Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

To even call Primo's defense marvelous, and trying to support such is a premise, is being blatantly disingenuous!! We might call it adequate or serviceable, but why are people trying to defend marvelous? We can clearly see in the fights we have on video, it's not marvelous.

 

Of course it isn't well ,only to the "flat earth brigade."

 

Nat Fleischer saw many sunrises dating back to 1908 and he said that the sun sometimes did rise in the west.

 

Having amazing stamina and being game under fire are not boxing skills.
As to his heart ,he did have a big one, but he also quit in that fight as he did against Louis and Haynes .
Any of those produced by you , or Choklab, as positive as this one is totally negative?
ON the question of your quotes ,
re the Jeffries one ,all he said was that Carnera was a better boxer than Baer ,who wasn't? lol

 

It was Benny Leonard who said it.

Nobody else did more than quote his opinion.

 

If you asked me to say which of the two was the more reliable observer, I would unhesitatingly say Schmeling.

Tunney was a self-publicist who tended to tweak history in his favour, while Schmeling sees to have called it as he saw it.

 

Not really though J, people are trying to support. That is why this thread is 27 pages long. If all that happened was simply posting that quote, and nothing more, we still wouldn't be here. Honestly J, do you think Primo had "Marvelous" defense?

 

Some serious back-tracking going on, now!

Would you claim that you weren't even supporting Leonard's statements?

See below:


https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...neras-defense-marvelous.586836/#post-18559876


What do you call the above then?

 

Of course you would.

I am not surprised by your leaning, whatsoever.

 

I would be curious to know what part of it you would take exception to.

I don't think that I would have much trouble in showing that Tunney was a self-publicist, and I think that you would have a lot of trouble showing Max Schmeling to be a misleading observer.

 

Tunney wasn't tweaking history in his favour,he wasn't a friend of either fighter, he was commenting on a fight he had watched from ringside the night before . Schmeling on the other hand had "history" with Sharkey.
Your " interpretations " are beginning to rival Choklab's for extemporizing!lol

 

I am not back tracking at all.

I said that Leonard supported my position when he said that Carnera had good technique for optimising his size to his advantage.

Leonard does specifically say this in the article.

The word marvellous is Leonard's word not mine, but then what would he know?

Perhaps you should stop spluttering your coffee over the keyboard for long enough to read what people actually write!

 

Tunney often gave misleading or false accounts of his own fights, in order to present himself in a more favourable light.

He also had a history of building up his own opposition, at the expense of those from other eras.

The fact that he didn’t have a history with either fighter was itself enough to get them an unfavourable write up.

Schmeling as far as I can tell seems to have given a fair write up to most people, whether he had a history with them or not.