Primo Carnera's ability

Unfortunately, I cant spend all night transcribing reports on fights, for you. There are two separate articles I have quoted, concurring on the elbow doing the damage. The boxrec wiki on the fight quotes the one of the same articles.

All three articles concur with Neusel quitting. One makes plain that he's not considered a good boxer. Essentially, providing sufficient evidence against whatever quotation you supplied (which I believe I have read also, but you really should provide citations or at least declare the source, as unknown) .

Re Damon Runyon's wife - I don't forget - I just couldn't care less. It's a cop out reference made by Carnera fanatics, in order to discredit any press article, which doesn't fit their Carnera Model.

 

You don’t know it was a stray elbow.

 

Certainly not balanced. Possibly manipulative and, if so, not entirely honest.

I do believe there is an article that exists somewhere, with that wording. However, it seems as though it was one of those outliers, for which I have not been able to find corroboration.

 

If he was winning the lineal title, and beating contenders, it is hard to argue that he was not demonstrating his ability against other heavyweights.

I only wish that you would put a similar lens on some more recent heavyweights, who lack wins over contenders.

He beat more than two ranked opponents during this period (four at least off the top of my head), and the two that he lost to were lineal champions, one of them being the greatest heavyweight of the pre war era.

Again I don't see why you would expect such detailed descriptions to exist, or why you would go to any great length to seek them out, when there is abundant film of the fighter in question.

What it implies is that even in a weak era, there should be somebody capable of posing a serious challenge, to even the strongest champion.

Unless of course it wasn't a weak era after all.

Referee Joe Mangold was suspended over the decision, which the Commissioner described as being "unpardonable."

I think that suspect decision is the kindest interpretation that the facts will allow.

Let's loosely say that his prime started somewhere in the latter part of 1932, and ended somewhere between the Neusell fight in late 35, and the Haynes fight in early 36.

His last win of any significance was the Gastaganga fight in early 36.

It is never well received, but clearly some world class men have had considerable success with it.

They both held a Ring Magazine ranking at some point.

Not when Carnera beat them, but they are good enough to show that size alone would not get you success against Carnera.

You are trying to hang too much on this.

Louis was arguably the greatest heavyweight of all time, and Baer was arguably the second best heavyweight of the era.

We would expect Carnera to lose to them on that basis alone.

 

Let's assume that it was a stray elbow that caused the cut.

Does Neusell gain some king of moral victory on that basis?

 

I'm disputing it. When was he peak? Who considered him elite?

He spent a relatively fleeting time in the ring top-ten; never challenged for the World Championship; failed at an attempt to become European Champion and passed the German Title back and forth a bit.

Domestic level overachiever...

 

That is unfortunate. Perhaps the reason for this is that you might unearth evidence that supports the view that Carnera logged a legit win over an elite fighter after the mob presumably dumped him?

well that is convenient.

oh, I’m a Carnera fanatic because I produce evidence that supports Carnera as a legitimate champion from that period? Never mind that I produced endorsements from Max Schmeling, Joe Louis and willing to produce even more from Max Baer, Larry Gains and Jack Sharkey. Were these guys all cop outs too?

oh, and you produce evidence that does support your new world model, the Hollywood version of events that lends itself from the Damon Runyon scenario? In truth champions like Max Schmeling, who has no advantage to gain from boosting Carnera, have offered valued assessment on him as a legitimate champion. Fight Film even supports this. But let’s take Hollywood’s fictional version of events depicted in the fictional bud schulberg film the harder they fall.

 

Absolutely fair and coherent. Great post sir!

 

Primos prime was more accurately probably between the Gains and Haynes losses. He was in bad health after that with kidney problems and probably should have retired. Before gains he was learning.

this is debatable.

oh it was a stray elbow was it? One report says it wasn’t. This means you can’t know without film.

And even if film did prove this, all reports suggest Primo was outclassing Neuhaus.

 

Again lets look at the timeline here:

In march of 1934 Neusell defeated King Levinksky, who was coming off five consecutive wins, and who was top five in the end of year rankings for both 1833 and 1934. After the fight the United Press said:

"Walter Neusell of Germany stands out today as a dangerous contender for the heavyweight title."

Two months later he defeats Tommy Loughran, who had just lost in his title challenge to Primo Carnera, which he went into as the #2 heavyweight contender. I don't have Loughran's ranking, but I would guess that he was likely still in the top ten.

In his next bout he comes up against Max Schmeling, and gets decisively beaten, but a couple of points need to be noted here:

Before the bout Max Ber's manager Ancil Hoffman, received an offer to defend the title against the winner of the fight for $15 000. He declined but said that he would be willing to do so for $500 000. Obviously he did not know who was going to win at the time.

Based on this win, the United press named Schmeling as the outstanding contender for the heavyweight title.

Many in Germany expected Neusell to win, and become "the new Max Schmeling", but the old Max Schmeling had other ideas.

So in summary while Neusell did not live up to the high expectations for him, he was clearly world class at his peak, and a significant player in the heavyweight division of the day.

 

The grasping of straws here reminds me of the Bowe vs. Primo thread... But we still have a ways to go in this thread before we reach the epic levels of tom foolery displayed in the other.

 

He was demonstrating something. Size advantage. A massive one.

Why should I? This thread is about Carnera's ability.

Who were they?

choklab reckons on Prime Carnera from the Sharkey (II) win to the Neusel win. I can only see two ranked opponents that he beat during that period. And, two that he lost to.

Whatever...

Seriously, in a period in which Carnera dominated boxing headlines, you'd think that there'd be more praise for his boxing ability. There isn't. It's telling.

They are not on film. You're imagining it.

And, why would I seek out the descriptions of others? Because, unlike you, I like to see more views than just my own; not just those of fanatics and the constrained by dogmatics. It's called evidence, chap - straightforward enough for you?

Sorry but that just reads like whishy whashy BS, to me

Try reading about the fight itself and not just the headline, stolen by an officious little tin god. Or do you have an aversion to information that doesn't fit with your Carnera Model.

Poreda won the fight. Fair and square. It really is that simple.

It's a theory.

So what are you trying to say - that wrestling equates to good boxing?

So what? It was a weak era and holding a ring ranking for a short while is not cast iron certification that you're actually good. The fact neither were ranked when Primo fought them is not a plus here, either. It's the most desperate attempt at trying to find a silver lining for every dull reality that there is about Carnera's career.

Not at all - The evidence quite distinctly supports the idea that a boxer, of a certain level and size, beats Carnera.

Let's not forget, he was pushed close by Levinsky and Lasky, as well as given a good go by little Loughran.

You hang too much on the goal posts that you use to define Carnera's prime. I like what I'm hanging my argument on, better.

 

OK, but there were a fair few men around of similar size to Carnera, who never made much headway against the top contenders of the day.

OK, I assumed that you were including wins before he won the title, such as Levinsky and Schaff.

There is plenty of praise for him though.

He seems to have been a figure who divided opinion.

Lets look at the facts here.

We can't score the fight ourselves, and the referee got suspended, on the basis that he had rendered an unpardonable decision.

How then can you reach a definite conclusion that Poreda deserved the decision?

No disrespect, but I doubt that you would give Carnera the benefit of the doubt, if he had got the decision in similar circumstances.

Holding a Ring Ranking at some point, is generally a sign that you are at least a serviceable professional boxer.

In what other context, would you conclude that the primary factor in somebody loosing to Baer and Louis, was their size?

I can't really respond to the points where you just dismiss my opinion without providing an argument, because they don't offer much avenue for further debate.

 

I'll keep this short.

No. He wasn't. He was beating fighters on their way down. Schmelling was supposed to be another of those 'beat a bygone' moments and Neusel got spanked by his superior.

Following this, Neusel never made an impression; never won the EBU title, let alone be considered to challenge for a world title.

That is not an elite fighter and what you have written is the literary equivalent of spraying perfume on a stale running sock and calling it laundered.

 

Why don't you try and unearth some actual evidence, instead of dreaming up speculative guff to fill your non-arguments with.

It is, for me.

Who needed evidence that Carnera was a legitimate champion?

Endorsements? Call them that if you like. I call it reaching, when it's plain to see on film, in the results and the perspectives of so many other observers that Carnera was limited.

I can always tell when you're having a meltdown. You start invalidly cross-referencing. I didn't refer to any one as a cop out. I referred to the reference to Mrs Runyon's affair as a cop out. See if that computes.

Keep telling yourself that or say it out loud to your Primo Carnera papered wall, if that could possibly give it more meaning.

It will probably mean more to the wall than it does to me.