Georges Carpentier - Evaluate

A fix where Carpentier is first declared the winner on foul, but an hour later the decision was changed in favor of Siki?

 

Carpentier's ability was so overrated its ridiculous. That being said his impact on the sport in the first quarter century is so underrated its ridiculous. I have every scrap of film on Carpentier that exists including several fights most people dont even know exist so I feel fairly qualified to make the above statement. His entire style was predicated on landing a right hand (which was admittedly very powerful) however if you can figure this out he would have been easy to beat. His record isnt that impressive when you really research and scrutinize it. The guy lost to Dixie Kid, Jeannette, Klaus, and Papke. In the latter two fights he tried his damndest to win on a foul (a favorite trick of his when he was getting his ass kicked). He lost to Dempsey after having won the LHW championship but a lot of people at the time both before and after said the Levinsky fight was fixed and when you read about it you come away with the impression that Levinsky was basically cashing out. Lost to Tunney, lost to Gibbons (who again he tried to win on a foul against after losing every round). Lost to Loughran. Lost to Siki (after trying to have the fight fixed in his favor). He deserved to lose his fight with Willie Lewis who was an overweight welterweight at the time and was on the down side of his career. Lewis dropped Carpentier several times and outboxed him but still lost the decision. Gunboat Smith was losing the fight when he landed his famous punch and dropped Carpentier on his haunches. Gunboat without realizing Carpentier was down shot a lot right which barely grazed the top of Carpentier's head (I have photos showing the punch skimming over the top) and Carpentier claimed a foul (again, his favorite trick). The film has yet to be found but people who saw the film in the United States stated that Smith should not have been disqualified and that the fight was starting to turn in his favor. His fights with Arthur Townley and Grundhoeven were almost certainly fixed (very poor acting) particularly by Townely. In addition to this it was felt that Carpentier won on blatant fouls against George Cook and Kid Lewis. Now that Ive put that in perspective Ill give him the credit he deserves. Carpentier can not be underestimated for the role he played in popularizing boxing in Europe. Without the glitz and glamour he brought to the sport Europe would have been years away from the boom it experienced between 1910 and 1930. Thats an incredible amount of influence. Furthermore look at the first million dollar gate. Anyone who thinks that was because of Dempsey is out of their gourd. It was interest in Carpentier that made the million dollar gate. He was able to draw crossover fans in from all sections of American society to the sport (just as he had done in Europe) paving the way for the major promotions that Rickard took part in there after. You want photos? More photos on Carpentier than any other boxer of that era. Want film? Carpentier had more movies made of him than any other boxer of that era BY FAR maybe three or four times as many. He starred on stage, screen, and radio. The guy had MASSIVE crowds following his every move just when he went window shopping. For that he deserves to be in the hall of fame, not for his accomplishments or his skill. In that regard he was style over substance.

 

Yep, I think that pretty much sums it up right there.

He was a good fighter in every weight class he was in, but was a notch or two below the very best at every weight. Was stopped by Dixie Kid in his one genuinely big fight as a welterweight. Became a legit contender at middleweight, but was battered into submission by Papke and Klaus in his two big step ups there (both fights should've been TKO losses, not DQs). His biggest career win, vs. Gunboat Smith, came on a highly controversial DQ in a "stinker" kind of fight. KO'd Levinsky, a credible win (and probably his defining one), but Levinsky was considered a vulnerable and reluctant champion and was roundly criticized for not risking his title against the top contenders. Once Carpentier had the title, he followed suit by ducking the top contenders as well - Tunney, Loughran, Greb, Gibbons; all were forced to fight each other in endless round robins while Carpentier hand picked ex-welterweight champ Kid Lewis and an unheralded clubfighter in Battling Siki. Once Siki had stripped him of his title, of course, he was forced to fight all the top contenders he had ducked - and they duly whupped him.

Like you said, he was somewhat one-dimensional. He relied a lot on his big right hand, but once that was neutralized - as his losses to Klaus, Dempsey, Siki, Tunney, etc. showed - he was basically ineffective.

IMO his fame and his rating, even his HOF entry, are as much the result of his impact and popularity than his actual substance as a fighter.

 

I remember being VERY impressed by both Tunney and Carpentier in their fight. It's not often that boxers that skilled have fights that are that entertaining. It just goes to show that chess-games don't always have to be boring.

 

This is a well researched and well informed post but I have to make a few observations:

You make no mention of Carpinters precociousnes as a young fighter. The fact that he was winning European titles as a teenager in low weight classes. The guy fought from flyweight to heavyweight. This in itself makes him remarkable.

Carpintier probably deserved to win the Gunboat Smith fight and it is possible that Smith simply fouled out. That at least is the impresion that the NYT gives.

Carpintier was held in verry high regard by contemporary observers/fighters like Loughran and Schmeling.

He isnt anywhere high up my top lightheavyweights list but I still think that he was something special.

 

If you beat a fighter, particularly of the famous calibre of Carpentier, do you tear him down and thus make your win less impressive or do you build him up as a fantastic and make your win look all the better? Especially when you consider that both Loughran and Tunney were still hunting for a championship when they fought Carp. I have the complete Tunney fight, all rounds (which is very rare) and Carpentier gets a bad whipping. He was non competetive after the fourth or fifth round

As for his winning titles at an early age thats impressive if you dont consider the fact that during those years boxing was an extremely fledgling sport on the continent of Europe and as such many of the fighters he was facing in lower weight classes were not very experienced or very skilled in comparison to even a young Carpentier who was benefitting from the training of Willie Lewis, a very skilled welterweight who would go on to be a good handler of fighters later in his career and as I stated really deserved the win over Carpentier. He schooled Carpentier literally and figuratively.

 

I respect the research you put in ,and look forward to your book on Harry Greb, but it occurs to me, that you have never said a favourable thing about any fighter on this forum, so maybe I won't enjoy your Greb book after all.Just an observation.

 

No it was not a fix. Carpentier got Ko'd in a fight loaded with action.

 

The fight was fixed by Descamps, Carp's manager, for Siki to lay down. Siki double crossed him and knocked him out then revealed the plot and how it went down. It was a huge scandal in France and there were even hearings into it after which it was swept under the rug. You can see in the film that Descamps goes from his corner to Siki's corner during the fight and starts screaming at Siki's manager for not going along with the plan.

 

Mcvey: The thread asked to evaluate Carpentier and I gave my opinion. Its absolutely untrue that Ive never said anything positive about any fighter on here. I happen to enjoy researching Carpentier. I have a lot of information on him and I was happy to share it. I dont agree that he was a great fighter but I have given him an enormous amount of credit for his influence and because of that I think the sport owes him a debt of gratitude. Right now some of the best fighters in the world (a lot of them in fact) come from Europe. Without Carpentier that may not be the case. I dont see how that is negative. I gave an honest assessment of skills and some of the shady circumstances sorrounding his career and some of his fights and I stand by those ascertions because they are backed up by people who were there at the time or witnessed on film by myself.

 

... What?

 

Should a fighter be assessed based on what others say about him, or what his reputation happens to be at one time, rather than his actual substance and achievements?

I always find it very questionable when people do that.

 

Get outta here!! That fight was a war!!

That's about as realistic as saying they were aliens from a faraway planet.

 

The impression that I got was that Carpentier had turned it into a stinker kind of fight, and was often crouching or squatting close to the canvas throughout the fight, in what probably should've been illegal. What I've read seem to suggest the foul was essentially forced by Carpentier, as Smith was becoming frustrated with his questionable antics.

 

Sorry it was a cross[on the public] that became a double cross,rather like the Burns OBrien second fight, you need to do some research on it my friend.