Sharkey vs. Carnera II, Was it fixed?

Clips of what ?
Clark hurting real fighters ?

 

Lasky had 15 fights when he fought Carnera, and, had lost to the famous Dick Daniels 14-8-0 that year.

Levinsky had 14 defeats on his record when he fought Carnera, including one to Ace Hudkins ,a blown up middle who dropped him twice to take an easy win that same year.Carnera fought Levinsky twice NEVER dropped him.

 

And couldn't this be the case for Carnera? In LaMar Clark's case, he knocked out no one, absolutely no one, so I can't rate his power at all. Atleast Carnera legit knocked down some decent opponents, even if they weren't rated outside of Sharkey.

 

"Loughran was really a LHVY"

This is kind of desperate. Loughran had been fighting at heavy for years and weighed 184, the same as Marciano did when he won the title and more than Corbett, Fitz, Burns, Charles, and Patterson weighed when they won the title. Nor were Dempsey, Tunney, and Schmeling much heavier.

"giving away 86 pounds"

This is heavyweight boxing. It is not a valid criticism to criticize Carnera for being big. He had gobs of weight over most of his opponents and would have had gobs of weight over most opponents prior to the modern era. This has no bearing on whether Carnera was a legitimate fighter in his own era.

"Uzcudun"

Carnera first defeated Uzcudun in 1930. The next year Uzcudun defeated Max Baer in the biggest win of his career. Uzcudun peaked in the late twenties, but at his best was more than a fringe contender. Uzcudun was the man Schmeling defeated in an elimination to earn his shot at the title. I concede that his best days were behind him in by 1933 although he was on a winning streak and coming off wins over Pierre Charles and Don McCorkindale. McCorkindale had just ko'd Gains.

"Maloney"

Ingemar Johansson went the full ten rounds with the china-chinned Hans Friedrich and the trial-horse Archie McBride. By your logic, this proves that his ko's of Patterson, Machen, and Cooper were fixes.

 

"I love this . . . great excuse . . . he just developed life-threatening diabetes"

Actually, it is a great excuse, or rather, fact. Physicians then or now do not remove a man's kidney unless he has severe problems. If you asked why Lou Gehrig slipped after 1939 or Ernie Davis never played in the NFL despite winning a Heisman Trophy, such "excuses" are relevant.

"Show me footage"

Well, show me footage of one ko by Willard if I dismiss the one against Jack Johnson. Willard, in fact, does not have as many ko's against even fringe men as Carnera, and Johnson was overall a better fighter than Sharkey. There is fairly limited footage of most of these old champions.

"best use of his huge size"

It no criticism of him to say he was much taller and much heavier than the other top men of his day. This is heavyweight boxing. His size has no bearing at all on whether he was a legit fighter in his own day. We are not discussing how he would do against today's bigger men.

 

"Godfrey stopped him 6 months before Carnera"

So. Are you questioning Godfrey's punch? Carnera still stopped him and other than the Godfrey fight, Gross had been doing quite a bit of winning. I agree that Gross was not really a top man, but hardly nothing, either.

 

The bottom line is that both these guys were ranked in the top five for a period of a few years around this time.

Lasky was the #2 contendershortly after Carnera beat him.

These were the kind of wins that would move a fighter to the top of the rankings.

 

I saw Clark on TV back in 1960 or so against Bartolo Soni. He was an ordinary mauler type. He certainly hurt Soni, but could not finish him and eventually ran out of gas.

Clark clearly was not capable of ko'ing even fringe contenders. I must admit that he was exciting to watch, though, and gave you your money's worth in action.

 

Lasky was only rated for part of ONE year I believe.
I might add that the 30's is generally considered the nadir of the Heavyweight division,though you could argue today gives it a run for its money.
We seem to have gone off track here.
The thread wanted to know IF the Sharkey fight was legit, various of us have given our views, both pro and con
I for one do not dispute Carnera was of contender quality.
Neither can it be disputed that he actually won the title.
We seem to be drawn into whether Carnera was a good fighter or not,which is not ,or wasn't ,the original question.
He was a good fighter,,a capable boxer ,with a ton of heart who lacked serious power and a top chin.imo.
Further discussion will not alter anyone's opinion .as we have been here before.
I see neither pleasure nor profit in extending things,it's been entertaining ,but has started to pall. :hi:

 

Thank you.

 

You should not insult Willard by comparing him to Carnera. Willard did everything the hardest of ways and Carnera was padded ...many opponents including Dempsey raved about Jeff's power ... no one raved about Carnera's ... Baer openly mocked him in the ring when they fought and Baer was not hard to hit ...

A, you keep making references to Lamar Clark but no one claimed Clark was title material ...

My understanding was that Carnera's kidney was removed following beatings by Hayne in his short, catistrophic post ttle career when he was exposed as a .500 fighter.

 

Would you give a medical source which claims that Carnera had a kidney removed in 1938 because of fights with Haynes in 1936. In fairness, the second fight with Haynes effectively ended Carnera's career and did send him to the hospital.

In fact, Willard defeated fewer name fighters than Carnera. The champion Carnera knocked out, Sharkey, swore to his dying day that he lost honestly. The champion Willard knocked out, Johnson, swore in an affadavit that he took a dive.

A question was asked about Clark, and because I am probably one of the few on this board who saw him fight, I gave an opinion.

 

It was proof that you don't have to be a world class puncher in order to have a great knockout record. I could come up with many more examples. Carnera had 70+ KO's, this doesn't necessarily mean he had everyone taking dives for him. It could simply be that he was fighting tomato cans, which he did. When he fought world class opposition, he scored less KO's and thus is rightfully not recognized as an all-time great puncher despite his record. But this in no way proves that his fights were fixed.

 

Because of this discussion, I googled a few articles about Carnera. There is just a vast difference of opinion on a number of issues. For example, one article repeatedly describes Carnera as "simple" and "illiterate". Another, seemingly more factual, points out that he spoke French, Spanish, and English fluently, as well as Italian. As illiterate means unable to read or write, it is theoretically possible to speak several languages well and still be illiterate, but is it likely? My guess is Carnera was not illiterate.

 

Guys if you want to believe Primo was legit, that he had KO power, that he was not mobbed up and that he was not the prop in one of the ulgiest chapters in heavyweight championship history , that he rose to the occasion on his biggest night and KO'ed the world champion with a terrific one punch uppercut to win the title be my guest. I'm done on this one but before I leave I want you to know that I do have a bridge to sell and if your interested .....