But on what basis? There comes a time when you have to look at what was going on in the ratings and understand the state that the division was in. Thankfully, the wheat were to be separated from the chaff, during '35 - with particular thanks to Joe Louis.
These are the NBA ratings released September 17, 1935--only 6 men were ranked at heavyweight Champion--Jim Braddock 1-----Max Baer 2-----Joe Louis 3-----Max Schmeling 4-----Ford Smith 5-----Primo Carnera In the July NBA rankings, Walter Neusel was ranked #5. So Carnera in late 1935 was beating two men ranked in the top 10 by the NBA.
Jack Petersen went 7-0 in the year of 1934. He was ranked #7 in the Ring end of year rankings for that year. Walter Neusel beat him in his first fight of 1935. I don't see how he could have not been ranked, when Neusel beat him. The Neusel win might have been a good point for Carnera to retire.
What actually is the argument against Carnera? Is it that he fought in a weak era but was good enough against a bad field to become champion? Or is it that he was no good at all and his career was totally a fix--the Hollywood Toro Morino version? Looking at the NBA ratings, these Carnera victims were rated between 1930 and 1936. * for those I think were rated when he fought them. Jack Sharkey*, Ernie Schaaf*, Tommy Loughran*, Paulino Uzcudun*, King Levinsky*, Otto von Porat, Vittorio Campolo, Jim Maloney*, Don McCorkindale, Art Lasky, Ray Impellittiere, Ford Smith*, Walter Neusel*, Isador Gastanaga His losses were to Maloney, Sharkey, Larry Gains, Stanley Poreda, Max Baer, Joe Louis, and Leroy Haynes. All were rated, at least after they beat Carnera. He also had wins over rated fighters Young Stribling and George Godfrey on fouls. I think it a weak era, but Carnera fought a lot of rated men and his record on that score compares with many other champions over the years. That so many of his fights against rated men went to decisions or victories on cuts and the like weighs on the side of these fights being honest. His KO's were over set-ups and second-stringers, for the most part.
Carnera’s original manager was Leon See and his later managers were Louis Soresi and Bill Duffy. At that time Carnera being Italian was already a mark against him, but what really landed Carnera in hot water was that Leon See made some very strong statements (racial) that he shouldn’t have made about the powerful groups (mostly Jewish) that ran the arenas and athletic commissions and how they extorted fighters with managers that weren’t members of their network and even sometimes excluded them altogether. Even though some of the things See said were true See should’ve known better, since he and Carnera faced severe consequences for those statements, since the Associated Press was also mostly Jewish and weren’t pleased with See’s statements and unfortunately Carnera was collateral damage. I don’t know if you’ve read some of the associated press articles on Carnera from 1929-1932, but they were some of the most biased reports I’ve ever read and were pretty much hit pieces. Even the great Nat Fleischer was very biased towards Carnera and gave Carnera zero credit for anything. To get Carnera fights See was often forced to pay double and even triple what other managers had to pay for Carnera to get fights at their venues, but it got to the point where the organizers at the main venues gave Carnera an ultimatum to get rid of See or be frozen out regardless of his ranking, so that’s where Soresi and Duffy come in. Duffy was on good terms with the organizers at MSG, Chicago Stadium, etc... and Soresi although not that popular wasn’t hated like See and he was Carnera’s connection to Italy. Once See was out of the picture it was almost like somebody flipped a switch, since the athletic commissions and venues immediately backed off Carnera and welcomed him with open arms, but the associated press for whatever reason continued with the hit pieces on Carnera. I was surprised that even a knowledgeable poster on here like Mcvey believed all those stories. As for Carnera’s legitimacy many of the claims of fixed fights aren’t very well supported. Of course anything is possible in the crazy sport of boxing, but without solid evidence I can’t call somebody a fraud. Many of the claims made often times contradicted themselves and even on Boxrec the descriptions of some of Carnera’s early fights don’t match what actually happened. Later today I’ll attach a few supporting articles so you can read them for yourself.
"on what basis" Petersen's record going into the Neusel fight was 31-1 with his one loss to Len Harvey reversed by a KO in a rematch. He had also KO'd Larry Gains and Ben Foord. And was on a winning streak. Why exactly shouldn't he have been rated?
Petersen was seen as a promising fighter, but more as a Light Heavyweight than a Heavyweight. Gains was some way past his best when Petersen beat him and had long since lost his Ring ranking. I view Foord, Neusel, McCorkindale, Charles and Peterson as all being much of a muchness, in terms of their level.
Well, this does show that Carnera revisionism is nothing new, and may have been even more ridiculous in its early years than it is today.
Carnera wasn't the first or the last fighter to be built up on set-ups and fixes. One of the more interesting cases though.
The one thing I'll say about Carnera is that he improved as his career progressed and he learned to fight a bit, so some of his later wins might be legit. The Carnera we see on film is mostly the improved version anyway.
