Poll: How good was Primo Carnera?

How is it a personal interpretation?

It doesn’t seem that there is much to interpret.

 

To counter negative comments but reporters and fighters the pro Primo brigade produce Schmeling's comment which is pretty damp praise at best.
Here is a much more definite and unequivocal opinion.
Gene Tunnney said this after being ringside for both the Loughran and Baer fights.
"Max Baer fought exactly the type of fight calculated to whip Primo Carnera.And he demonstrated conclusively what I have said right along.That the Italian has a vulnerable chin and extremely limited fighting equipment.
After Carnera's bout with Tommy Loughran,I said Primo would be a mark for any man who could show anything like an effective punch.
The Italian himself cannot hit and he is bewildered as soon as his defence start to break down.
His confidence was shattered in the first minute of last nights fight and it was a simple question of how long it would last.
At the finish he was obviously ready to quit and did so".
Tunney went on to credit Carnera with heart and stamina but the meat and potatoes of this appraisal is that

1. Carnera did not take a punch well .
2. Panicked when he defences were penetrated.
3.Could not hit hard.
That's about as damning an opinion of his abilities as can be offered ,and it was given by a former heavyweight champion who saw his fights from ringside ,the Baer comments were written for the morning after the fight! !

 

To counter negative comments by reporters and fighters the pro Primo brigade produce Schmeling's comment which is pretty damp praise at best.
Here is a much more definite and unequivocal opinion.
Gene Tunnney said this after being ringside for both the Loughran and Baer fights.
"Max Baer fought exactly the type of fight calculated to whip Primo Carnera.And he demonstrated conclusively what I have said right along.That the Italian has a vulnerable chin and extremely limited fighting equipment.
After Carnera's bout with Tommy Loughran,I said Primo would be a mark for any man who could show anything like an effective punch.
The Italian himself cannot hit and he is bewildered as soon as his defence start to break down.
His confidence was shattered in the first minute of last nights fight and it was a simple question of how long it would last.
At the finish he was obviously ready to quit and did so".
Tunney went on to credit Carnera with heart and stamina but the meat and potatoes of this appraisal is that

1. Carnera did not take a punch well .
2.He had extremely limited fighting equipment
3. Panicked when he defences were penetrated.
4.Could not hit hard.
That's about as damning an opinion of his abilities as can be offered ,and it was given by a former heavyweight champion who saw his fights from ringside ,the Baer comments were written for the morning after the fight! !
How can this be reconciled with those saying Carnera was a great fighter?
I say it can't!!!

 

You did your best!


ps Zero.

 

And yet right after losing to Carnera Paulino was still good enough to draw with the great Max Schmeling.

 

The draw was dubious 3 blind judges from Spain. Schmeling won by all accounts

 

Agreed. It can't.
I can understand why the Schmeling card was played to diffuse any attempts to discredit Carnera into the 'couldn't fight for toffee' category but it really doesn't have any legs, at all, in a case for greatness.

 

This is the same guy who said that Jack Dempsey could have beaten Harry Matthews, Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Rocky Marciano all in the same afternoon.

I would take Schmeling's opinion over Tunney's every day of the week, and twice in Sundays!

 

uzcudun fought more defensively than usual. The first fight was a clear win for max. The rematch a draw scored by the head of the Spanish boxing federation who was the referee.
Even though he thought he won Max still credited the draw with Uzcudun as a turning point fight, that it allowed him the confidence to beat world class fighters again. "In this condition I could confidently go against a world class American boxer"

 

Well, ultimately, Schmeling's kind words, published some decades later, aren't describing Carnera as an elite, all-time great, are they?

So, the middle ground would appear to be the consensus, even when referring to your much relied upon source.

 

Tunney proved himself an idiot when he wrote an article saying Joe Louis would defeat a gorilla.

 

I have not used the word great.

Others have, and perhaps they have a slightly different definition than me.

I have been clear in saying that he was not as good as Schmeling, Baer, or even a better version of Jack Sahrkey.

 

http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS19340514.2.45