An opinion on Primo Carnera from 1993

"To be fair it's time consuming"

Takes longer to do it this way.

" I get why he does it that way "

Must be a slow learner.

 

"Takes longer to do it this way."

It does - but, perhaps there is a misguided idea that it gives off a perception of edginess.


"Must be a slow learner"

Or a stick-in-the-mud.

 

Keep on topic guys!

 

Not if you break up the post into different quotes. Because then you have to copy and paste the quote tags. Ugh

 

Some people don't seem no be able to let go of the traditional Primo Carnera narrative.

Every time that one of it's key pillars comes crashing down, several people rush to prop it up.

It is almost as if it is a treasured part of boxing folklore, and a morality tale, that has become a boxing fable as powerful as the Rocky movies.

However as students of boxing history, our duty is to the truth, and honest examination of the evidence.

At the very least, the truth is far more complex, than the narrative put forward by Gallico and others.

 

Jan, Carnera was "nothing" according to Joe Louis so now what boyo?

 

“That was his left hook?”
- Foreman

Joe Frazier was a myth y’all

 

I am not even sure that you accurately portray the "traditional Primo Carnera narrative."

As long as I have seen you discuss the topic of Carnera (for many years), I have never seen this^^ happen.

It is funny watching you try to make sense of people, who do not agree with you, i.e., people who accept what was an extensively reported on career, as it happened in real life. It wasn't a movie and it is not "treasured". Ugliness made bare, rarely is.

On the upside, Carnera survived it; survived the war too and went on to make a good life for himself. In that respect, it is a great human comeback story, for which the protagonist should be admired.

I hope you can forgive my finding a good deal of mirth in that statement.

It probably is complex, because life and its events often are complicated. But the presence of complexity does not indicate that an antithetical history lurks within the conundrum. Either way, it is highly unlikely that anyone will peel that particular onion sufficiently enough to shift the narrative in the direction you would like it to move.

 

Talk to em Jan, give em that work

 

Smokin Joe and Foreman are both highly overrated, neither was that fantastic to be honest very few HWs are.

 

They all suck

Except for Tony Tucker. I watched him fight when I was 10 while punching the air.

 

HW is as shallow as a rain puddle on the road.

 

No key pillars have come crashing down.

Primo Carnera was managed by renowned and confirmed bootlegging gangsters and felons in America, he was initially built up on set-ups and some highly suspicious wins amid tons of hype and circus-like promotion, and he was exploited financially.

In his defence :
1. He's far from being the only champion or ranked fighter to be given a dubious build up.
2. He did improve as a fighter between 1930 and 1933, through legitimate hard work and experience.
3. He managed to keep a bit of money or property.
4. He's been singled out too much as a unique fraud, used as a scapegoat, or a symbol.

None of those four points invalidate the essence of what you call the "traditional narrative".

 

an excellent summation by Unforgiven. I would mainly part company somewhat on "exploited financially" and "a bit of money or property."

I would say he ended up with significant money and property in Italy.

As for his financial situation, his biggest problem might have been something which had nothing to do with the mob. He lost a breach of promise suit. My take is rather than being financially naive, Carnera looks to have been a street smart guy who hooked up with advisors such as Soresi and Chadbourne who knew how to protect his assets through international manipulation.

I can understand the old narrative take of Carnera being penniless. He was claiming bankruptcy in US courts.

As for the pillars of the old narrative, I think facts knock out the extreme takes like all or most of Carnera's fights were fixed and he couldn't fight a lick, while ending his boxing career penniless.

 

This is essentially what I am arguing.