an average champion at best,Janitor mentions his wins over Loughran,a light heavyweight who was outweighed by 89 lbs! and fighter who staggered Primo twice,and lost a decision ,Earnie Schaaf had been badly koed by Max Baer in his last fight and was comingfrom a sick bed ,getting over a severe bout of influenza,when Schaaf went down in that fight,the famous boxing writer Hype Igoe said ,"the only way Ill belive this is if the son of a bitch dies"which of course he did,so dubiously was Carneras ko record viewed by those in the know.


I didn´t use the word stupid in my last post, and 100 % I didn´t mean you, you´re a good poster with good boxing knowledge who I respect.

[Luigi1985]

Btw, I didn´t rate Carnera as one of the hardest punchers ever or so, but his one punch is very underrated and when he landed a good shot, he ended most of his fights, even against fighters with a very good chin...

[mcvey]

[quote]

I am surprized that you view the win over Tommy Loughran in such a negative light. Although Loughran was past his best he was still the No2 heavyweight contender in the annual rankings that year.

Here is a case of Carnera not stopping but decisioning a master boxer. To my mind that is ironicaly better for his resume than knocking him out because it shows that he did have genuine technical ability.

Although Loughran was giving up a lot of weight he did have a track record of decisioning men Carnera's size such as Victorio Campollo and Ray Imelitiere both of who were ranked around the time. This also suggests that Carnera did not beat him on size alone.




Schaff was certainly ill and that resulted in his death. It must be said however that it was not unknown for fighters of this period and later to take bouts while ill. Rocky Marciano beat Lee Savold while sufering from flu for example.

Schaff was none the less a briliant young contender who might well have held the title if his life had not been tragicaly cut short.

What do you think about Carneras wins over Art Lasky and King Levinsky which together with the Schaff win propeled him into his title shot. Do you have any reason to beleive that these three fights were not on the level?
Extracts from an interview Loughran gave to Pete Heller inApril 1972,"Father O Leary over in Pennsylvania,got hold of Bill Duffy,said" Bill you allways said if I wanted you to do anything for me...OK ,give Tommy Loughran a shot at Carnera"So he said,"We cant he,ll make a sucker out of the big guy",O Leary,"give him a shot anyhow"." So I had to knock him out to win,I had to agree to that.And Carnera had a glass chin,I had him in bad shape in the fourth round,and in the tenth round,but then I couldnt finish himI knew the thing was over.I,d hit him with a left hook as he would come in,bang him around,and of course he was so awkward that the crowd couldnt see what was actually happening.I beat him, no question about it.I had agreed to this thing,I didnt care about it". We have allready discussed the Schaaf fight ,he had no business being anywhere near a boxing ring ,surely no credit is due for that tragic result?,I have no reason to beleive the Lasky and Levinsky fights werent on the level Lasky was a promising fighter outpointed by Braddock no great fighter,Levinsky had some good results and as many bad ones,back to Earnie Schaaf he was co managed by Johnny Buckley ,[Sharkeys manager] and Sharkey himself ,often called Sharkeys policeman,he was indeed a promising up and coming fighter whether he would have ever got a title opportunity is debatable with Sharky holding his reins,as we know he was a sick man entering the Carnera fight ,it cannot be proven but is assumed he was suffering from a blood clot, a result of the dreadful beating and ko he received from Max Baer,extract fromNat Fleischers "The Heavyweight Championship","Through the ninth the Californian continued his savage attack,and the former Navy champion began to wilt.In the tenth ,Baer staggered his opponent with three thunderous rights and chased him around the ring with a vicious bombardment of face and body.Two seconds before thebell clanged to end the fightSchaaf collapsed from the fearful punishment.Only the gong saved him from being counted out.Several minutes passed before Earnie was revived sufficiently to leave the ring.It was th terrible battering he absorbed in this battle that was beleived to be the real cause of Schaafs tragic death,which took place not quite six months later inhis bout with Primo Carnera in New York."

[Luigi1985]

I also don´t understand why some people think it´s so much important to hear at things a fighter/manager/trainer etc. said in the past, it´s nothing new to make someone worse than he was, the typical stuff "I had to knock him out to win, I knew it", I was much better, I had a bad night", etc., nothing new here, I don´t understand that, for example here, who have seen the fight Carner against Loughran? I think not many, I´ve seen ca. 15 min. of it, and Loughran was wide away to win...

[mcvey]

I didn´t use the word stupid in my last post, and 100 % I didn´t mean you, you´re a good poster with good boxing knowledge who I respect.
Sorry Luigi ,you didnt use the word stupid ,it was ignorant ,not sure which is worse, Ive just replied to Janitors post ,and Ill leave poor old Primo in peace after that he had a sad end ,going back to Sequals to die of cirrhosis of the liver ,a decent man with a lot of courage.

[Luigi1985]

Sorry Luigi ,you didnt use the word stupid ,it was ignorant ,not sure which is worse, Ive just replied to Janitors post ,and Ill leave poor old Primo in peace after that he had a sad end ,going back to Sequals to die of cirrhosis of the liver ,a decent man with a lot of courage.


:thumbsup


Btw, with ignorant I didn´t mean it bad, I meant that a record what Primo had can´t lie, some of his opponents said he´s was very good, he looked good on tape, some of his KO- wins who were devasting (Campolo, Bearcat Wright, etc.) were all on film, so when some say he was just a bum, than it´s ignorant IMO...

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]
Extracts from an interview Loughran gave to Pete Heller inApril 1972,"Father O Leary over in Pennsylvania,got hold of Bill Duffy,said" Bill you allways said if I wanted you to do anything for me...OK ,give Tommy Loughran a shot at Carnera"So he said,"We cant he,ll make a sucker out of the big guy",O Leary,"give him a shot anyhow"." So I had to knock him out to win,I had to agree to that.And Carnera had a glass chin,I had him in bad shape in the fourth round,and in the tenth round,but then I couldnt finish himI knew the thing was over.I,d hit him with a left hook as he would come in,bang him around,and of course he was so awkward that the crowd couldnt see what was actually happening.I beat him, no question about it.I had agreed to this thing,I didnt care about it".


Have you considered that Loughran might have been less than magnanimous in defeat as many fighters are?

He was obviously singing a verry diferent tune before the fight and seemed confident of victory.

We have allready discussed the Schaaf fight ,he had no business being anywhere near a boxing ring ,surely no credit is due for that tragic result?

I certainly agree that Schaff should not have been boxing that day but by the standards of the period it was not unusual for a fight to go ahead under such circumstances. Carnera himself also had to take some fights while in less than stelar condition.

I have no reason to beleive the Lasky and Levinsky fights werent on the level Lasky was a promising fighter outpointed by Braddock no great fighter,Levinsky had some good results and as many bad ones

It should be noted that this pair were both ranked in the top 3 around the time Carnera lost the title. The rankings at the time a challenger was first sought for Baer were-

1. Steve Hamas
2. Art Lasky
3. King Levinsky

An improbably series of events resulted in Braddock getting the shot over about three people who were ahead of him in the que.


back to Earnie Schaaf ,as we know he was a sick man entering the Carnera fight ,it cannot be proven but is assumed he was suffering from a blood clot, a result of the dreadful beating and ko he received from Max Baer,extract fromNat Fleischers "The Heavyweight Championship","Through the ninth the Californian continued his savage attack,and the former Navy champion began to wilt.In the tenth ,Baer staggered his opponent with three thunderous rights and chased him around the ring with a vicious bombardment of face and body.Two seconds before thebell clanged to end the fightSchaaf collapsed from the fearful punishment.Only the gong saved him from being counted out.Several minutes passed before Earnie was revived sufficiently to leave the ring.It was th terrible battering he absorbed in this battle that was beleived to be the real cause of Schaafs tragic death,which took place not quite six months later inhis bout with Primo Carnera in New York."


Recent research suggests that Schaff's death resulted from his illness and not the beating at the hands of Baer.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Carnera Young

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Carnera Hurculeas
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Carnera Chaplin
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



Carnera Robinson
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[DocDevil]

Ask yourself, if Carnera was such a bum like many people think, why should some people make him a champ with so many fixed fights who cost so much, when there were talented fighters around? Carnera was a good HW with enormous pysical strength, a very good and hard one-punch, good stamina, and some skills (jab for example). The only mistake his managment made was, that they tried to fast to promote world-wide, he fought too often. And against Young Stribling, a great fighter with much experience, they wanted no risk and he all know what happened, which is for Carnera´s legacy very unfair, because now some idiots really think that all of his fights were fixed except his losses, what´s of course total bullshit...


I am no Carnera hater,I find his career and life interesting and trajic.I have read a lot on him,and outside of a few poster's on this board,everything I have read was he was a trajic inept giant the mob took advantage of.He believed the hype they did on him,he really thought he was good.I think he was very strong,powerful body,but from what I read,his chin had the tinkle of glass.Primo,was a good man,who trained hard,but was in a foreign country,alone and didn't know the language and easy to fool.I.read about a fight,with Big Boy Peterson,Primo pawed a couple of times and Peterson went down like he had been shot.The crowd hooted,and the mob took Carnera on the road to,outa the cities {fool the yokels}.Nothing personal Luigi,this is stuff I have read on the guy.

[janitor]

I am no Carnera hater,I find his career and life interesting and trajic.I have read a lot on him,and outside of a few poster's on this board,everything I have read was he was a trajic inept giant the mob took advantage of.He believed the hype they did on him,he really thought he was good.I think he was very strong,powerful body,but from what I read,his chin had the tinkle of glass.Primo,was a good man,who trained hard,but was in a foreign country,alone and didn't know the language and easy to fool.I.read about a fight,with Big Boy Peterson,Primo pawed a couple of times and Peterson went down like he had been shot.The crowd hooted,and the mob took Carnera on the road to,outa the cities {fool the yokels}.Nothing personal Luigi,this is stuff I have read on the guy.

OK

The crucial questions are these-

Which of Carnera's key fights were fixed?

Wast the fight in which he won the title fixed?

Were the three key fights that got him his title shot fixed?

If the answer to these question's is no then you are spreading a lie.

You are saying that a fighter who legitimately earned a shot a the title and then legitimately won it was a big joke and a product of a series of fixed fights. In fact you are giving a nod to the idea that he was a 270lb punch bag.

This is a man who legitimately won the lineal heavyweight title on his merits.

Please give him the apropriate respect.

[OLD FOGEY]

An idiot because I don't buy into revisionist history about Primo Carnera? I have nothing against Carnera. I have no reason to have anything against Primo Carnera. Is it because he was Italian that you'e so defensive about the guy and you want to tweak it so he's something that he wasn't? Were the great sportswriters like Paul Gallico and others who wrote about him just full of shit or something? It's like me building up Jerry Quarry, who was Irish, up into something far greater than he was because I happen to be Irish too. Where's your evidence to support saying that he was anything than what he was widely reported that he was? I happen to admire the fact that he gave it his all against the big hitters he faced who slaughtered him, and had the balls to keep trying until the end like he did against Louis. He had courage, and thats all he had left after the mob betrayed and then deserted him. He had courage and like I said, he had size and rudimentary boxing skills. That and the infuence of some very crooked men led him to the top, where he did, if you'll remenber from my first post, win his title legitimately with that right uppercut against Sharkey. The guy couldn't take a damned punch, get it? This was made painfully obvious when he fought Baer, Louis and Haynes, and by then, it was time for Primo to switch to pro wrestling. He seemed like a good hearted, likeable, somewhat childlike kind of man, so you're wrong, he was impossible to hate. Just dont rewrite boxing history for the sake of some whim of yours.

It might have been painfully obvious that Carnera couldn't take a punch after his knockouts by Baer, Louis, and Haynes, the three hardest hitters of the era, but it was not so painfully obvious earlier. Here is
James J Corbett on Carnera in 1931:

"But there may be possibilities in Carnera, after all. You must admit that he is comparatively inexperienced, and that considering his background, he has done pretty well. It seems impossible to hurt the giant, and a man of that type may be the answer to the 1931 prayer among the heavyweights."

Ring Magazine May, 1931

[OLD FOGEY]

Because he is historically implicated with much corroboration that you obviously havent heard of or haven't read. So just go and pick any historical fact and claim that since you cannot prove a negative that it must not be true. Again, I want to know how you guys can just arbitrarily say that historical allegations held against Carnera regarding the mob (a European mob) and their influence on the outcomes of his fights are not true. What grounds do you have that the sports writers were all just harboring grudges.

How do you know that the sportswriters were honest? It is no secret that most of the New York beat writers were on Tex Rickard's payroll during the Dempsey era. These were largely the same guys. Frankly, I wonder if they demanded to be in on the the Carnera take, and when the mob guys told them to get lost, they trashed Carnera in revenge.

[OLD FOGEY]

As I said Sharkey allways denied taking a dive against Carnera,I mentioned his comments to illustrate that some of Carneras fights were regarded as dubious,I never suggested that the Sharkey fight wasnt on the level ,though Sharkey handled Carnera with ease in the first fight even dropping him,possibly Carnera had improved,what makes me beleive some ,and I mean some not all of Carneras fights were fixed was his ko ratio,which was very high,yet he couldnt even wobble Loughran ,whom he outweighed by over 80lbs.Primo was better than he is generally given credit for ,he was a fair mechanical boxer with a ton of heart,but lets not go overboard and pretend he was one of the better Champs,he wasnt,his ko percentage compares favourably with most boxers yet noqwhere is he credited as a puncher in any list or AT ratings this suggests that some of his results are viewed sceptically ,at least.

Loughran perhaps avoided getting hit. You seem to be criticizing Carnera for being big, an unfair criticism against a heavyweight. Carnera ko'd far bigger men than Loughran--Victoria Campolo, Jose Santa, and Ray Impellitiere, and Tommy survived to the final bell against most of the better heavyweights of the day.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]
Fleischer and Odds opinions are paramount because they actualy saw Carneras fights from ringside,Fleischer never aped another mans opinions on boxing in his life ,he was known as a man of integrity,as was Gilbert Odd,Britains premier boxing historian,to suggest otherwise is a slur on their impeccable reputations.Which boxers opinions are complimentary to Carnera? Not Larry Gains who not only fought and beat Journee twice but comfortably outpointed Carnera when Larry was a fading 31 year old veteran,not Loughran who stated in print that he was told before hand that the only way he could beat Carnera was by ko,not Sharkey who stated that Carneras fights were highly dubious,so which ones? If only George Godfrey who was easily outpointing Carnera for 4 rounds before inexplicably fouling out in the 5th,could give us the low down,or Young Stribling whose own reputation was a trifle unsavouryafter koing his chauffeur in hick towns all cross America he split a pair of DSQs with Carnera ,Terry Leigh Lye ,the british boxing writer was a closefriend of Stribling but even he didnt beleive these fights were kosher ,and said so in a book,you contend that all these people base their opinion on Sees allegations ,sour grapes because he was forced out of the picture ,but Carnera didnt force him out the mob didyour argument doesnt hold water Janitor your contention that all these well respected boxing experts got their opinion of Carnera from See ,who dissapeared without trace once he was sent packing back to Europe,is laughable,again I ask which opponents of Carnera gave him positive write ups?

You keep using Nat Fleischer. Fleischer did not rate Carnera highly as a heavyweight champion, but I remember reading years ago in The Ring his opinion that Carnera's American fights were on the level, although he said Carnera was fed a lot of set-ups. Of course, padding a fighters' record with tomato-cans hardly began or ended with Carnera.

Do you have any quote from Fleischer maintaining Carnera's major bouts were fixed?

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]
Can you post quotes by Joe Louis where he praises Carnera ,I only have these ,taken from his autobiography"old Chappie told me there was allways a cloud over his ability",the first thing that shocked Carnera and the crowd ,was that instead of him handling me like a babby ,I handled him.They were looking at his size not his talent.I moved him around easily."The fight moved along smoothly for me.I remember in the fifth round we clinched,and I picked him up off his feet.Thats when he spoke to me,the only time in the fight . He said I should be doing this to you.""Carnera had nothing.He couldnt punch." He pushed with his right and he was awkward.Mostly he tried to scare me with his weight"."He never hurt me once".Those are real ringing endorsements arent they? Let me guess Louis got that impression from See.these quotes can be found in the book Joe Louis My Life.,where are your quotes from Schmeling , Louis and Baer.? Larry Gains apart from beating Carnera comfortably also kod Schmeling,dont you find it curious that two of Carneras biggest" victories 2 ,were over Fighters known to " do business" Godfrey and Stribling? Where is your proof that the origin of Carneras fixed fights came from See? Do you really beleive that Fleischer ,Odd, Leigh Lye, Igoe,Gallico,and the boxers Ive quoted took their opinions from See,who was back in france before Carnera became a ranked fighter? a Man who acheived Jack Shit in the world of Boxing,See was a non-entity,the men Ive quoted were ,well respected figures in boxing at world level.Have you a quote from Joe Louis that rebutts or tempers the one I have provided?I fso Print it.or retract your aversion that Louis was complimentary to Carnera.

Ring Magazine, June 1955-Ted Carroll on Carnera

"Carnera would come apart at the seams when belted solidly, but to give the big fellow his due, he was a lot better boxer than he was given credit for being. Joe Louis, among others is authority for this. Primo also had a ramrod left jab which was an effective weapon. Heavier than Willard, Carnera lacked Big Jess' ruggedness but moved much faster than was to be expected from a man of his bulk."

Carroll and Louis were close friends.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]

It's not purely two guy's opinions I'm speaking about, but you already knew that, didn't you? The majority of the public weren't sold on Carnera at all.
I read that part of the reason Carnera engaged in some fixed fights was because his 'backers' wanted to portray him as this monstrous, all-conquering heavyweight and Primo simply lacked the skills to pull it off without help. This is after the Wills fight, if I remember correctly.

You know that it's impossible for me to prove that Carnera had some 'arranged' fights, however where there is smoke there's fire, as they say.
Bottom line: I chose to believe the historians. You don't. Nothing more can be said about that.

Opinion on Carnera was divided. Some thought after the Sharkey fight that he would reign for years. There was talk of creating a special "Dreadnaught" division as Carnera was just too big and too dangerous for ordinary fighters.

This is Jack Kofoed in Ring Magazine, Nov 1933, rebutting those who felt Carnera was invincible following his knockout of Sharkey:

"There was an immediate blah-blah from observers about the difference in size of the men. People who had called Carnera a circus freak prophesied there would be no one to beat him in years. They harped on his 265 pounds."

Kofoed goes on to list the giants of boxing history and their generally sorry records and to warn against jumping on the Carnera bandwagon.

[OLD FOGEY]

I am no Carnera hater,I find his career and life interesting and trajic.I have read a lot on him,and outside of a few poster's on this board,everything I have read was he was a trajic inept giant the mob took advantage of.He believed the hype they did on him,he really thought he was good.I think he was very strong,powerful body,but from what I read,his chin had the tinkle of glass.Primo,was a good man,who trained hard,but was in a foreign country,alone and didn't know the language and easy to fool.I.read about a fight,with Big Boy Peterson,Primo pawed a couple of times and Peterson went down like he had been shot.The crowd hooted,and the mob took Carnera on the road to,outa the cities {fool the yokels}.Nothing personal Luigi,this is stuff I have read on the guy.

Here is a ringside report on the Peterson fight from The Ring, March, 1930, by Ed Sullivan:

"Despite his trememdous bulk and girth, Carnera is as fast in his movements as a huge cat. Those size 16 feet glide in and out with the soft tread of a panther.
Whether or not Peterson had any thought of fight was unimportant. Carnera swept out of his corner and was on top ot the Chicagoan before Big Boy knew what had overwhelmed him.
Carnera is a straight puncher, avoiding the round-house swing of the novice for the deadly short, straight blow.
It is in clinches that his terrific strength is most deadly. Tearing his arms loose by sheer power, he flails that right hand back and forth in a clubbing uppercut that sprawled Peterson on the floor as though he had been ejected from a cannon.
Leo P Flynn and Dan Morgan, two canny veterans, watched him and were eloquent. 'He's the next world's champion," said Flynn."

[janitor]

Carnera tends to get tainted by the general atmosphere of acusations around him. The crucial questions that few who buy into this ask are-

1. Exactly which of his fights are fixed and how dose it effect his legacy if they were?

2. What is the primary evidence for him having benefited from fixed fights?

3. Are there other key fighters of the period against who similar acusations could be leveled?

[DocDevil]

[quote=janitor]OK

The crucial questions are these-

Which of Carnera's key fights were fixed?

Wast the fight in which he won the title fixed?

Were the three key fights that got him his title shot fixed?

If the answer to these question's is no then you are spreading a lie.

You are saying that a fighter who legitimately earned a shot a the title and then legitimately won it was a big joke and a product of a series of fixed fights. In fact you are giving a nod to the idea that he was a 270lb punch bag.

This is a man who legitimately won the lineal heavyweight title on his merits.

Please give him the apropriate respect.[/quote


Thought I was giving Primo respect.I have no doubt he beat Sharkey in the title fight.But ,I just said everything I have read said, Primo had a career clouded with alleged thrown fights.I don't know cause I wasn't there,I am telling you what I read.Didn't think I was spreading lies.I also read Paul Revere made a famous ride in April of 1775,I am hoping I am not spreading a lie,cause I wasn't there for that either.Pick up Stanley Weston's book,The Heavywight Champions,it tells of Primo.

[janitor]

[quote=DocDevil]
Thought I was giving Primo respect.I have no doubt he beat Sharkey in the title fight.


OK we agree on that.

Some people rank Sharkey as a top 30 all time heavyweight so to beat him like that is an acomplishment to be proud of.

But ,I just said everything I have read said, Primo had a career clouded with alleged thrown fights.I don't know cause I wasn't there,I am telling you what I read.Didn't think I was spreading lies.

I do not think that you are spreading lies. Just that you are taking one side of the coin and not looking at the other.

If sombody wrote a book in the 30s saying-

"The heavyweight champion is actualy quite good as expected"

It would not be in print today. While there are contemporary sources that condem Carnera there are also some that praise him. I think that whatever side you take he has a core body of acomplishments that make him a verry good fighter. I will go further and say that Carnera had many qualities that make a fine champion.

He would fight any man and most animals.

He fought on and won fights with broken bones.

He was one of the few top heavyweights of the era who fought all the top black contenders that nobody else wanted to.

[UpWithEvil]

Again, for me it all comes down to the footage. I too grew up reading the same slanders and innuendos about Carnera, but that cartoon wasn't what I was seeing in the ring.

I don't deny that Carnera was the beneficiary of some set-ups, but he's hardly unique in that regard, and it's unfortunate that this one damning fact has robbed a good man of the small measure of respect and credibility he honestly earned in the ring.

[Street Lethal]

What I've read is that after Tunney retired, and especially because Dempsey was no longer a force in boxing, the sport was in trouble. There were no marquee stars. When Schmeling won the title on a foul, the manly art was viewed by many as less than manly. Germans made fun of Schmeling for winning the fight with his family jewels. Americans were upset because the title was taken from their country by a fighter they felt looked for a way out. When Jack Sharkey won the title, he wasn't a thrilling champion, and the fighter was close (some say Schmeling won it, but I haven't seen the fight so I can't say for sure).

Primo Carnera was thought to be something that would restore the reputation of the heavyweight, a giant hulking creature who at least looked meanacing. There were many stakeholders in the manufacture of the Carnera express, so money was thrown around and managers and promoters were intimidated. I have read that so many of Carnera's fights were fixed that it is hard to know (outside of the Baer and Louis fights) when his fights were on the up and up.

I have some of his fights and his skills are okay. But he would not, in my opinion, be champion of the world if not for a lot of outside help. I don't however think that Sharkey threw the fight with Carnera, as some people claim. Sharkey falls back from an uppercut, then is push back by a left, and then is knocked out with a titanic uppercut. I think this punch was real. But Carnera being in a position to fight for the title is the result of many arrangements. That's what I am arguing. That's my opinion anyway.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]OK

The crucial questions are these-

Which of Carnera's key fights were fixed?

Wast the fight in which he won the title fixed?

Were the three key fights that got him his title shot fixed?

If the answer to these question's is no then you are spreading a lie.

You are saying that a fighter who legitimately earned a shot a the title and then legitimately won it was a big joke and a product of a series of fixed fights. In fact you are giving a nod to the idea that he was a 270lb punch bag.

This is a man who legitimately won the lineal heavyweight title on his merits.

Please give him the apropriate respect.[/quote


Thought I was giving Primo respect.I have no doubt he beat Sharkey in the title fight.But ,I just said everything I have read said, Primo had a career clouded with alleged thrown fights.I don't know cause I wasn't there,I am telling you what I read.Didn't think I was spreading lies.I also read Paul Revere made a famous ride in April of 1775,I am hoping I am not spreading a lie,cause I wasn't there for that either.Pick up Stanley Weston's book,The Heavywight Champions,it tells of Primo.

One problem with viewing Carnera as the product of fixes--it is plausible that the fights with Stribling and Godfrey were fixed, but why was Carnera allowed to fight and lose over the next few years to Maloney and Sharkey, Gains and Poreda? Why invest all this money in fixing fights with the likes of Big Boy Peterson and Bombo Chevalier and then risk the whole investment by allowing an honest fight with Stanley Poreda in Newark? It doesn't make much sense to me. Carnera seems to have fought to a certain level, overpowering second raters and running into trouble with top contenders, as one would expect, but coming through quite often against these top men as long as they didn't have really big punches.

[janitor]

I have some of his fights and his skills are okay. But he would not, in my opinion, be champion of the world if not for a lot of outside help.

But that is just the point where people are being inconsistent.

Everybody here seems to agree that the Sharkey fight was on the level and so were the key fights that established Carnera as a challenger for the title.

If that is the case then he did win the title without outside help. Perid.

[Duodenum]

Sharkey certainly floored Carnera with an ill intentioned hook early in their first bout, and Primo came off the deck to go the distance. No referee ever counted ten over da Preem in 104 matches spanning 18 years. He had some heart, and a modicum of competence. A dive might be staged, but that doesn't explain away the fine decision wins he had over Uzcudun (2X), Levinsky (2X), Maloney (with a cracked rib no less!) and Loughran. The quality of his conditioning, mobility, and the ability to deploy his jab effectively are on display for all to see. (The equally sized Buddy Baer did not exhibit a jab of Carnera's quality. Primo used his reach very well.)

[Sam Dixon]

Max Baer was in magnificent shape for that bout. See if you can scout up a photograph of their weigh-in, or film of Baer's training camp for the fight. Max did have a tendency not to train for fights, but he was in corking shape for this one.

I don't know about that, UWE, as some of the prefight quotes in the immediate days leading up to the fight from Baer's own people (and others) might suggest that he wasn't nearly in the best of shape entering ther Carnera fight, although by his physical appearance he may have looked the part;


"The newspapermen are friends of mine and if they ask me a question, they are entitled to the truth. Max isn't ready, and that's all there is to that. The boy's not right. He needs plenty of work. I doubt he can be made ready for the fight." - said Jack Dempsey less than a week before the fight

"Baer's timing is way off. I'd rather have him at his peak when he faces Carnera. He doesn't fear the Italian man mountain, but I agree with Dempsey that he needs plenty more hard work. He might get himself into shape the next four days, but I doubt it." - said Baer's manager, Ancil Hoffman less than a week before the fight, and that statement was issued when Hoffman had tried to get the fight postponed to a later date because of the feeling around his camp in Asbury Park that Baer wasn't in shape for the fight

"On what Baer showed in his burlesque workout yesterday in his training camp, on what my eyes tell me today on looking the man over, he is not physically fit for his match now, nor would he be after ten days training." - said New York Commissioner Bill Brown (who would have cancelled the fight based on his perception of Baer's conditioning if within his power to do so), one week before the fight

Baer's trainer, Mike Cantwell also expressed concern over Baer's preparation and conditioning/stamina for the fight, as did a number of press writers who saw Baer up at his camp;

"There must be something radically wrong with the condition of Max Baer." - wrote Edward Van Every of the New York Sun

"The trouble with Max is that he is trying to do in three weeks the work that called for three months' diligent application after the way he had been conducting himself since he defeated Max Schmeling last summer." - wrote Harry Smith of the San Francisco Chronicle


Just a few quotes from some of those closest to him and from others, but enough to hint that Baer may not have been in "magnificent" or "corking" shape for that fight with Carnera, although he was obviously in good enough shape to get the job done on that night.

[UpWithEvil]

I don't know about that, UWE, as some of the prefight quotes in the immediate days leading up to the fight from Baer's own people (and others) might suggest that he wasn't nearly in the best of shape entering ther Carnera fight, although by his physical appearance he may have looked the part;
By his physical appearance he certainly did:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Modesto Bee and News Herald ran an article on June 9th, just a week before the title bout against Carnera, which stated, "New York Physicians Report California Heavyweight In Better Shape Than When He Knocked Out Max Schmeling"

Specifically addressing the charges of New York Commissioner Bill Brown you cited above, I present an excerpt from the June 8, 1934 "Fresno Bee" : "NEW YORK Doctors and two boxing commissioners voted down Commissioner Brown here today and the battle between MAX BAER, the playboy, and Primo Camera, the man mountain, is officially on as per scheduled for Thursday night. Baer, whose physical condition was thought by Brown to be below necessary requirements, was pronounced in "splendid condition"."

Baer never trained serious enough for Jack Dempsey, that much is a given.

[Sam Dixon]

Baer, whose physical condition was thought by Brown to be below necessary requirements, was pronounced in "splendid condition"."

Thanks for the response, UWE, and here's the official report given to the commision from Doctors Nardiello, Beyer, and (I forget the other one, but it may have been a Dr. Walker);

"Our opinion on both these fighters, which we have reached unanimously, is that both are in splendid physical condition, and we fully believe that they are physically able to engage in this contest of fifteen rounds of boxing. From every test we are able to make, we fail to find any reason why either one of them should not be allowed to box on June 14, 1934."

"Although I do not mean to show any disrespect to the medical profession, you can't convince me that Baer is in shape." - was Bill Brown's reaction to the physicians' findings, and printed in the June 9, 1934 New York Times.

Like I said in that earlier post though, UWE, I was only trying to hint at the possibilty of Baer not being in the best of shape for the Carnera fight by using quotes from those around him during camp, but, while this is quite the extreme in examples and not meant as a comparision of the two fighters because of obvious differences, if only going by physical appearance of the fighter and Dr Romero's claim that he was in "excellant, excellant physical condition" and that any stories about him having brain damage being "bunk", couldn't one say that Ali was in magnificent shape for the Holmes fight if only going by the prefight appearance of him and coupled that with a doctor's prefight findings?

[janitor]

I don't know about that, UWE, as some of the prefight quotes in the immediate days leading up to the fight from Baer's own people (and others) might suggest that he wasn't nearly in the best of shape entering ther Carnera fight, although by his physical appearance he may have looked the part;


There are a couple of posibilities here-

A.
It might have been that Baer did have trouble motivationg himself to train as the sources you quote suggest but that a 90% Baer was still too much for Carnera.

B.
It might have been spoiling tactics on the part of Baer's camp, trying to make Carnera look past Baer.

C.
It might just all have been relative.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't really understand what this Comissioner Brown's big problem is. So Baer comes into the fight in less than top shape. This would mean he is more likely to lose. Why does Brown care so much? Isn't this Baer's problem? Or is Brown worried that Carnera would injure Baer? That is the only interpretation which makes much sense. Brown is afraid Baer will get killed and this will reflect badly on boxing.
This seems to indicate Brown considered Carnera very dangerous.

[mcvey]

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

[janitor]

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Is that what Jack Sharkey did after he was counted out?

[OLD FOGEY]

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


But what is Brown's motive? So Baer comes in out of shape. Why should a boxing official cause a big stink about that? unless he in fact is worried that Baer will be hurt.
Provide another motive. I'm all ears.

[mcvey]

But what is Brown's motive? So Baer comes in out of shape. Why should a boxing official cause a big stink about that? unless he in fact is worried that Baer will be hurt.
Provide another motive. I'm all ears.
Brown called Carnera a bum,no way was he worried about Baers health in this fight ,neither was Maxie concerned,whilst filming "The Prize Fighter And The lady ,"Baer established a mental dominance over Carnera ,playing gags on him ,such as giving himthe "hot foot"etc,he toldhis manager "I can lick this bum easy"Baer might have been frightened by Louis but Carnera didnt make him lose any sleep,Baer even wore the robe he he had worn in the film when he came into the ring to challenge Carnera for real.Watch the film of the fight you can see Steve Morgan ,his characters name on the back of it. Trotting out photos of Baer intraining as though to show he was trained to the minute for Carnera make me laugh,have you ever seen a picture of Baer looking fat when he was in his prime?For the record Baer weighed 209 1/2 lbs when he fought Carnera,the same weight he scaled when he lost his title to Braddock,a fight he definitely trained only halfheartedly for.Baer was a less than diligent gym worker at the best of times ,and though his drinking was exaggeratedhis late night carousing with the ladies was not,cant we leave Primo in peace now? Some on here have one view of him some another ,both sides will never agree ,maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[amhlilhaus]

Carnera being in a position to fight for the title is the result of many arrangements.

boxing history is filled with guys who may or may not deserve shots at the title. the current state of the game is saturated with undeserving challengers, but the difference is that when given the chance, carnera, along with a handful of modern titleholders* came through when it counted.

*see botha, maskaev, rahman, valuev, spinks-leon and michael, etc etc etc

[OLD FOGEY]

Brown called Carnera a bum,no way was he worried about Baers health in this fight ,neither was Maxie concerned,whilst filming "The Prize Fighter And The lady ,"Baer established a mental dominance over Carnera ,playing gags on him ,such as giving himthe "hot foot"etc,he toldhis manager "I can lick this bum easy"Baer might have been frightened by Louis but Carnera didnt make him lose any sleep,Baer even wore the robe he he had worn in the film when he came into the ring to challenge Carnera for real.Watch the film of the fight you can see Steve Morgan ,his characters name on the back of it. Trotting out photos of Baer intraining as though to show he was trained to the minute for Carnera make me laugh,have you ever seen a picture of Baer looking fat when he was in his prime?For the record Baer weighed 209 1/2 lbs when he fought Carnera,the same weight he scaled when he lost his title to Braddock,a fight he definitely trained only halfheartedly for.Baer was a less than diligent gym worker at the best of times ,and though his drinking was exaggeratedhis late night carousing with the ladies was not,cant we leave Primo in peace now? Some on here have one view of him some another ,both sides will never agree ,maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Others brought this Brown guy up, but I don't see an answer to the question I posed. Why does a boxing official care if Baer comes into a fight in less than top shape?

I know that Brown called Baer a bum also, but said Carnera was a bigger bum. I would just like to know if anyone knows his motivation for dwelling on Baer's conditioning, which doesn't seem to be his job.

Baer weighed 210 for Louis, a fight I have read he trained very hard for.