Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

You dismiss Louis' comments? I suppose he had an agenda eh?

 

1937-11-18 : Albert Di Meglio 199 lbs beat Primo Carnera 255¾ lbs by PTS in round 10 of 10

• Location: Salle Wagram, Paris, Paris, France

"Primo Carnera came back tonight, but only to Salle Wagram, the arena where he fought his first battle for a $20 purse. He lost on points to a second-rater... Those among the 3000 spectators who had seen Carnera's debut seemed to agree either he had not learned much boxing in the meantime or else he had forgoten what he had ever known about it. The only damage done in the ring was a pair of black eyes, one for Carnera and the other for the referee who received one of the giant's wild swings

 

How much of the fight have you actually seen?
Here is the write up.
A crowd of 70,000, setting a new all-time British record for boxing attendance, saw the Canadian outbox Primo all the way to win Referee Hart's decision at the finish." New York Times

 

How much of the fight have you actually seen?
Here is the write up.
A crowd of 70,000, setting a new all-time British record for boxing attendance, saw the Canadian outbox Primo all the way to win Referee Hart's decision at the finish." New York Times

I've already listed the superheavyweights that he fought ,in reply to your tag partner" Deluded 1234 " who said he hadn't the experience of fighting them when he faced Impelletiere! I put up 21 fights!lol

 

If the Title of this Thread had been: 'What is Your Opinion of Primo Carnera's Boxing Career', then this would have been a fine summary of your viewpoint.

However, the thread's title is: Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

The original post is a newspaper clip referring to Benny Leonard's references to Primo's defense, in the build up to the Max Baer bout.

I appreciate the opinion that Carnera might well have been unfairly treated by history but your post above does not in any way make reference to Canera's defensive capability (or lack thereof); not once using the word 'defense'.

 

Yes and it would only mean anything if these writers were boxers or trainers or fight people of the day rather than some mut with a typewriter who reports on lots of other subjects.

The examples I have used are testaments from actual boxers, indeed champions who fought, refereed Carnera or watched Carnera ringside. They have a lot more idea than a guy called Tod who wrote an observation of the film we can look at today.

 

I believe it's called, "artistic licence"lol

 

Ah yes - It did have the 'poet' about it. LOL.

 

You dont think the New York Times had a competent boxing writer?

"Primo Carnera came back tonight, but only to Salle Wagram, the arena where he fought his first battle for a $20 purse. He lost on points to a second-rater... Those among the 3000 spectators who had seen Carnera's debut seemed to agree either he had not learned much boxing in the meantime or else he had forgoten what he had ever known about it. The only damage done in the ring was a pair of black eyes, one for Carnera and the other for the referee who received one of the giant's wild swings." (New York Times

 

But you throw out Joe Louis' opinion?
Please bear in mind Schmeling never fought Carnera neither did Dempsey and Baer's comments were made before he himself actually fought Louis!
I venture to suggest that he may have drastically altered his opinion after his own night of pain with Louis!
Blackburn told Louis there was a cloud about Carnera's real ability.

Sharkey said there was a lot of suspicion about his fights,Gains said he did not punch his full weight and Louis said he had nothing, he pushed his right hand and had no punch.Thats the three who actually fought him.

 

As I've said before, that's your prerogative.

The volume of independent observers, describing what they saw as poor boxing skills in Carnera, to me carries weight. Sports journalists, of which there are and have been many, are trained to write about what they observe. The good ones do so impartially.

At a time when the written media was the primary form of mass communications, it seems somewhat blinkered to reduce your scope of acceptable evidence to those who are not trained observers and writers. To dismiss them just because they have not actually boxed, trained a boxer or reffed a fight is prejudicially convenient for you.

And, once again, what has the journalist's name got to do with it? You just make yourself look willfully ignorant and 'anti' anyone with a view, which opposes your own - and that's fine by me because it is so obvious, as to reduce your opinion to a clearly recognizable and mere bias.

 

I do not, nor have I ever thrown out Joe Louis's comments but I think his comments need to be taken into context with him being so far ahead of everybody. Also the climate of the time the writers and publicity people were making it a personification of a war between Italy and Ethiopia. People were saying things like Louis should take it out on Carnera what Mussolini was proposing to do to the defenceless Africans and other such racial hype. Primo did not help his cause making faces at Louis and in joes words "behaving foolish" toward him. With all that said, joe didn't exactly say a lot of positive things about Baer or Braddock either.

Joe Louis on Carnera:
"he couldn't punch, but he had a pretty decent Jab. He pushed with his right and he was awkward. Mostly he tried to scare me with his weight. It was hard to get under his guard at first, but chappie told me to pace myself and the openings would come"
"(Because)he never hurt me once, I felt ready for any heavyweight in the world - jimmy Braddock, Max Baer, anybody."

Joe Louis on Max Baer:

"he came out of his corner like he was scared to death" "the only time he hit me hard was at the end of the second round. He'd hit me with two rights to the head, but they didn't hurt. He couldn't hit as hard as I thought he could " "for a while I think he tried to throw the fight. He just wasn't right. I don't know what happened to him that night. I felt he wasn't the fighter I thought he should have been"


Joe Louis on Jimmy Braddock:

"I could have finished him anytime after the first round"

 

Only if this volume of independent observers understand boxing. You know how it works, these casual observers are outrageous populists. It's easier to jump on the band wagon than stick your neck out. Especially if your knowledge is only "casual". This is why to the general sports fans once a boxer gets beat, he's terrible. He's a joke. It's just entertainment to them. This is the audience for these writers. The best of them might borrow the opinion of an insider if you are lucky. But that's it. So it's better to go to the insider to begin with.

For my money if Max Schmeling says a champion really was good or technically sound then he is.

 

Your whole approach here, seems to be predicated on all press writers being casual populists and wrong, while treating all boxers as experts and correct. Even then, you either ignore or temper your interpretation of the comments from the boxers, who actually fought Carnera and do not support your viewpoint.

This is extreme bias, on your part - plain and simple.

Moreover, the available film evidence actually reflects what the writers are reporting; showing Carnera to be a significantly flawed boxer; unable to leverage his size advantage in any sustained manner. So, it is the sports writers, who appear to be giving a more balanced and correct view, where as the boxing fraternity appear to be wrong or just being polite (what we, today, would call being politically correct).

If I was given a meal for every time a so-called expert had been proven wrong, I'd never have to go shopping for food again.