How would you rate Primo Carnera's title reign?

Sounds like all time top ten material to me ... however, it is a nice spin to the debate. You could also say either Sharkey dumped the fight against a man he easily dominated previously or Carnera scored the only legit KO win over a semi-credible fighter in his career. It appears he was extremely well matched against the much smaller Loughran and Uz ... I've never seen footage of the Uz fight so I can't be sure but the fight was in Rome .. as far as Baer as a near all time great, that might be the best stretch of all ...

Still, Primo was courageous and while I believe he was well promoted, he did have some skills and if matched up properly could do o.k.

 

I think about a C, guys like Hasim and Douglas I would rate at D.

 

The Sharkey win isn't surprising considering how Sharkey was on the downgrade, had probably underestimated Carnera, and Primo had had several fights since the last time they had met and had improved.
Sharkey looked a bit **** when he'd "won" the title from Schmeling a year earlier. Primo, for all his flaws, was a man who stayed active and applied himself to learning his craft.

Whether it was "fixed" or not, who knows. It's easy to doubt most fights, and esp. when big money and criminal elements are involved.

 

Nah, he is far away from Top10, I´ve got him at 35. Yeah, him and Louis were the first professionally build up hws. I don´t buy this whole fixing thing, there may have been some shady things going on but before he hit the spotlight and not more than other fighters. The Uzcudun win was seen as a proper win, haven´t seen anyone disputing that decision. And Loughran, well he outboxed Baer quite easily, so thinking he could do the same against Carnera isn´t that much of a stretch. He´s better than he gets credit for but not amongst the elite is my stand on him.

Yep on the first part. I think you can compare him to Valuev - not SNV of course - in the way that both were sold on their size but actually had decent skills and really tried to be legit boxers and champs.

The fight looks on the level to me.

 

The Ring magazine traditionally made a new heavyweight champiopn fighter of the year,in 1933 ,the year Carnera won the title ,no award was given.

 

And how is that an indication that the fight was fixed? Especially if that is true at all. Here are the winners of ring magazine´s fighter of the year in the 30s. Highlighted are the years where the hw championship changed:

Ring magazine fighters of the year in the 1930s:
1930 – Max Schmeling
1931 – Tommy Loughran (2)
1932 – Jack Sharkey
1933 – no award was given
1934 – Tony Canzoneri and Barney Ross
1935 – Barney Ross (2)
1936 – Joe Louis
1937 – Henry Armstrong
1938 – Joe Louis (2)
1939 – Joe Louis (3)

If it´s true what you said, how comes that outside of Carnera also Baer, Braddock and Louis didn´t win fighter of the year in the years they won the title?

 

In Louis's debut year [33] he fought 3 fringe contenders,in his next year ,he fought 4 ex heavyweight champions and two ex challengers for the title.There was nothing soft about the matches Louis got in his formative years.Have a look at Primo's opposition in hs first 2 years,and tell me there is any comparison,

 

It is an indication that Fleischer was not happy awarding the honour to the new heavyweight champion who had scored a smashing ,surprise 7th round ko over the Champion ,is it not?

 

I said, professionally build up, not brought along easily or getting his record padded. Ya know, there´s a difference. And of course there is a difference between how they were brought along. Louis was a phenom, the next big thing, the probable second black hw. Carnera was a circus attraction that should be guided to the championship.

 

I edited my post, read it again. :deal

 

In a taped interview Sharkey said , "even my wife has her doubts" .

 

Loughran outboxed a green Baer in 31,Baer fought Carnera/MOlina ,in 34.See the difference?

If Carnera is not a big puncher, [and I agree with you,]how do you account for his 77 kos in 88 wins and his 70% ko record.
Furthermore,how do you account for the fact that with those stats he is NEVER mantioned when big punchers are discussed?:think

 

Because he fought plenty of easy fights. That´s how you build those KO records. How does that indicate his fights were fixes? They just served him the right fighters to get what they want - they beeing his promoters.

 

Carnera, according to Walter "Good Time Charley " Friedman ,who was part of Carnera's brains trust, Carnera was kept touring the tank towns where the public was less sophisticated,and they could get away with a lot more.

Sharkey with a friend of his, and Johnny Buckley his manager.One Alphonse Capone

This content is protected

 

Yeah, read again what I said, they brought him on as a circus attraction and wanted him to guide to a wolrd title. So, yeah, touring the country and getting him easy touches to boost his record and make him known is exactly the right thing to do.

So? Does this prove Sharkey threw the fight? Sorry but you are the one having to put forth evidence for that theory. Not guilty until proven otherwise. Outside of false claims - "ring magazine gave fighter of the year to the fighter who won the hw championship but not when Carnera won it" - a nice picture of Sharkey with a mafioso, some thoughts about Carnera not beeing a big puncher despite his record suggesting that and some unclear remarks of one guy of Carnera´s team - "they could get away with a lot more.", which easily could mean they could get someone from the fields directly to the ring and the audience wouldn´t get it - you couldn´t provide any evidence, not even a real good indication for this claim. Sorry, this doesn´t add up. You may like to believe in conspiracy theories. I don´t. Thanks to Mr. Ockham. :thumbsup