Primo Carnera or Jess Willard?

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien once said that all of his fights wee fixed.

Is that a full and final confession?

 

I can't believe Classic has got to the point where Jess Willard is being selected in a match up. This place doesn't fail to surprise with confusing narrative changes.

 

I honestly don't believe that the comment was intended as a confession (assuming that it happened).

It is actually a fairly broad comment, on a very broad book.

Also if Carnera was going to make some sort of confession, he could have got paid a lot, if he had given it to a major newspaper.

 

Seriously, if you're going to try and compare Roxborough and Black with Owney 'The Killer' Madden, you might need a vacation.

Having links to The Mob is not the same as being a totally manipulated asset of The Mob.

I've highlighted this already but, as usual, it's 'dig your heels in' time for @janitor so you won't acknowledge the vast chasm between fighters, who were percentage interests and Carnera, who was an active tool of The Mob.

What world do you live in? If an accusation is made and there is evidence to support it (including witness testimony), I can assure such evidence can only be dismissed with good reason.

You stamping your feet and shouting, "I don't want to.", just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Does a prosecution witness, giving evidence, have to prove they're telling the truth, in your world?

Isn't it up to some kind of a 'Defense' to cross-examine witnesses, question their respective testimonies; find weaknesses in and even discredit testimony (like they do in the real world)?

Or, does a Defense Attorney simply say, "You're lying and you haven't proved otherwise. I win!!!" ??



You're getting a 'guilty' verdict, in that case - and, if you're lucky, an appeal judge will rule 'ineffective assistance of counsel'.

You keep taking the Fifth, if you like. But, it's not going to change what's already known about Carnera.

 

Oh, but it is.

This is another dismissal tactic of yours.

One is being quite specific when they remark about a fictional book - already widely discussed publicly, as being a thinly veiled biography of their life - with a remark like, "It is all true."

The book - which I believe was a bestseller by then - is the specificity.

Moreover, it is not the only evidence for Carnera's manufactured career, as well you know.

 

You truly are incapable of seeing the whole picture.

 

I am not comparing them, but they clearly fall into the same category!

 

Come on now!

The mob ran boxing back then.

If being linked to the mob is an existential criticism, then the whole era is damned!

You are not helping yourself by using the analogy of a court.

In that scenario, you have to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.

Good luck with that!

Yes a prosecution witness has to prove that they re telling the truth, and if they can't, then the accused has an automatic assumption in their favor!

In this case the evidence is very weak, even on the balance of probability!

I won't hold you to that standard, and neither do I need to.

 

The whole picture ,is Carnera's record, and the film.

a couple of populist books are not a big part of the picture!