Primo Carnera's ability

Fantastic post

 

I'm not trying to jump into the wider war here, but as a statistically oblivious liberal arts major, I had a question about this.

I assume "value X" in your example is a judgment about the era's overall quality. I take you to be saying that Joe Louis's single defeat was a statistical anomaly -- a weird result where a contender from the weak 1930s era over-performed against Louis. Is that right?

If so, here's where I'm confused:

I don't think boxing fans judge the 1930s to be weak based on vast amounts of data, do they? It seems to me that most boxing fans judge eras by eyeballing a couple dozen of the most prominent fights (at most) and then forming a judgment based on that. An art more than a science. Footage of Schmeling as he clubs Louis for 12 rounds is an important chunk of the overall footage that people will watch from the 1930s, when forming this judgment.

To argue the Louis defeat is an anomaly, wouldn't you need a different approach? Something that involved very large amounts of data rather than a boxing historian's instincts? (E.g., sociological data showing a massive decline in the number of boxers overall, weird division-wide patterns of wins and losses that suggest enormous mob influence, etc.)?

Or am I missing something?

EDIT: Goofed on round number. Fixed.

 

Yup.

 

Thanks.

To be clear, I don't think that this eyeballing approach is wrong or inaccurate. People are pretty good at seeing patterns and getting an instinctive feel for this stuff, even though they can't always put what they see into numbers. I'd put a lot of weight on Emmanuel Steward's or Cus D'Amato's judgment of an era's strength just by watching the major fights.

I'm just having trouble understanding how this maps on to statistical arguments.

 

As a work of fantasy it is a great film.

In regards to boxing it Is an absolute disgrace. A patronising depiction of boxing featuring every one of the seedier second hand rumours squeezed into one story to create an interpretation by non participants from the academic fraternity. Right down to the “That’s right mistah Willis”. Yeah, it’s a simplification that puts boxers down as inferior saps exploited by cleverer people to be used for entertainment when the film does the exact same thing!

 

I’m not putting him in with Bowe. I’m just putting him with Bowe.

I have already demonstrated this problem with this point. Your talking about three world champions that you believe Primo was supposed to beat in order not to be a phoney. Beat joe Louis or else? Pretty tough criteria to differentiate between a mere champion or “barely serviceable fighter”.

They had a lot of fights during a very competitive era. It’s hard to say they didn’t make the grade when they had so many reasonable wins. They’re as good as most of the guys AJ or Wilder have fought so far.

 

The great author who wrote it,Budd Shulberg , was a lifelong boxing fan,[ he sparred with Ernest Hemingway among others ,]and managed a professional heavyweight later in life.


The film and book depicts Toro Moreno as a less than smart, simple man exploited by cleverer ruthless people for financial gain .In doing so it accurately depicts Carnera as a rudimentarily educated, simple man not street wise, who was cruelly exploited for money and discarded when he was of no further monetary value.Both the fictional character Moreno and Carnera emerged as fundamentally good men with an innate decency .
In contrast the gangsters who exploit them are shown as venal vultures feeding like hyenas on the body of a noble beast.

You don't know WTF you are talking about!
Regarding the book Carnera is on record as saying "it is all true ,but it was worse" His children repeated the quote when the later Italian film premiered.

 

I don't think the 30's was a weak era for boxing per se.
For heavyweights yes. From the footage available a lot of the top ten contenders look very underwhelming.
When you have so many average fighters making the ratings you have to arrive at the conclusion that the decade wasn't very deep.
Those defending it will point to average fighters being ranked in other decades but thereis a lot of dross in the 30's rankings.
Using end of year ratings only we have the following.
Gunnar Barlund. 3 .Ranked 2 years
Jack Trammel.4.
Ray Impellettiere.6. Ranked 2 years
Sonny Boy Walker.8.
Leroy Haynes.7.
Patsy Perroni.6.
Don McCordingdale.5.
Charley Massare.8.
Unknown Winston.10.
Tuffy Griffiths3.Ranked for 2 years
Ford Smith.10.
Natie Brown.8.
Eddie Mader.6.
Hank Hankinson.7.
Jack Peterson.7.
Red Burman.7.
Johnny Paychek. 6.
Gus Dorazio.9.
Len Harvey.6.
Andre Lenglet.10.
Jimmy Adamek.6.
Alberto Lovell.4.
Natie Mann.3.
Larry Johnson.9.

That's a lot of filler for just December rankings imo.

 

I know all about Bud, he managed Archie Mcbride. Talked himself up quite a bit like the rest of the non participants. A good writer, He was a fan of boxing but never understood it.

Carnera was a simple man? He spoke two languages. How many did Bud speak? Fighters will say what ever suits the situation. Which one is it, did carnera agree with the movie or did Carnera try to sue over that film? Saying it was “worse” can mean just about anything.

The fact is Carnera was a lot more than a “barely serviceable fighter”. And it is insulting to say so.

 

Budd spoke French and some Spanish, Carnera got by in English but was never fluent in it.
Living in a country for 40 years and picking up the language does not indicate you are particulalrly intelligent.
Yes Carnera was a simple man he progressed from a stone cutter to a circus act and had a very rudimentary education,visitors to his house remarked that when he read a book he traced the words with his fingers and mouthed them to himself. Being a simple man doesn't make you stupid ,it just means you aren't conversant with much of the sophistere of the world outside your own experience,Carnera was such a man,how else could the rubbish that exploited him so cruelly have been able to do so so ruthlessly and for so long?
Judging by your posts on this thread and the earlier one Shulberg understood boxing a damn sight more than you do.
Keep putting your spin on things, it's what you do a, it's a tired act that has no credibility.
You've been totally outclassed and out matched by Man Machine here, he's destroyed you!

 

Decide for yourself. Buds film says “boxing should be banned” then off the success of the film he decides to manage a boxer, presumably to mastermind a world champion himself! What does that tell you? And guess what? He found the whole thing a lot more difficult than writing that book.

my tired act of coming up with stuff that critics can’t dispute? Why can’t we debate without you attempting to belittle my credibility each time you hit a dead end?

 

I don’t think you’re missing anything, other than my response to janitor was a flippant and sarcastic retort to the idea that a single fight can be used to establish ‘proof’ (as it was alluded to) for [the undefined period] not being considered weak. The example given is intended to mock the idea and this is where you might be getting confused. Apologies for not having been more caustically obvious.


On a more serious point, I stated this from the outset:

“

This content is protected

”

For clarity, I am referring to the end and start of the respective Championships of Tunney and Louis.

I did not arrive at this opinion by use of statistics. I tend to watch and read, then form opinions, in much the way you have described most boxing fans doing, above. There’s no exact science here. However, I can say that I’d be looking at more than one fight and two fighters, in order to have reached that conclusion.

 

Bowe defeated far more ring ranked opponents, in a better era. Still no comparison.

You have not demonstrated anything, other than your penchant for regurgitating recorded results and treating them as sacred; beyond investigation and reproach.

No. I am not.

And, this is why you are suspected as being dishonest, by a few on here. The alternative is that you are genuinely as daft as a brush with no bristles.

I have not made a case, in any regard, to Carnera being "a phoney" and you continue to suggest that I have referred to Carnera himself, as a barely serviceable fighter, which I have not. I do not think I could have made my view clearer and yet you seem to purposely present a skewed perspective of a plainly put viewpoint, in response.

Unfortunately, you do this a lot. The motives could be manifold, or the reason might be as simple as the one I have suggested above.

Your last line generally gropes at some kind of credibility, by way of comparison. I think it's questionable - and that's putting it mildly.

 

You mean, reading back results that are readily available on boxrec.com. Thanks but, if we ever need researchers to do this kind of activity for us, we'll let you know.

If we want an investigation, beyond the mere entries in the recorded results, we'll look elsewhere.

 

" You know all about Bud? " No you bloody well don't!
For your education.Shulberg never wrote that line and it isn't in his novel,it was added to the films dialogue by the screenwriter.
Shulberg was extremely bitter about it ,bitter enough to take out a full page in Variety Magazine disowning the line.
Shulberg was born into money, he was independently wealthy long before he wrote a single line,his father was a film magnate and a regular attendee of the fights.Shulberg wrote a story about his Dad taking him to see the great Benny Leonard an idol to the Jewish community.An overzealous gate man denied Shulberg admittance on the grounds of his young age. Bud is in the HOF and deservedly so, apart from a lifelong obsession with the sport and having sparred with several boxers including Floyd Patterson before the Moore fight.He set up a training camp on his own property for fighters. Bud campaigned to clean up the sport and rid it of the gangster element in doing so risked personal injury via reprisals by exposing the shady goings on behind the Johnny Saxton fight This was around the time Ray Arcel was hit over the head with a lead pipe by persons unknown and left the sport for years because he ,sensibly wished to stay alive!.

https://www.si.com/vault/1954/11/01/549225/boxings-dirty-business-must-be-cleaned-up-now
Shulberg wanted boxing cleaned up, not destroyed!
Shulberg is hugely respected by boxing people . George Kimball,Lester Bromberg, Red Smith, W C Heinz ,Pete Hammil,Hugh McIllvanney were close personal friends of his.
His standing in both the boxing and literary worlds is above reproach .You talk from ignorance.

I don't need to belittle your credibility you are doing a great job of it yourself by making these ridiculous statements!





1930-04-14 : Primo Carnera 276 lbs beat Leon Bombo Chevalier 216 lbs by TKO in round 6 of 10

• Location: Oaks Ballpark, Emeryville, California, USA
• Referee: Toby Irwin

• One of Chevalier's seconds, Bob Perry, threw in the towel, although it appeared to all that the boxer was in no worse condition than Carnera. "A bitter demonstration followed. Half a dozen fans attacked Perry, striking and kicking him. In the melee he suffered a cut under the eye. Fellow countrymen of Carnera's stood on chairs and shouted 'fake' and urged the huge Italian be made to fight over again." (AP) The boxing commission started an immediate investigation. Mrs. Chevalier told them her husband had been approached earlier to agree to a "fake fight," but that he had directed all business to his manager, Tim McGrath. McGrath declared he had no knowledge that Perry was going to throw in the towel, and that the towel should not have been thrown in. Carnera's purse was withheld.

Wire Service Report April 15, 1930:[1]

The following is courtesy of the April 2010 Boxing Bulletin Web page: [2]

• "Those sitting in Chevalier�s corner claim that Perry, the second, wanted to throw the towel in as early as the second round when Chevalier was out-boxing the giant but was deterred by a fan who threatened to shoot him if he stopped the fight. But in the sixth, when the self appointed guardian of the second was yelling for the Negro to win the fight, Perry fired the towel over the ropes. When the irate fan realized what had happened he started a two fisted attack on Perry and gave him a beating." � Bob Shand, Oakland Tribune
• Chevalier had taken a "9" count after being shoved to the canvas in the sixth round, but had gone on the attack after rising and was looking more comfortable than Carnera when Perry made his move. The fighter�s manager Tim McGrath was working as chief second and told the press that Perry, who had been hired just that day, had no authority to act in such a manner. After the bout, it was reported that earlier in the day Perry and Bob Laga, also hired that day to work as a second for Chevalier, had been a guest of Carnera�s west coast manager Frank Churchill, at the Whitecomb hotel in San Francisco. Strangely, Churchill seated himself in Chevalier�s corner for the bout, explaining afterward that he could not find a chair by Carnera�s corner.
• Chevalier was cleared by the commission of any wrong doing and declared "an innocent victim of the entire situation."