An opinion on Primo Carnera from 1993

I never knew that Soberanes was an Italian last name.

 

You asked me if I knew the definition of skeptic. I posted it.

My definition came from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1989 by Random House, page 1335. You accused me of being selective, so here is the entire entry:

Skeptic

1. A person who questions the credibility or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2. A person who maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. A person who doubts the truth of a religion.

4. Philosophy--(a) a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. (b) any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

5. Pertaining to skeptics or skepticism

6. Pertaining to the Skeptics.

(Gk) skeptikos--thoughtful, inquiring

Not being familiar with the primary definition of a word is not unusual, there being over 250,000 words in the unabridged dictionary. What is extraordinary is to dispute Websters Unabridged Dictionary's primary definition of a word before immediately launching a long-winded tirade accusing me of being a contrarian who disputes everything. You can't go much further into being contrary than disputing Webster's Dictionary.

You also earlier dismissed the films of Carnera's fights as misleading. I think these the best source of what sort of fighter he was, and certainly the best primary source, as the actual visual record of this boxer in action.

This is a striking case of projection, accusing others of doing what you yourself do.

"I am sure you can spot the difference between the above and your own"

Yes. I own a better dictionary.

 

It is difficult not to notice your avoidance of the point that Gallico was not unique in his view of Carnera. Can you please address this?

Can you also please provide evidence that Gallico wasn't telling the truth or that his assessments were not based on truth. Otherwise, we are simply back to you making baseless opinions again.

While you cannot do this and instead continue to default back to your invented perspective, your input on the subject should be considered as highly unreliable.

I've already demonstrated otherwise.

As previously alluded to, I have already demonstrated why you are wrong.

Gallico was a sports writer and editor for 14 years, spanning Carnera's career (save Primo's minor post-war comeback). I think it is safe to say Gallico was writing about Carnera, "at the time."

You are, again, wrong.

^^More baseless opinion^^

You are mischaracterizing the reason for my inquiry and dodging the questions I posed. I responded to your reference to Max Schmeling...

...why is Schmeling's take on Carnera, written many, many years later, any more valid than Gallico's?"

...and was Schmeling not hoping to achieve sales of his autobiography?

It's a fare comparison so, why will you not address it?

You are wrong and this is not a matter of opinion. Autobiographical/first person accounts are primary source materials.

Add to this that Gallico was writing about Carnera, "at the time", as you put it, and your claims that Gallico is not a primary source and that he is a revisionist, become patently absurd.

There's nothing left to be said on this subject. You can hold fast in your incorrect position and stick your head in the sand, in a vain attempt to pretend you are right, but it does your case no good to demonstrate your ignorance in this way.

Clearly not, for you. I can only guess you like things to be foggy and for others to join you in that fog, since you provide absolutely not clarity whatsoever.

Not me, thanks. My understanding of these matters is as clear as a bell.

 

"In the meantime, Leon See, The California State Athletic Commission, The New Yotk State Athletic Commission, Paul Gallico, Bud Schulberg, Jack Sher, Giovanna Maria Carnera, Primo Carnera himself and countless other writings and newspaper articles, produced over he course of Carnera's career, will remain my witnesses to the viewpoint I take."

Depends what they witness to. The issue, at least for me, is not whether Carnera began as a large, clumsy fighter with little skill, being absurdly built up with the full Barnum and Bailey treatment, but whether he improved and eventually was good enough to win the title by being the right man in the right ring at the right time. I don't dispute that early fights may have been fixed.

Leon See and The California State Athletic Commission--provide reasonable evidence that early fights were not on the level, especially the Chevalier fight. They have no relevance to the Sharkey KO.

Budd Schulberg--wrote a fiction book about Toro Morino. What evidence does he directly provide about Carnera?

Jack Sher--was a teenager when Carnera fought. Wrote a melodramatic piece for Sport Magazine in 1948. I don't accept him as a good source.

Paul Gallico--your best contemporary source. On the critical question of whether the Sharkey fight was legit, you have given this quote, "I can only say that I do not know." Gallico deserves approbation for his honesty, but "I do not know" is hardly impressive testimony for a fix.

The New York State Athletic Commission--recognized Carnera as heavyweight champion after he KO'd Sharkey, strong evidence they found the fight to be on the up and up.

Giovanna and Primo Carnera--Giovanna quotes her father as going to his grave believing he won the title on the level. How this backs your "Jack Sher" take is confusing.

None of these are strong evidence that Carnera did not eventually rise to the top of the heavyweight division on merit and in the end win the title on the level.

A number of them provide solid evidence that early fights were fixed. No question there was also an over-the-top buildup with a myriad of setups, but that doesn't rule out Carnera finally becoming a decent fighter.

 

Good grief. Did you just accuse me of having been long-winded?

As it stands, your waste of time above, just reinforces my view of you as a contrarian. You have even had to invent a reason to transcribe a full dictionary definition of a word in order to mount a response.

The problem with your response is that I did not dispute the Webster's Dictionary definition. I stated that you had only provided a "part-definition" for the word, which you have just now categorically demonstrated.

Show me where I dismissed the films of Carnera's fights as misleading. You will not be able to.

And, given that, in the main, we were discussing the apparent shadiness surrounding Carnera's career outside of the ring (and written accounts thereof ), what I stated was:

The relevant thread and post can be found here:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/primo-carnera-or-jess-willard.665302/page-7#post-20978373

And this^ is a striking case of you drawing an unwarranted conclusion.

Funny that you have just accused me of having "

This content is protected

", when you yourself have, in that very accusation, provided a misleading interpretation of what I actually stated. I wonder if that counts as "

This content is protected

"?

I can only suppose you either comfortably overlook your errors or actively misinterpret data and information, in favor of satisfying your contrarian nature. It clearly has a strong hold on you.

 

This was not "The issue" for you, when our exchange on this thread began.

 

Alas, where discussions about Carnera are concerned, it invariably stops being about the man and comes down to the manner in which certain points are argued, by certain posters. The dismissal of primary sources and actual, recorded events, one doesn't like the look of, without good reason, is just about as ridiculous as one can get and not acceptable.

For mine, I was not particularly interested in the reinvention of Carnera, until I started to see this being practiced to extremes, e.g., cases being argued for why Carnera is a better all round boxer than Riddick Bowe; for why Carnera was the blueprint of the modern-day Super Heavyweight etc etc.

The 1993 article posted in the OP is a version of the same kind of naive, dreamy-eyed thinking, when it's author states his belief that: "

This content is protected

" - And, what does Soberanes base this on? Carnera's body and his belief that Carnera could have won titles in bodybuilding contests.

Is this as good as it gets for the pro-Carnera crowd?

 

I acknowledge that there were contemporary writers who had their doubts about Carnera, but I think that the were in the minority.

That is fine, because that is exactly the debate that I want to have.

Bring together as many lines of primary evidence as possible, and see what picture emerges.

It is obviously going to be a mixed picture.

I don't need to produce evidence that Gallico was not telling the truth, because the burden of proof lies with the person who is asserting something.

The onus is on him to prove his allegations, not on me to prove that he is lying.

Most historians take a primary source, to be a source that was directly generated by the event, although there is no universally accepted definition.

An article written by Gallico after the fight between Louis and Carnera would be a primary source, but a book written by him in 1938 would not.

Some historians might take Gallico's observations about the fight in his 1938 book to be a primary source, but then anything in the book that he had not witnessed himself, would fall very squarely into the category of a secondary source.

As for the Carnera parking ticket, I think that there is a link to it in the infamous Carnera Bowe thread if you are still interested?

Max Schmeling was a former heavyweight champion, who fought many of the same opponents as Carnera, and knew that he might well have to fight Carnera one day. Yes I trust his testimony more than I trust Gallico's. I doubt that his stance on Carnera would have had any material impact on the sales of his autobiography. The most likely explanation is that he simply called it as he saw it.

 

thank you for bringing these posts up

My post--on fillms "I think these the best source for what sort of fighter he was, and certainly the best primary source, as the actual visual record of this boxer in action."

Your post--"Backstory and behind the scenes dealings are rarely filmed and pretty much never, if the dealings are illegal. If simply watching Carnera on film tells you the whole story then I can only assume you have a big imagination."

No one thinks a film of a boxing match would tell one anything about his private life, finances, background, or such. It just shows him as a performer in the ring. The only implication from this which makes sense is that the behind the scenes dealings somehow effect what happens in the ring. And the only deduction possible from that is that the film shows a sham fight.

So which films do you maintain show a fix?

While there are many issues about Carnera raised, it is as a fighter in the ring I most concerned about right now.

 

Primo was so popular, he had his own comic strip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnera_(comics)

 

This thread is about Carnera. Not about you or any of your exchanges.

This is the beginning of a post on this thread from last Sunday at 12.36 PM

"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?"

 

Change is coming!

 

A witness is not on trial. The best you can do is argue a case for why a witness is not reliable. Just calling them a liar because you think so, is not good enough.

So, yes, you do have to provide evidence as to why you think Gallico was not telling the truth. Thus far, you have failed to do that and, given you have been calling him a liar for over a decade, I doubt you ever will progress this line of response beyond being an unfounded accusation.

Gallico is a primary source. This isn't up for debate.

The right answer would have been, "Max Schmeling's testimony is no more valid than Gallico's."

Whether you trust in one side more than the other is neither here nor there. That's just your opinion (which will always fall in Carnera's favor, where you're concerned).

 

You don't seem to understand how burden of proof works.

If I claim that a purple penguin exists, or that a teapot is orbiting the Earth, then the onus is on me to prove it.

There is no onus on you to prove that these things are not true, and you probably wouldn't waste your time trying to do so.

Anything that is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

All that I have to do, is say that Gallico has not met his burden of proof, and I can dismiss his testimony on that basis alone!

Well it obviously is, because I am debating it!

Max Schmeling's testimony is more valid than Gallico's in my opinion.

He actually fought many of the same guys as Carnera for a start.

If you disagree, then that is fine.

Lets draw as many lines of primary evidence together as we can, without favor to either side.

If you can find a genuine primary source, that is skeptical of Carnera, as I am sure that you can, than that should form part of the argument.

What I won't do is place it above the other primary sources, that say otherwise.

As I said, change is coming!

 

That post from Farewell to Sport isn't impressive as evidence.

Charley is quoted concerning the Moise Bouquillon fight--"Leon wanted to see if he could go ten rounds without falling down."

Carnera had already gone ten rounds with Epifano Islas in Milan. Seems an odd thing for Charley to say under the circumstances, but perhaps Charley wasn't as much of the insider as is claimed.

As for the Bouquillon fight, Carnera was in his 8th fight. Bouquillon had a record of 44-9 with 36 KO's. He was much smaller, but had a world of advantage in experience. How this balances out depends on perspective.

Bouquillon's weight is given by Gallico as 174 lbs. Some on-line sources give it as 188. Either way, though, it would have been obvious without being present at the fight that Carnera didn't punch his weight.

"Monsieur See was experimenting a little with his giant. It was obvious that Bouquillon was going to be unable to hurt him much, but what I noted that evening and never forgot was that the giant was likewise unable to hurt the little Frenchman."

Carnera couldn't hurt Bouquillon in his 8th fight, but 2 1/2 years later in a rematch he stopped him in two. What could be the explanation? The second fight was a fix? Or, more likely, Carnera improved.

Italian sources note Carnera was savaged by the Italian press after the Islas fight. The same press found him much improved when he edged Uzcudun in Spain in 1930.

"When he fought Joe Louis he was defensively but little better than he was the first time I saw him."

Of course we have no idea what he looked like in his 8th fight, but we have the film of the Louis fight, and Carnera gives a credible performance.

I think a much better source on Carnera as a boxer is Schmeling's take in his autobiography:

"Primo Carnera, approximately six feet five inches tall and weighing around 260 pounds, had always been considered by the experts to be only a mediocre boxer. They said he couldn't really punch, that he just sort of clubbed his opponents. Iin fact his reach was much greater than that of any opponent, and the leverage that that gave him enabled his punches to penetrate almost any defense. In contrast to the experts, I had always considered Carnera to be a technically sound boxer, so I wasn't surprised to hear that he had knocked Sharkey out in the sixth round." (Max Schmeling, an autobiography. Page 92)

I think if anyone is going to make an appeal to authority, Schmeling is a much better authority than Gallico.