How would you rate Primo Carnera's title reign?

Paul Gallico was a sports editor for over a decade, he wrote countless daily articles for the Daily News and the Saturday Evening Post on every aspect of US sports ,including boxing, he even went into the ring with Jack Dempsey in search of an article [he was kod in a couple of minutes],it was only after his book, "The Snow Goose" became a best seller that he gave up sports writing.

Bud Shulberg was a lifelong boxing fan and was taken to all the major fights by his Hollywood mogul father , he wrote a piece about his regret at being kept out of seeing Benny Leonard fight ,[ the guy on the turn -style would not allow him in because of his age].
Because both of them later became famous for writing fiction, lets not pretend they did not know what they were looking at regarding boxing.

 

I didn't mean to imply that. Just pointing out that they wrote two very influential pieces that helped shape the more fanciful version of Carnera, and both were proven talents in the fiction area.

With Schulberg, it's not even up for dispute - his book/scrrenplay was a work of fiction with fictional characters and events, aimed at the fiction and movie goers market.

Gallico's piece is worth debating. It's not that it's all made up - but he draws the most sensationalist picture at every opportunity and draws the most shocking conclusions mostly.

It's not that I'm against their testimony being included and drawn upon when assessing Carnera, but there's a whole body of other material that tempers that extreme version of his career. In short, I think they exaggerate and bull**** a bit to tell a more interesting sensational story. That's the feeling I get.

 

A variation on the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours!"

 

It wasn't me that brought their names up.
If you didn't mean to imply it why did you type fiction in upper case?
Someone is being disingenuous here,and it isn't me.:nono

 

:huh I haven't accused you of bringing their names up. I know who brought their names up - and with good reason, too.

I didn't mean to imply that Gallico and Schulberg didn't know boxing, I did mean to imply that they allowed a hell of a lot of "poetic license" and sensationalism into their stuff about Carnera. IMO. Hence why I highlight their talent for writing fiction.

I'm being far from disingenous. I've explained exactly my own take on Carnera, and why I've come to that conclusion - spelled it out in at least two posts now. I seem to share the same views as many others on this thread.
I'm a little less sure about what you truly believe about Carnera. Maybe I missed something.

 

Schulberg's book was about a fictional character called Toro Molina if you choose to identify him and his fictional career with Carnera's ,whose fault is that?
By the way Carnera sued the makers of the film and got nowhere.
I believe Carnera had quite a few fixed fights,including the following
Big Boy Peterson x 2 [known to do business]
Young Stribling x2 [ known to do business]
Elzear Rioux [ he had his licence revoked after this one]
Bud Gorman [ known to do business]

Chuck Wiggins [ known to do business]
Leon Chevalier [ substance put in his eyes by his corner man.]
Roy Clark,[ he was threatened in his corner]
Neil Clisby [ long term spar mate]
Seal Harris[ he was in Carnera's entourage and was a sparring partner the fight was in Brazil]

Probably the Sharkey fight ,given the circumstances surrounding Sharkey's training camp and the company that was seen there.
Can I prove anything, no.
End of the day we believe what we want.

 

Yeah, I accept that. I'm certainly not arguing against any specific cases -I do tend to believe Sharkey was washed-up and very beatable, so I don't find the KO at all surprising.
None of this separates Carnera into a special case for me though, IMO.
Many champions were built on set-ups and funny stuff etc.

 

I would rate schmeling as a beter expert on boxing than bud schulberg and paul galico.

max schmeling rated carnera as a fighter and respected him. He stressed in his book that he was not at all suprised when carnera beat sharkey. max entirely belived carnera was a good enough fighter to be a world champion who he was impressed with.

 

Members of the Detroit Purple Gang were ensconced at Sharkey's training camp. Sharkey broke off training at one point to go home to his family and, " check on them".it is the hardest thing in the world to prove a fix ,and in the absence of proof, a result stands.

 

Can you name another heavyweight champ such accusations could be confidently pointed at? I can't.

 

Check out this link of Carnera v Chevalier, for a fresh perspective on the Ambling Alp.
http://www.theboxingbulletin.com/2010/4/21/1433471/the-boxing-bulletin-history-corner

 

Yeah, there was plenty of funny stuff involved in Carnera's career.
Especially in that 1930 tour, with was exclusively a barnstorming tour of tomato can set-ups, or outright fakes by the sounds of it.

But Carnera did improve some after that. I feel he became quite a good boxer by 1933, and with his size and couarge that made him championship material in an era of inconsistent top-flight fighters.

 

No, I agree the amount of accusations pointed at Carnera's - with at least some justification - is on another level.

I don't think it necessarily puts him outside the realm of being treated as and ranked among the top fighters of his era though. There's not enough for me to doubt his championship win over Sharkey any more than doubting Clay's win over Liston, so he deserves the same treatment. And his two title defences seem legit.

 

I think this is true,how much he improved is a moot point however ,only a year before gaining the title ,he was comfortably outpointed by Larry Gains .
Carnera remains for me a nice ,unsophisticated man, who possessed courage,and was exploited by scum.