Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

Is there a good Carnera book?

 

no it's not selective. Actual fight reports that stick to simply action were good. It is not selective. I have addressed Joe Louis's accounts. They compare equally to his evaluation of Max Baer too. Generally The detailed analysis of fight people is based on a more qualified viewpoint than an observer with a less specialised knowledge. And fight people are more consistent in rating Primo.

the columnists of the day include Runyon. His wife had a very public romantic affair with Primo. Why don't you think there is a chance This likely enraged many journalists who could not wait to ridicule Primo?

I don't ignore this. I have addressed this. Joe Louis had so easy a time with Max Baer and Primo it made him realise how good he was. Having a perfect performance it is difficult to assess what was good about the guy he just beat. He thought Baer was scared to death, that Baer might be throwing the fight, that Baer didn't hit hard and that he could not understand why Baer was not better. By comparison to Carnera he at least said it was hard to get under his guard. He was just being honest. Both guys had nothing to him. Just like everybody else on the scene at that time. Of Braddock he wrote "I could have finished him anytime after the first round". If anything picking Joe Louis' view of fighters at that time is selective!

if anything it is a disregard of Ray Arcel, Jack Dempsey, Max Schmeling and all the other fight people who endorse Primos legitimacy if you are watching this film looking to agree with the biased views of 1930s sensationalist journalism.

what is unrealistic about confirmed endorsements of champion fighters and trainers?

slim to nothing? I think you are getting carried away with yourself here. I have produced endorsements of champions. A detailed fight report of the Neusel fight which is entirely crucial to crush the theory that Primo was a hype job since that win came after the Louis loss. You ignore this entirely! Rez has also produced some fabulous information.

you are leaning towards the minority when it comes to fight people. That is the unrational part. Why ignore a Max Schmeling? As for Primos barnstorming and early career padding. So what? How does that put a question mark on his legitimate wins against rated leading fighters?

the flimsy part is the ludicrous favouritism you show toward the views of Hollywood sensationalism and non fight people rather than trusting your own eyes or the views of actual fight people like Ray Arcel and Max Schmeling.

 

Yes there's a good book by Joseph S. Page on Primo. It's called Primo Carnera the life and career of the heavyweight champion. You can read some of it on the internet.

 

Arguing with MM?

Good luck ...

 

It's hardly an argument, the man thinks he knows better than Ray Arcel..

 

Gracias

 

Nothing wrong with that assessment.Does he say anywhere that he was great fighter?

 

This is deliberate misinformation!
This is Carnera's quote.

"That book, yes, I have read it," he said, nodding his huge head. "It is all true." . Note the underlined.

 

Carnera's major legacy is arguably his charity work.

The Primo Carnera Foundation for disadvantaged children is a major charitable organisation today:

http://www.niaf.org/niaf_event/giov...italy-bestows-posthumous-award-in-rome-italy/

Doesn’t exactly fit with Gallico's narrative.

 

No,he thinks Joe Louis knows better than you!

Did Gallico anywhere say Carnera was a bad person,mean-spirited,a cheat? He ended up an alcoholic dying from cirrhosis but that hardly makes him evil in any way. Carnera was a man easily swayed in whatever direction anyone wished to move him, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but essentially a well meaning, good spirited man.
He was both the secretary of the National Fascist Party and active as a partisan against them.
Carnera himself made no personal contributions towards childrens charities that foundation was set up after he was dead. The accuracy of what you posted must also be questioned ,look at the following, taken directly from it.
Carnera, born in 1906 in the commune of Sequals in the region of Friuli- Venezia Giulia, became the first Italian boxer to win the worldwide heavyweight title. He became a living legend in the U.S., having been the subject of the well-received 1956 movie “Il Colosso di Argilla,” in which he was played by Humphrey Bogart. He died in 1967 at the age of 61

 

My point was not that Carnera was a good person; my point was that he had a significant post boxing legacy.

He had success with a number of other projects.

I would guess that the author of this article is not a boxing follower, so they may not understand the controversy surrounding Carnera's career.

 

Carnera, after his wrestling days were over, opened a deli but he became increasingly reliant on drink and his custom dwindled.
Please elaborate on the successful projects he engaged in.
What does any of it have to do with Gallico's assessment of him as a fighter?

 

What is the question here? Is the argument if Carnera is as good as Bowe? I dont think many people believe that. Is carnera better than some people give him credit for? I think that argument can be made. Could carnera get into the top 10 or so in different, eras like the 70s 80s or 90s? Maybe.

 

Can we have those endorsements from Jeffries and Dempsey that you have repeatedly referred to?

Second time of asking.

 

It's all true that he read the book. That's what he's saying, English was not his first language. If he really thought the content was true he would not have taken legal action! Think about it. It's a ludicrous interpretation otherwise.