Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-05-2008, 03:13 PM   #91
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Was Willard the worst ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
You want me to GRASP a "reputation" and then wonder about my "intellectual fortitude to remain objective".
Well, all I can say to that is maybe our views of what being objective means differ. Recoursing to "Carnera's reputation" to prove something about "Carnera's reputation" is not going to convince me. Hey, I think Carnera's career was as crooked as you do, but I dont think that's enough to bar him from being assessed to some extent as a fighter, we can attenpt to get some handle on him.
Grasp the reputation as in consider the facts, the statements, and the admissions before lumping that particular career in with Seldon's.

My previous posts about Carnera do anything but offer circular reasoning -they are probably the equivalent of a 10 page thesis.

What I have stated is that you have to be more careful with Primo than with any other top level fighter in modern history when it comes to measuring his effectiveness and worth as a fighter. Feel free to assess him if you like, I will even join you, but not without serious astericks and footnotes. [There's some common ground.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Let's try to find some common ground without undermining each other's "intellectual fortitude".
I think I was fair to say you "rationalize" suspicious or unsavoury fight outcomes (in this era) by attaching labels to the men involved. If my style was patronizing I apologize, but I stand by the general gist of what I said.
I don't think it was either fair or accurate to state that I rationalized or sugar coated anything in this thread. Anyway, I wouldn't question your intellect, because I've read your posts and they are of high quality overall, which was I assumed that you didn't read my previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Well, you're pulling my comment slightly out of context here, making it sound as if I'm saying Carnera was just as intimidating to ALL fighters as Tyson would be, all things considered.
In fact, you know I was specifically questioning those PARTICULAR INSTANCES where a fighter was said to have fallen without being hit. Perhaps I didn't explain this clearly.

I can see how an ill-prepared fighter, of medium ability, who had never faced a fighter remotely of Carnera's massive physical stature and appearance, COULD BE overcome with fear. It's no more outlandish an idea than a big strong and reasonably talented "WBA champion" taking to the floor against a menacing albeit smaller challenger of fierce and famous reputation.
fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
I doubt it. Though the Duvas have been around, and they managed Golota.

But I'm not claiming the managers were in on "a fix".
Let's just say WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOLOTA REALLY. You might think you know - he's a "headcase" - you might even know the guy, but you cant be sure about his motives.
And we dont know which sections of organized crime - if any - are involved in which sections of boxing.
It's not something that is done in the open.
Good criminal plots dont leave evidence in the public sphere, they dont leave "proof Golota may just be a "headcase". Or he may have other motives, his own or shared with others

The point is, the ending of those fights aren't generally considered "crooked" and that's BECAUSE of Golota's image and the assumption that he just did something random and crazy, and the fact that nothing has been found (or perhaps not even looked for) to link the behaviour as profit-driven result manipulation .

It's simply - as long as he's not seen hanging out with mobster then there's no reason to suspect..".
It is pretty safe to say that Golota was a headcase: his trainers, the evidence (our eyes) and common sense screams this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
But any fighter and mobster would be stupid IN THIS DAY AND AGE to be so obvious.

If Buddy McGirt or Renaldo Snipes had done something like that, shortly before Sammy "The Bull" Gravano had made his claims about them, or even after they'd admitting to knowing these made guys, and having been to the Ravenite Club, etc. THEN WHAT ?
Then it's okay to suspect ??
La Cosa Nostra is crippled and has been for decades. Keep in mind that during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, it was on the rise. The FBI denied the very existence of any national organization until 1957. That allowed them to thrive. They don't thrive anymore. Other forces have come in to the field but it isn't the same and can't be equated as easily as some may think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
This is what I mean by "unsophisticated". The mobsters involved in boxing in 1930s were unsophisticated in the way they approached this game. By the 40s and 50s they had more stuff tied up, better means of persuasion, carrots and sticks, a real solid network, and CO-OPERATION between syndicates, centralisation.
--Less sophisticated, not unsophisticated. But they still had plenty of willing partners and associates in managers, promoters, police, politicians, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
As I've explained, the mobsters who allegedly exploited Carnera used methods IN THE BOXING BUSINESS that were unsophisticated. Threatening guys just before they got in the ring is pretty unsophisticated, compared the the TOTAL CONTROL guys like Carbo & Palermo, the IBC, and today's "legit" cartels use to ensure their investments.
I see it differently. They did what worked and they did it with some degree of impunity. They were forced to get more sophisticated and indirect when the heat increased. Simplicity is efficiency. You do what you can get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
That's just your opinion.
Neither you nor I has the "all-seeing eye" and key to absolute objective truth, we are both just explaining things the best we know how.
Granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Maybe I'm just more cynical than you, more suspicious, in general. I EXPECT to be kept in the dark when it comes to what really goes on behind big money sports and gambling, I can only point out things that COULD WELL BE symptoms of crookedness.

I dont believe a veneer of respectability, and an influx of "respectable" and "legit" persons, actually does anything to deter or eliminate crookedness. The legit become corrupted, and the crooked take on the outward appearance of the legit. It all melds together. And this is only boxing, imagine what happens in politics ! Profit rules, and if extra profits are presented through crooked avenues there will be people filling those avenues.
I don't disagree here, but see it as a matter of degrees. These guys operated easily in times gone by because the government was way behind in their own sophistication regarding these organizations in terms of information and infiltration, etc.

I see it as a matter of probability. There is enough information on Carnera's career that make it more probably that his career is more suspect than say, Arturo Gatti's or anyone else that I can think of.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-05-2008, 03:28 PM   #92
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Was Willard the worst ?

All good points, stonehands. Yes, I confess I didn't read ALL your previous posts at the time I made my responses, as you duly suspected.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 03:44 PM   #93
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Was Willard the worst ?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Grasp the reputation as in consider the facts, the statements, and the admissions before lumping that particular career in with Seldon's.
The truth is that Bruce Seldon is not worthy to clean Primo Carneras spit bucket even by the most hostile reasonable interpretation of his career.

Quote:
What I have stated is that you have to be more careful with Primo than with any other top level fighter in modern history
That cuts both ways. If you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 05:36 PM   #94
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Was Willard the worst ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
All good points, stonehands. Yes, I confess I didn't read ALL your previous posts at the time I made my responses, as you duly suspected.
Well, sh*t, don't let me criticize you -it would've taken you 2 hours! I was sitting around all weekend if it wasn't obvious.

We agreed more than disagreed when we got down to it anyway.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2008, 05:37 PM   #95
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Was Willard the worst ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
The truth is that Bruce Seldon is not worthy to clean Primo Carneras spit bucket even by the most hostile reasonable interpretation of his career.

That cuts both ways. If you throw enough mud some of it is bound to stick.
Wha?! Read my damn previous posts!!!
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013