The Gallico book of folklore, tells us that Carnera was stupid, pitful, and ultimately poor. It is abundantly apparent that he was none of these things. The truth is that Gallico was a novelist, and that is ultimately what he was writing, when he wrote about Carnera. He understood the power of a good metaphor, and the power of a good story.
I think you'll find that it is an interpretation of "factual evidence", which develops the story for the historian. That was so obviously not your point, but never mind. Sorry, but you are now manufacturing manure. This is what you posted: Do you know what the definition of a skeptic is? And, you wonder why I find the idiom, "Truth is stranger than fiction", is applicable to you, when it comes to your treatment of the topic of Carnera... Mobsters are referred to as being part of 'Organized Crime', for a reason. Lang, within the text you quote, does not qualify his statement, about those colleagues who disagreed with Gallico, with any details. But I wasn't referring to "why [Gallico] thought what he thought". I quoted Gallico's own words, from an article he wrote, the day after the fight: " This content is protected " Suffices to say that, while he most certainly had his suspicions about the fight (he had warned his readers not to bet on the fight and predicted a Carnera victory, in an article the day before), they were not arrived at, by way of a snap judgement. To the best of my knowledge, he never stated he knew for sure that the fight was a fix and he acknowledged the views on both sides of the debate. Again, there is little to go on with the betting. It doesn't really tell us anything.
I don't know if Gallico called Carnera stupid. I'll have to read his stuff again but that's not the lasting impression. More naive and too trusting. And lacked good knowledge of English. Most fighters in history were cheated out of their money. Carnera was probably right in the mix.
Indeed. Probably feels it unimportant, along with a lot of the evidence in favor of Carnera being a manufactured, money-making product of The Mob.
Probably feels aggrieved to have been tumbled. Maybe a little embarrassed. My Father used to say " There is always someone out there a little bit smarter than you "
This contorted captiousness is becoming amusing. "Do you know what the definition of a skeptic is?" Off Webster's dictionary--"Skeptic--a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." The key word is questions. This is a person seeking to find out what is true in contrast to one who is certain of the truth. I doubt it matters to you, but you reprint a quote from my post of Wednesday morning, and then reprint a quote from my post at 6:48 PM on Monday, as if I was referring to that post on Wednesday. I was referring to my post at 11:52 PM on Monday, when I quoted Carlos Acevedo thus: "Madden had a cut of, or controlled, dozens of fighters, including Johnny Wilson, Maxie Rosenbloom, Kid Francis, Gene Tunney, Bob Olin, Jimmy Braddock, Charley 'Phil' R-senberg, Ace Hudkins, Leo Lomski, Marty Goldman, and Max Baer." Now if you note that my take was evolving, that is very true. As I learn more, my opinions concerning Carnera change, hour by hour. "And, you wonder why I find the idiom" No. I don't wonder about that at all. My concern is finding out what I can about Carnera. On Carnera, the quote you give from Gallico is revealing. "I can only say that I do not know." So far the most valuable post for me in this thread is from Jackomano on Sunday at 12:47 which began: "Carnera's original manager was Leon See and his later managers were Louis Soresi and Bill Duffy." This led me to probe for information on Soresi who I think might be the Rosetta Stone for understanding the enigma which is Carnera. Rarely mentioned, and often dismissed as a stooge for the mobsters, I believe he is a central figure in the Carnera story and a crucial figure in understanding Carnera's finances.
Carnera looks better on film than I would of imagined, reading all the narratives about him for 30 years. The internet came along and gave access to numerous fights and in my opinion it has improved his standing. He is not the oaf that I assumed from reading about him.
I am not convinced you are the truth-seeker you make yourself out to be and for good reason. You are the very definition of a skeptic (for which you rather disingenuously provide only a part-definition in your above quoted post). You have demonstrated such, not only in this thread, but also on other recent threads regarding Carnera. Cambridge Dictionary: skeptic noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually sceptic) uk /ˈskep.tɪk/ us /ˈskep.tɪk/ a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief Oxford Dictionary: sceptic (North American skeptic) Pronunciation /ˈskɛptɪk/ See synonyms for sceptic NOUN 1 A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. 1.1 A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist. 2 Philosophy An ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere. I'm sure you can spot the difference between the above and your own incomplete portrayal. It seems you are obsessed with putting forth a contrary view, no matter the item; no matter how trivial. Similarly, any data you can find (again, no matter how trivial), which agrees with your outlook on Carnera is of significance to you, while you will seek to 'trivialize' any counterpoint put your way. The idea that your view is evolving hour-by-hour is laughable. What a convenient way of denying the meaning in your own words, from one post to the next. Hardly believable and utterly pathetic, if that is the excuse you genuinely want to use. You have set out your stall in previous threads, dismissing any of the established evidence and providing your own speculative and still unsupported opinions, with a view to - in your mind - creating doubt at every turn. This is the very MO of a skeptic, who takes a position of doubt by default and injects whatever they can to maintain the same. This, as opposed to aiming at any kind of truth; even going off-topic to put up a resistance over individual words and phrases (It was you, who decided to make a meal out of the 'Truth is stranger than fiction' idiom, not me), rather than address the point. "contorted captiousness" - Indeed If Luigi Soresi is your new Rosetta Stone then let's see what you can turn up with it - if indeed you intended to pursue that line of inquiry, at all. In the meantime, Leon See, The California State Athletic Commission, The New York State Athletic Commission, Paul Gallico, Bud Schulberg, Jack Sher, Giovanna Maria Carnera, Primo Carnera himself and countless other writings and newspaper articles, produced over the course of Carnera's career, will remain my witnesses to the viewpoint I take. Good day.
You also think Paul Gallico is a secondary source and revisionist. I am, therefore, inclined to take your view on what could be called evidence or not, with a grain of salt.
He is worse than that, he is a man selling a yarn. He wasn't going to generate much interest with an article saying "Primo Carnera's career was exactly what it appeared to be!"
