An opinion on Primo Carnera from 1993

I do. But, given your confusion about how primary and secondary sources are categorized, it does not surprise me that you have become confused about burden of proof, as well.

Your example is not relevant to this discussion.

Just like your opinion of Gallico.

This statement is problematic, in relation to the discussion at hand, on several fronts...

- Firstly, you refer to burden of proof, without an accompanying standard for this, in the context of this thread.

- Secondly, you have not specified the claim, for which a burden of proof needs to be met.

- Thirdly, it appears you have gone from treating Gallico as a witness to Gallico as an accuser.

- Finally, it was you, who initiated an attack on Gallico, which is tantamount to you making an accusation against him.

You stated the following:

This was clearly an attempt by you to discredit Gallico as a witness, without providing any evidence that, a) Gallico even tells us the things that you claim he does and, b) even if he did tell us these things, what it is, which makes it abundantly apparent that Carnera was none of these things Gallico allegedly tell us he was.

However, as mentioned above, since then you have managed to conflate Gallico as witness, with Gallico as accuser.

So - No - You do need to provide evidence for your claims against Gallico, which has been my point all along.

You have not debated it. You have simply repeated the same incomplete view of what constitutes a primary source, based on a single criterion. You are wrong, but won't admit it.

That's fine, because I have come to expect little better from you, to be honest.

I don't see either testimony as "more valid" than the other. Schmeling's comments have a narrow scope. Gallico's a much broader one.

I sometimes wonder about your awareness of the sheer volume of commentary there is on Carnera.

Then, in all seriousness, what would be the point?

 

The majority of your post is bluster, so there is little point in responding to it.

However I do think that some clarification is required about burden of proof.

Gallico is the party making an assertion, and I am the party questioning it.

That puts the burden of proof squarely upon his shoulders.

If somebody claimed that the Earth was hollow, you would expect them to produce evidence of that assertion, and if they did not produce evidence, then you would dismiss it.

You would not waste your time trying to prove that the Earth was not hollow, or any other negative for that matter.

Exactly the same standard applies here.

Gallico has made a rather remarkable assertion, and has provided no evidence to back it up.

In this respect he is in exactly the same position as a person who has asserted the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, and not provide any evidence to back it up.

Gallico is obviously an accuser, but I am not sue whether he would qualify as a witness, because he is not claiming to have seen most of what he is asserting.

Having said that, it is fairly easy to prove that Gallico's testimony is wrong in places.

His assertion that Carnera "doesn't have a cent to show for his boxing career today" would be fairly easy to disprove, and indeed it has been in this very thread.

His assertion that Carnera was a stupid man, would be fairly easy to disprove.

 

I am sorry you couldn't understand a plain English version of what you have done during this thread, i.e. made bold claims against one of the witnesses I listed, without any evidence of the same - only to go on and turn the burden of proof onto this dead man, so that he should demonstrate his innocence.

You are quite unbelievable, at times.

As I stated, from the outset of page 9 of this thread of discussion, your opinions on Gallico are baseless. Your only response has been to regale me with inaccurate/incomplete definitions of primary source and secondary source evidence. Then to move the goalposts of the discussion, so as to shirk responsibility for the claims you made against him (on the same page).

You won't respond to it because the only decent response is a retraction. You cannot evidence anything of the post you wrote, to which I referred and reproduced for you.

Do you?

If you really want to do that properly, you will need a separate thread on a different forum, in order to outline such clarifications, since it is not as simple as your 'amateur hour' definition makes out.

I have played along and tried to keep this within the confines of the informal discussion at hand. I will continue to do so for this post only, since I am sure this particular matter needs no more added to what has become a needlessly lengthy discussion.

However, as is often the case, you are so far off the mark that it perhaps warrants one last response. Even though, it suffices to say that your version of the burden of proof renders almost any evidence in the case of Carnera - whether for or against - beyond use, there are other elements of your behavior in this thread, which need addressing again, it seems.

Unfortunately, you not only quite freely move goalposts and appear to feel justified in doing so, but you also re-invent established norms and refuse to admit when your made up definitions are just plain wrong, inapplicable or inadequate. Another example is your diversion into the question of the burden of proof, which is both inapplicable and inadequate.


Note: After this post, I will not be discussing 'burden of proof' any further in this thread.

No. You made claims against a particular witness (who is now deceased). It's easy to find where this particular branch of the discussion started and follow it, from then on, in this thread.

Forget your fixation on the 'burden of proof' for a moment - it is just good manners for you to show reasoning for the grievance you have shown towards Paul Gallico.

Therefore, what is required from you is evidence, which addresses the following claims you made against Gallico:


Janitor - "

This content is protected

"

- What is this 'Gallico book of Folklore'?
- Does it actually tell us these things you claim it does and how?
- What timeline, from beginning to end, does this so-called 'book of folklore' cover?
- Are there any other constraints on the scope of this so-called 'book of folklore', which pertain to its applicability or lack thereof?


Janitor - "

This content is protected

"

- Is it? If Gallico indeed tells us these things (in a so far unidentified work), then in what way is it abundantly apparent, that what he is alleged to tell us is otherwise the case?


Janitor - "

This content is protected

"

- This is an extraordinary claim, for which you have given no evidence whatsoever. It is, in fact a slur, but I'm sure you know that you cannot slander a dead man.


The above shows what you stated at the outset. You have also accused Gallico of being a "

This content is protected

" and asserted that "

This content is protected

"

I also know you cannot evidence any of these claims adequately. So I do not expect a response to the above. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so and failed.

Why is this ridiculous example relevant? (Rhetorical - think about it in your own time)

Moreover - Do you think there is only this one extreme standard for the burden of proof? That there is always a precise, binary outcome, driven by the burden of proof, alone? (Again - Rhetorical - think about it in your own time)

I think you actually believe this and you are wrong to do so.

Not that is does but, if this were the case, then you would need to either backup all of the above claims you have made about Gallico with evidence or retract them.

I would suggest you need to do the latter, as you cannot even begin to prove any of the claims you made.

Yes? What is the assertion? (I wouldn't mind an actual answer to this one)

This "assertion" seems to cover a wide, unwritten assumption held by the pro-Carnera mob, without them distilling this belief into something accessible; something, which can be shared with those with whom they appear to disagree.

Moreover, Gallico provides direct witness testimony, which was entirely falsifiable at the time but, for some reason, not one person, who was a subject of Gallico's claims, ever refuted those claims.

Your using extreme examples, which are on the verge of being unfalsifiable and, when you set these types of standard, you are being beyond unreasonable.

But we already know that, where Carnera is concerned, you are quite, quite unreasonable.

I will gladly, at some point in future, evidence that statement. (@janitor heads towards the delete post function.)

In the context of this conversation, you are the accuser, as outlined in this and my previous post. It's in black and white, traceable and I have provided you with your own words to help explain it for you.

You made the claims about one of the witnesses. I called those claims baseless. You have so far not been able to discredit any witness testimony with credible evidence and have instead put the burden of proof on a dead man.

Bravo!

 

On the issue of Carnera (and also important concerning Max Baer), I found online a biography of Ernie Schaaf which seems to have been well researched. It is Fallen and Forgotten: The Ernie Schaaf Story by Patrick Coleman. Here is the quote on the causes of Ernie's death:

"The New York medical examiner was more definitive. After an autopsy and microscopic examination of the brain, Dr. Charles Norris said Ernie was suffering from an inflammation of the brain. The cause of the inflammation he believed--'with a reasonable degree of probability'--was the influenza Ernie had leading up to the fight. Norris stated that the blows received aggravated the condition and paralysis of the left side of the body developed. Ultimately, the fight, along with the inflammation resulted in a cerebral hemorrhage."

 

again on Carnera, Thomas Hauser quotes Jack Sharkey on the Carnera KO.

"I'd never have done anything like that. I was raised Catholic. I was raised to be honest. I was on top of the world. Why would I purposefully lose?"

"Asked what it felt like to lose, Sharkey responded, 'It's a terrible feeling. You devalue yourself. You don't want to see anyone. You just want to hide."

Sharkey went to his death at 91 maintaining the fight was on the level. It is hard for me to accept that he would not have come forward in later years if he had been intimidated into losing. Or at least composed a to be released after my death testament.

Patrick Connor in The Fight City:

"But Associated Press writer Bill King reported that afterward a dazed Sharkey had to be told what happened in his dressing room."

Another quote from the internet, but I am not certain of the provenance:

"Walter Friedman, who managed Carnera, and was willing to acknowledge some of Carnera's earlier fights were set ups, said the Sharkey fight was on the level."

Joseph Page has these quotes:

"British referee Moss Deyong commented after the Carnera-Uzcudun fight in November, 1930: "Uzcudun put up a good fight, but he was meeting the future world's champion in my opinion. Carnera's improvement was surprising."

And James Dawson on the Sharkey KO--"a terrific right uppercut to the chin almost decapitated Sharkey and brought Carnera the title."

On Carnera improving, I think the films of his fights back that up. He looks much improved in the second Sharkey fight from the first, while Sharkey had regressed. I re-watched the second Sharkey fight last night and I thought Carnera had the better of it all the way.

One of the arguments the "it had to be a fix" crowd uses is that Carnera did not usually score one punch knockouts. But he did score impressive KO's on film against Christner, Meen, and Campolo. Sharkey was not a one punch guy either, but took out Loughran with one punch, which I think is more surprising than Carnera taking out Sharkey. I think sports are popular exactly because the unexpected often happens.

 

It is also worth noting that Sharkey was in a pretty bad way after the knockout.

Rumors circulated after he fight that he had died from his injuries, and he was also said to have a concussion.

 

Your posts are difficult to responds to, because a lot of your arguments amount to saying that I am wrong, without saying why I am wrong. We seem to have some insoluble differences on what constitutes evidence, and how evidence can be interpreted. I think that this is probably the portion worth responding to. So taking your points in turn.

Yes Gallico is demonstrably wrong in some of his assertions. For example he wrote that Carnera did not have a cent to show for his boxing career, and when he penned these words Carnera owned a mansion in Italy. Therefore we must assume that Gallico was either uninformed, or willfully dishonest.

Gallico was a novelist, who knew how to weave a narrative. Presumably his career as a writer of fiction is known to you. Perhaps I went too far in attributing motive to him, so to that extent you have a point. I am prepared to simplify my position on that. However when it comes to slander, Gallico is more sinner than sinned against.

I have already given my justification for Gallico being a revisionist, and his 1938 book not being a primary source. I stand by my position on that.

 

I have provided clear explanations as to why you are wrong. I am sorry you find them difficult to understand, but that is not my problem.

Perhaps you should take a step back out from the rut your heels dig in for you.

"

This content is protected

" - Farewell To Sport, PITY THE POOR GIANT, Paul Gallico - 1938

When Carnera took ownership of a mansion in Italy is unclear to me.

I can't see that Gallico made any assertions, within the stated time-frame, which were either outrageous or could not have been refuted by those they involved, if they had indeed been false.

Gallico did go on to become a successful fiction writer, as well as a biographical author. This was a new stage in his career as professional writer; distinct from his career as a sports writer and the reason he quit sports. It is also not uncommon for journalistic writers to go on and attempt novels.

I would be interested to see what of Gallico's work could be considered slanderous. He did court controversy, upsetting certain people and groups along the way, and he was castigated for it, during the early part of his career. I think he paid his price for running close to the wire, but riding near to the edge is not the same as the outright slandering and libeling of people.

Calling Gallico a revisionist is the same as calling him a liar, in my book. I doubt you could specify both the specific events he provided revised accounts for and in what way he was revising them.

I will also repeat that authors of autobiographical works, memoirs or other first person accounts are direct witnesses of the events and times described - and, even though they are usually written subsequent to the occurrence of these events, they are considered a primary source.


With that, I will take my leave of this thread.

 

That point I will clarify.

Carnera took possession of the mansion in 1932, and it remained in his family until 1972, therefore he had possession of it when Gallico stated that he had not made a cent from the sport.

Far from being a simpleton, who was exploited by his evil handlers, Carnera was coining it, and investing it in Italy.

His handlers might have been horrible people, but they seem to have made him rich!

 

"When Carnera took ownership of a mansion in Italy is unclear to me"

After blabbing on endlessly about "any number" of articles, he doesn't know basic facts about the property Carnera owned in Italy.

"Carnera took possession of the mansion in 1932"

I don't know if "took possession" is the most accurate term. He began planning his villa in 1930 and had it built in 1932. He is described as working closely with the architect on the design.

In a 1935 court filing his representative stated that Carnera owned two villas in Italy. I don't know anything about the second one. While claiming bankruptcy in the US, Carnera still had to accurately list his foreign assets or risk contempt of court.

This nuances of this bankruptcy claim is beyond my understanding. Carnera had lost a breach of promise suit. He quickly filed for bankruptcy on June 17, 1933 and apparently maintained that he was broke in subsequent US court appearances. He also maintained he knew nothing about business affairs. Court records show he was represented in court by the law offices of Thomas Lincoln Chadbourne, a very prominent international attorney. Info on Chadbourne can be found online.

I don't know what exactly was going on here, but asking legal questions online one can get some clues. Here is Harris Bricken on protecting foreign assets from US court rulings:

"Generally, US judgments cannot be enforced in a foreign country without first being recognized by a court in that foreign country"

"Foreign courts generally do not recognize US money judgments."

Of course that is today, not over 80 years ago. But it might point to what Carnera was doing. His advisors included a prominent lawyer specializing in international cases, and an international investment banker.

"they seem to have made him rich"

Carnera and other Italian sources claim this. They may well have shorted him on some money, but he seems to have been able to look out for himself.

 

When did I ever claim I'd read "thousands" of articles, let alone repeat the claim "endlessly"?

I didn't. I haven't.

When Carnera took ownership of a "mansion" is still unclear to me, yours and @janitor 's posts, notwithstanding.

Let me know when you track the mansion down.

Also - I don't know if having nothing but a house to one's name (if indeed it was in his name), after generating a 7-figure sum of revenue, equates to having been merely "shorted... ...on some money"

It's a far cry from having been made rich!

 

I am not saying that he could never have had financial difficulties.

Perhaps he briefly lived a life of penury in his big house, like a bankrupt baronet.

Obviously his situation was never desperate enough to force him to sell the house!

 

I went through your posts and discovered the words you used were "any number of" and so edited my post.

"When Carnera took control of a 'mansion' is still unclear to me"

You can lead a horse to water, but . . .

"Let me know when you track the mansion down"

Are you trying to say Villa Carnera doesn't exist? The address is Via Roma 12, 33090 Sequals PN, Italy. The phone number is +39 0427 789111.

If you are disputing the term mansion, it is not mine, I was quoting another post. But a house built by an architect, with hand done mosaics and frescos, servants' quarters, with adjacent buildings, on a gated estate, is certainly a nice and above average home.

"if indeed it was in his name"

Why list it as an asset in an American court in 1935 if it wasn't his?

Why would anyone else design a house in Carnera's hometown with tile mosaics of something like Carnera's fist?

And if he didn't own it, how did Carnera end up with it?

"It is a far cry from having been made rich"

Rich is another subjective term. Carnera himself said "It is not true I got no money from my boxing" "I'd been set for life in Italy if it hadn't been for the war." He mentions besides the villa, a Lincoln, "something like 125 suits, all made to order, and nearly as many pairs of shoes" and drawing 1,600,000 lira (about $50,000) from the bank. I would just say he wasn't poor. ($50,000 was a lot of money in 1942)

 

While it appears some will dispute Villa Carnera--if one wants to, it is easy to get information about it online. Just google:

Villa Carnera--storia di un edificio e di un campione

Storia di Villa Carnera

Villa Museo--Villa Carnera

Villa Carnera--Turismo FVG

Carnera began planning this home in 1930, and had it built in 1932 by Mariano Pittana under the supervision of Luigi Plateo.

Giavanna Maria Carnera--"For dad, this villa was much more than a house. It represented the symbol of his efforts, like those of thousands of immigrants, of his devotion to his land, and of his deep need to give Sequalise roots to his family."

There are many photos online of this estate and some brief film footage on youtube. There is also a photo of his gymnasium with the inscription "Sano in Corpore Sano" over the entry.

By the way. personally I like most the nude statue in the gardens.

 

The villa is nice. Carnera was obviously sending some money home. Doesn't prove he wasn't ripped off terribly though. The cost of initial construction may be a lot less in 1930 rural Italy than what we would imagine such a thing is valued at today, and far less than what something like that would have cost if he'd built it in California or Florida, and it could be that he struggled for years to pay for its completion and bring it towards what it looks like today.
I wouldn't be surprised if he borrowed some money from Soresi's bank to begin with.