An opinion on Primo Carnera from 1993

This^^ is a baseless opinion, driven solely by your own biased view on Carnera. It carries absolutely no weight, no matter how often you want to repeat it.

If one were to take your extremely limited outlook seriously, they might be forgiven for believing the sales of the New York Daily News relied solely on the articles of Paul Gallico.


Like I have previously implied - you really are not a reliable source of perspective, when it comes to Carnera.

 

You have to wonder, if a man who believes Corbett would beat Tua, is a reliable source of ANYTHING!

 

That is a perfect description of Gallico's testimony to be honest.

You have to ask why he would make such extraordinary claims, without presenting some sort of evidence.

Neither Gallico nor See would have lasted five seconds on the witness stand.

If you had put Carnera on trial based on their allegations a hundred times, then a hundred times you would have got an acquittal.

Negative news about Carnera was huge business back then.

Every time he got a parking ticket it made headlines!

Certainly we can't both be right!

 

When did Tua beat Corbett?

I must have missed that!

 

I’ve been away a few days. Finally out of BF jail and I missed this doozy. Good to be free and run right into a ten page primo thread.

 

Ah - so, you've opted for the 'backing up a baseless opinion, with more baseless opinions and an aimless question' tactic then.

What "extraordinary claims" did Gallico make?

Not if he'd had you as his defense lawyer.

How big a business was it compared to writing about any other sports personality - negatively or otherwise?

Give me the comparative numbers to back up your claim. I bet you can't and if, as is likely the case, you can't then it's just another idle assertion from you - Isn't it?

Also - I want to see the article(s) which sensationalized Carnera's parking ticket(s).

What, both you and Gallico? No you can't both be right, but there's no contest, as to who should be believed between the two of you.

Gallico is a primary source, who actually watched many of Carnera's bouts live, from the outset (going as far back as Carnera's Salle Wagram days, in France).

He was the Sports Editor at the NY Daily News for over 10 years, lived and breathed sport and founded the Golden Gloves amateur boxing tournament. He actually had conversations with the likes of Jack Dempsey (even sparred with him), Nat Fleischer; spoke with Carnera support group members, Bill Duffy and Walter Friedman.

That's the advantage of actually being in the sports news business, as well as living in and writing about the sporting times, as they happen.


You are an internet forum poster, living in the 21st century; a revisionist and not even a secondary source. Your support for Carnera and the manner of the same, borders on religious belief.

Your defense of Carnera-ism (since that's what we may as well call it) consists of a repeated, ill-found castigation of writers from the past, whom hath committed blasphemy against your belief, as well as the refusal to acknowledge any number of other written sources, which go counter to your conviction (the kind of mentality, which might seed hysterical book burning, one wonders).


As to who's right - Yeah - I think I'll go with that Gallico guy. You know - the one who was alive and writing about Carnera at the time?

 

Not at all.

I was enquiring as to why Old Fogey aka Edward Morbious felt the need to create a 3rd account....Jason Thomas.

 

I'd be more interested as to why he's denied he's OLD FOGEY or Edward Morbius tbh. @Jason Thomas

 

Almost everything that he alleged against Carnera is extraordinary.

I don't see how you could see it otherwise, even if you believed him.

I am not sure that it was big business relative to other sports personalities, but it quickly becomes obvious that scandal attached to Carnera sold papers.

I do not have the article about him getting a parking ticket to hand, because frankly I never expected anybody to be that interested, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

Gallico is not a primary source.

He is writing after the events, and he is not writing based on his own direct experience.

He is writing hearsay, and the fact that he watched some of Carnera's fights, does not change this.

I am not a revisionist.

Gallico is a revisionist.

I am just putting forward the opinion of Carneras contemporaries i.e fighters and trainers of the day.

Why would you place the testimony of Gallico, who was writing after the events, and trying to sell books, above somebody like Max Schmeling?

 

I can't say that this did happen, and I can't say that it didn't.

I usually give somebody the benefit of the doubt.

 

No specifics then - just another expression of your blanket opinions on Gallico, despite the viewpoint that Carnera was involved in disreputable dealings not being unique to Gallico.

Scandal attached to any celebrity sells newspapers. So, who is at fault here - Gallico for doing his job, or Carnera for being the public figure, getting involved in and/or associated with scandal?

Quite literally immaterial then.

It beggars belief that you do not know the difference between a primary and secondary source. For someone, who aspires to be a writer, this is bordering on unseemly.

I'm hoping you are just confused.


In 'Farewell To Sport' - 'Pity The Poor Giant', Paul Gallico writes...

***

This content is protected

***

...This is just one example of primary source material. It is a first-person account of "[Gallico's] own direct experience".


Here's a link to the Children's Encyclopedia Britannica, which can help explain a primary source for you.

https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/primary-source/629043

You are, without question, a revisionist. Moreover, you are a negationist.

I've read posts from you, before now, in which you assert that all negative write-ups on Carnera, particularly Gallico's, can be traced back to Leon See, which is utter nonsense (for more than one reason) and a clear case of you both revising history and negating independent sources, at the same time.

I've seen you dismiss the weight of negative criticism about Carnera, from Boxers, such as Joe Louis, in favor of one or two other quotes from Louis that could be interpreted as neutral-to-positive, but which in no way reverse the aforementioned negative commentary.

You have, in this very thread, drawn a conclusion without any evidence other than your own opinion.

Your assertion that Gallico is a revisionist is absurd beyond belief; to the point where your credibility on this subject has been diminished to near nothingness. It deserves no further acknowledgement.

What exactly is the weight of this testimony? Where is your examination of motive for this testimony?

I assume you are referring to positive comments about Carnera, made by Schmeling in his autobiography, which wasn't published until 1998. If so, how are Schmeling's words any more valid than Gallico's? Is Schmeling not writing after the events? Is Schmeling not hoping his book will sell?

Incidentally, Gallico published 'Farewell To Sport' in 1938.

As I stated at the top of the page, your opinions on Gallico are baseless and carry no weight. You have demonstrated, in this thread and the very post to which I am responding, that you have no logical rationale for for those opinions. Quite oppositely, you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the source material, to the extent that you don't even realize the double-standard you have introduced here.

 

At least 6/10 Beat him handily.

 

Really?

I prefer to look at all the evidence and base an opinion on it.

 

When you get your teeth into something, you do it in a way that is a thing of beauty to behold.

 

Gallico's job was to tell the truth, not peddle innuendo, lies and half truths.

Wit respect it is you who fails to understand the definition of a primary source.

A primary source is a source that was created at the time.

We could perhaps stretch a point , and consider the passage where Gallico describes that Louis fight as a primary source.

He was there at the time, albeit it was written after the event.

However most the rest of the book is clearly not a primary source, or anything remotely approaching a primary source.

It was not written at the time, and it is based upon the testimonies of others, hearsay, and Chinese whispers.

If you think that something like that meets the standard of a primary source, then you clearly do not understand the most basic principles of historical research.

Of course his is a revisionist.

The prototypical position would be whatever people thought about Carnera's career at the time.

There was always suspicion and innuendo, but Gallico drew it all together and wove it into a fable.

You question the motives of fighters who made positive observations about Carnera, but stood to gain nothing from it, but you don't question Gallico's motives.

I am well aware that Gallico published Farewell to Sport in 1938, and that is years after the events that he is alleging to have happened.

That means that it is not a primary source.

It also means that if it was different from the prevailing wisdom, then by definition it was revisionist.

Is the fog starting to lift yet?