An opinion on Primo Carnera from 1993

Well if the cap fits, then wear it I guess!

You might want to go back and read this thread, along with the notorious Carnera Bowe thread.

It is a morality, tale.

It is a metaphor of boxing corruption.

It is like one of Aesop's fables.

That is why people can't let go of it!

A shred of common ground here perhaps.

I seem to be forgiving a lot recently, so why the hell not?

 

OK. Let me re-word. I do not think you have represented the "traditional narrative" accurately.

No "key pillars" came crashing down in this or the "Better All-Round Fighter: Primo Carnera or Riddick Bowe?", thread, either.

The OPs of both threads involve pitting Carnera against the modern Super Heavyweights. The 'Bowe' thread, in particular, saw a small group try to argue a case for Carnera as being better than Bowe. Your own contribution threw up some interesting insights into your own thinking on the matter...

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...carnera-or-riddick-bowe.585492/#post-18518839

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...carnera-or-riddick-bowe.585492/#post-18519097

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...a-or-riddick-bowe.585492/page-9#post-18521789

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-or-riddick-bowe.585492/page-64#post-18577351

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-or-riddick-bowe.585492/page-19#post-18540609


This was a few years ago now and I'm sure you still stand by these opinions, but I would bet a whole lot of money that your thoughts on Carnera's skillset leave you in very small minority - which is where you and your compadres were left during the thread in question.

The poll spoke for itself, as did other peculiar statements from different disciples of Carneraism, such as: "Primo was a bonafide SHW great".

In a separate thread on 'Primo Carnera's ability', another disciple writes: "Primo was the Superheavyweight prototype at a time when the world was not yet ready for that kind of heavyweight. A renaissance is coming."

This is, at best, the stuff of mere fringe theory - but, for the most part it is self-indulgent, re-imagined guff.

There has not been enough new data, in terms of writings or film of Carnera, to justify these departures from accepted opinion. The majority of the so-called 'new information' is revised opinion on pre-existing data. And that's all it is - revised opinion, for which any purported basis has been addressed and dismantled for you, as frequently as you care to repeat the same old rhetoric.

The above sums up your own obsession and romanticized view of Carnera, spanning a decade, at least.

Just write your book and show us your workings out. Then we will see what kind of a case you really have. Otherwise, it will simply stay an endless cycle of one baseless assertion, after another.

 

That's fair enough but the best you could argue then is that Paul Gallico and a few others exaggerated and sensationalised some of the story and exaggerated the uniqueness of Carnera's case.

The essence that Carnera was a manufactured hype job whose record received a significant net benefit from mobster connections is correct.
It's not a "fable".

Carnera himself, even at his best, was pretty much exposed for good in round 1 of the Baer fight, and Baer was just a tough guy with raw power and talent but very crude boxing ability.

 

I think one could argue that, whilst match-fixing and set-ups were nothing new, the case of Carnera was unique.

Sure, almost any boxer, at some level, at some time, was likely going to have to deal with the Mob, but there is a difference between being Mob-connected and being a product of The Mob and I would suggest that Carnera was the latter.

As such, the uniqueness lies in how brazen the pimping out of Carnera was, from the beginning, until the end; too brazen to not be picked up and run with by the sports columnists (and Gallico was just one of a number of these writers).

Sensationalism or no, I do think enough evidence exists to put Carnera's case into a class of its own, when compared to other boxers of the time, who may or may not have benefited from a 'stepping-stone' here and there.

I couldn't say I am aware of any other lineal world champion, who was so steeped in the 'manufacturing' process, as was Carnera, but would gladly look at any other comparable cases.

 

What went so badly wrong, is that this aspect of Carnera's career came to overshadow the core facts.

Today Carnera is remembered primarily for his mob connections, when he should be remembered as the man who won the title from Jack Sharkey.

I agree that he was lucky to get his title shot against a weak champion.

I think that there were at least a couple of other contenders who could have beaten that version of Sharkey.

 

There were indeed a couple of contenders who defeated Sharkey that same year, 1933. Loughran and Levinsky. Both lost fights to Carnera, one in earlier years and one a year later.

 

I'd say he was a unique case.
But not quite as far from the standard of the time as Gallico et al. might have portrayed it. In some ways, Carnera was a kind of symbol or scapegoat .... but that was due to him being the worst, most brazen case, as you point out.
The whole "giant circus freak" sideshow, and "invincible monster", was apparent from the start.
At his peak, they sold him on the back of Ernie Schaaf's unfortunate death, which probably had very little to do with Carnera's prowess at all.

 

Yeah, and Sharkey shouldn't have been champion at that point anyway.
The "win" over Schmeling was lambasted as a robbery by a vast number of observers.

 

There are two major issues about the historical Carnera and while they are usually conflated, they are separate.

One is if Carnera was a fraud whose career rise was always dependent on fixed fights, and so was not a legit champion.

The other is if Carnera was exploited financially, ending up destitute, or at least with little to show for his career.

These two issues are not intertwined in that Carnera could have been a fraud who ended up with significant assets. Or he could have been a legit champion who ended up with little or no money. There have been plenty of fighters like that over the years.

On the first issue, there is a great deal of smoke about fixes in 1929 and 1930, and there is fire. From the JIm Maloney fight on the issue is more clouded. Carnera goes the distance with most of the ranked men, and loses four decisions between 1930 and 1932. The films show a fighter who, while always mediocre in a p4p sense, improved and with his immense advantage in size over the field of the time, ended up good enough to win the title from a weak champion in a weak era.

On the second issue, Carnera clearly came out of his career with significant assets in Italy.

Whether he should have ended up with even more money and property is an issue for debate. Is the premise that his mob managers sought to rip him off supported by facts? How central were "respectable" advisors such as Soresi and Chadbourne?

What we do know is that the over-the-top buildup made him famous and somehow this laborer and circus performer ended up well off, and lived, despite ups and downs, a very good life. His daughter mentions she knew Charlie Chaplin, Bob Hope, and John Wayne, as her father entertained them at their home.

For those who buy into the total fraud take, the question arises if Owney Madden would be his nemesis or the fairy godfather of this Cinderella tale.

 

Carnera is unique in being the subject of an over-the-top buildup unlike any other I can think of.

He is not unique in getting a title shot. He defeated a good number of contenders to earn his shot.

As a symbol of exploitation within boxing, he is a terrible example. So many fighters end up with nothing while Carnera ended up with quite a bit of property and money, plus fame, and lived a good life. His daughter mentions that he told her that if had to do it all over again, he would, as boxing allowed him to give his children the life he wanted them to have.

My observation is that many, and perhaps most, of the worst exploitation examples within boxing were of African-Americans. One might wonder why one of them wasn't chosen to be the Toro Morino figure. I think asking that question answers it.

 

It was an irony that Carnera's image as a fearsome giant was greatly enhanced by the tragedy of Schaaf - but it was not surprising, either. It was made all the more bitter, however, with the twist of Sharkey not only having signed to fight Carnera the day before that fateful bout, but also having been in the corner of Schaaf that night.

Sharkey and Carnera had, of course, already attempted to make a Title Fight happen with the help of the NYSAC (their version of the title having been stripped from Schmeling). This attempt failed, due to the intervention of The Garden, with whom Carnera was contracted and so it became a non-title affair instead, which Sharkey had to win to remain relevant.

More irony, in that Sharkey's win over Carnera, in '31, was the only thing keeping him in the running. Schmeling's win against Stribling sealed the Black Uhlan as the recognized champion and the man to beat.

Politics aside, Schmeling/Sharkey (II) seemed inevitable. But then came that Decision - Sharkey was Champion and Carnera would be next up to get his shot (even though it took a year for Sharkey to defend).

Good fortune works in mysterious ways, sometimes.

 

I think Carnera would argue that he was overdue a shot at this point.

He was supposed to get a shot at Schmeling, but it fell through.

 

I agree that Schmeling should almost certainly have got the decision, but Carnera actually won the title more convincingly than either Sharkey or Schmeling.

He probably should have got some credit for that.

As for the allegations that Sharkey took a dive, they dishonor Sharkey's legacy as much as they do Carnera's.

Some people bizarrely see them as offering Sharkey some mitigation, while in fact they make him out to be a dishonorable man.

 

I read one opponent refused to take a dive to Carnera and Primo's "management" poisoned the guy before the fight so Carnera would be able to beat the guy. Even if that did happen I'm not saying Carnera was in on any of it. More than likely he was just being used and exploited in his innocence. Where there is smoke there is fire.