Sharkey vs. Carnera II, Was it fixed?

I think he was a legit fighter, not great by any means, but he could box. I don't think he was a big puncher but he was big and could hurt you if he landed right. He surely had connections to the mob, but then so did almost every other fighter of the era. I believe he did rise to the occasion, fighting by far his best ever fight against a diminishing and disinterested Sharkey who was landing haymakers on Carnera's chin. It wasn't exactly a one punch knockout as Sharkey had gone down previous to the KO and had taken some good punches.

 

What exactly does being a "legit" fighter mean anyway ?
I think Carnera was built up on easy touches and probably a few fixes and a bit of funny stuff. But that's part of professional boxing. A lot of contenders and champions aren't quite the real deal, but they are still "legit" in the sense that they can actually box and fight. And one fighter can be the real deal one fight and be a mere shell the next. Pro boxing is a funny racket.
Jack Sharkey got the title on a very controversial decision and was an over-the-hill fighter masquerading as a champion. In a sense he was "legit" and in another sense he wasn't.

Carnera may have even been the worst heavyweight champion of them all, and the least "legit", but the hyperbole about him being a special case, a product of a mass crime of fraud, and "one of the ugliest chapters in boxing history" seems to be based entirely on the tabloid-style sensationalist pulp fiction written by Budd Schulberg.

Why these boxing historians and writers are so quick to go along with the Schulbergesque version of events is a mystery to me. Deep down they put precedence of boxing lore over historical fact, if only one not-very-good (and non-American) champion's reputation has to take a further beating.

I've seen guys like Budd Schulberg, Norman Mailer, and other members of boxing illiterati, talk ABSOLUTE **** on too many other boxing subjects to give their opinions of Carnera much credence.

 

I would consider Carnera's ko of Sharkey less of a fluke than Joey Maxim's ko of Freddie Mills, including breaking his jaw, to win the lightheavy title.

It might not be emphasized enough that Sharkey had a suspect chin for a champion. He had been stopped early in his career by Romero-Rojas, no big puncher, and was very lucky to escape a ko in a fight with Jim Maloney in which Maloney knocked Sharkey down six times in one round only to get himself DQ'd. Immediately after the loss to Carnera, Sharkey was knocked down by feather-fisted Tommy Loughran. There is far less evidence that Romero-Rojas, Maloney, or Loughran were punchers than there is that Carnera was.

The reason those who are somewhat skeptical of the "Carnera was a total bum" myth have remained unconvinced is that Carnera's critics have not presented any evidence that the Sharkey fight was fixed. Their argument is totally circular. Why was the Sharkey fight fixed? It had to have been because Carnera was such a total bum he could not possibly have won the fight on the level. How do we know Carnera was a total bum? His fights were not on the level.

Some of it is clearly overkill as the surviving films make clear. Carnera was huge and fast for such a big man. He did not have a good chin for a champion, but was actually never counted out, proving several times he could take a licking and keep on ticking. One could certainly make the case that his chin was as good or perhaps even better than Sharkey's or Schmeling's. No one took Carnera out with one punch. No one ko'd Carnera in the first round. No one put him down for the count. He was also clumsy-looking at times, awkward, muscle-bound, and not the puncher his size and muscular build would lead one to think. Still, you have to really buy into the myth to completely dismiss 70 knockouts.

One issue which bothers me about the myth. If the mob was trying to steer Carnera into the championship with fixes, why didn't they fix Gains and Poreda in 1932? If they couldn't, why take the fights? The British Empire Champion seems to have been a fairly dangerous opponent. Why take the chance that this supposedly inept fighter would take such an embarressing beating that he could never again be sold to the public as a serious contender?

I also find it odd that Carnera is sometimes quoted as accepting the myth as true, and yet despite being offered lucrative acting roles in the fifties, he tossed his Hollywood career into the gutter to sue the makers of THE HARDER THEY FALL for defamation. Seems odd to me, and why keep insisting that Carnera was too stupid to notice all his fights were fixed? if he were actually admitting in interviews that they were?

 

No, forget it.

 

Youtube does have excellent films of the second Carnera-Sharkey fight. I managed to get it up on my full scale high-def TV, and watched it frame by frame, and Sharkey certainly does look out as he goes over backwards and hits the back of his head against the top rope. If he wasn't out at that point, falling that heavily against the top rope might in fact have put him out. It sure looks legit to me.

There is also most of the Baer fight, the Louis fight, and a couple of others. This is the best evidence. Watch for yourself and decide for yourself.

 

People should study the rounds leading up to the knockout.

They would see Sharkey taking a boxing lesson and Carnera anticipating his moves.

Carnera put on his James Buster Douglas effort in this fight.

 

I thought Carnera showed an excellent jab. Sharkey simply did not seem any longer to have enough stamina and toughness to press past that jab effectively. He just ate it all night.

This is not to say Carnera looks a world-beater. He slaps with most of his punches, and carries his left way too low, but Sharkey has his own set of flaws including carrying his own left low, and with a roll of flab about his midsection, he was no longer the fighter he had been, and simply did not have enough left to press the fight against this much bigger man.

 

Carnera's not an impressive fighter.
But beating that version of Sharkey didn't require him to be an impressive fighter. Sharkey was no great shakes either.

The same holds true for many of Carnera's other opponents. Most of them sucked. That's why I think the "whole career a series of fixes" account is an exaggeration, a myth, an an unfair insult towards Carnera.
There's probably a fair basis in truth, but to single Carnera out as a special case, a wholesale mob-created fraud who needed fixes to KO third-raters, is pure hyperbole and sensationalism most proably. I doubt more than a dozen of his 102 pro fights featured real crooked funny stuff. Most of it was probably just "careful matchmaking".

 

I think on that night Carnera was an all time great ...

 

I just reread Jack Sher's 1948 article for Sport Magazine, "The Strange Case of Carnera" and what would impress me is the total lack of evidence. Not even one of Carnera's opponents is produced and quoted to the effect that he took a dive. It is literally all innuendo.

One other interesting bit is a list posted by mattdonnellon on another board on Carnera's few legit early fights. The following are some of the fights listed as legit--Franz Diener (KO 6), Godfrey (w foul 5), Jim Maloney (l-10), Paulino Uzcudun (w-10), Reggie Meen (ko 2), George Cook (ko-2), Jim Maloney (w-10), Knute Hansen (ko-1), Jack Sharkey (L-15), King Levinsky (w-10), Victorio Campolo (ko-2).

What is strange about this is that, other than the Stribling fights, these are most of his main opponents. It is not clear why in Europe, for example, they fixed nobodies but then allowed an honest fight with the former German champion, Diener, who went 15 with Schmeling and of whom Max wrote of with respect in his autobiography. And Carnera knocks him out! Same with people like Sharkey, Uzcudun, etc. They are fixing fights against nobodies but then allowing Carnera to into the ring against one of the very best heavies in the world, Sharkey, and Carnera ends up going the full 15 with him!

 

No, even on his best night he sucked as far as championship-winning fighters go. It just so happens that Sharkey sucked as a defending champion.
Sharkey was not a good fighter beyond 1930.

 

This did not happen.Mills coming off a real thrashing from Bruce Woodcock was past it, he had absorbed too many beatings from heavyweights .
His wide open rush in style was made for Maxim who hit him where and when he pleased.
Mills had three front teeth dislodged by Maxim's viper like left jab,and eventually went down from a right cross.
Mills jaw was NOT broken.
The Poreda fight was a curious affair with Carnera being repeatedly warned for fouling ,the decision went to Poreda ,but the referee was suspended indefinitely.
Gains could not be bought.He was considered to be slightly on the slide at the time, and subsequent fights confirmed it.Though he was good enough to conclusively beat Carnera and drop him

Hollywood career? Bit parts as a strong man. Carnera never made a film in hollywood.
His biggest roles were in A Kid For Two Farthings ..in which he played a Wrestler,this was filmed in London.
In Hercules Unchained [he played Antaeus a Giant],filmed in Italy.
His only part in a US movie was in Mighty Joe Young ,a non speaking part .
The Harder They Fall Movie came out in 1957,Carnera got his ONLY part in a US film in 1959

He was hardly Robert Deniro.

 

Hater !

 

I thnik on that night, Sharkey was.






He should have got the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor :good

 

Succint.