Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

Let’s not forget that he had been through most of the top contenders in the division at this point.

 

There was an article about an exhibition between Baer and Primo. Photos exist of it. I read it years ago. This was when both were retired from boxing. It was just a 3 rounder years after both had retired, but having listened to years of all the teasing Primo endured about their actual fight Primo was keen to give Baer quite a pasting. By all accounts Baer did well just to finish. Interviewed after his shellacking Baer said "I am glad this one was not for the title"

This content is protected

 

Yep.

From memory Louis countered with his right over Carnera's jab at will as well.

 

Yes it was.

The Herald Journal article (June 15, 1934) sums it up nicely...

This content is protected

In essence, Carnera was utterly battered by Baer, who it seems almost chose to drag it out over 10+ rounds.

I disagree that it was deceptive but, even if we put that to one side, I would suggest that Carnera was not using the jab as his primary weapon in any effective way; consistently closing the distance for Baer, with his hands low and with no attempt at a guard. This gave Baer the green light to throw such an audacious right.

Your generalization about Super Heavyweight susceptibility in using the jab, which in itself is debatable, is not really applicable here, even if it were a valid observation.

I am not dismissing the ankle injury. As I have already mentioned, it was unlucky. But, I still think the pattern of the fight had already been established by the end of round-1.

 

You do know what the word "almost" means, don't you?

Seems to me that even when you set up your microarguments of microarguments you only want to see the absolute positives and not consider any of the negatives on balance.

For example, it's ok for you to wax lyrical about several seconds of half-way decent boxing but then you ask "what is this relative to?" when an example of clearly awful technique is raised in the same seconds of film that you selected. Then you choose yet another, utterly irrelevant clip, to somehow what? Bolster your case?

I am not arguing about Super Heavyweights in general. I am talking about Carnera and how he was clearly unable to use his exceptional size advantage in any meaningful way. I haven't described Primo as an "oaf" or a "ponderous beast". I have made comment on what I have seen, in relation to the comments from Benny Leonard - the subject of the thread - and the fight Leonard is referring to.

How Lewis/Klitschko factors into this, I suppose only you know.

 

Baer was a notorious party animal even when he was an active fighter so this proves jack sh*t!

 

Maurice Hope beat Rocky Mattioli ,Mattioli's corner said Mattioli had damaged his ankle when he was knocked down,Mickey Duff said,"there is no argument if he hadn't have been knocked down his ankle would have been fine" ie don't get knocked down!

 

Louis said he had no trouble landing on Carnera.

 

Watched it again. He didn't have any trouble.

But I can buy that Primo was pretty effective. He did have success after all, even though there are questions as to how much of that success that wasn't legit.

But when watching him against Louis and Baer, part of his problem seems to be that he hadn't much snap in the jab. It made it easier for them to come over with a jab.

 

I have mixed feelings about damage inflicted directly and indirectly, from a punch. For example, I treat facial cuts caused from a primary impact as intentional and in contrast to a secondary, unintentional injury (fractures, breaks and sprains below the waist) resulting from a fall.

The latter are unfortunate, IMO; particularly, if they result in a bout having to be stopped - which is not typical.

An example of where I thought this was particularly unfortunate is when Michael Grant suffered a flash KD against McCline. The fact he was unable to continue, resulting in a stoppage was a cruel end to what would have been a great bout. In this case, I felt it was a freak occurrence and a freak result.

Though, I do take the point about the need to avoid getting oneself knocked down - this actually goes without saying.


Coming back to the Baer/Carnera bout and the difference here is that no one actually knows when the ankle injury occurred in the bout and there seems to be no obvious indication of it impairing Carnera. That is to say: It appears, at worst, that he was able to put weight on his ankle and adapt accordingly. Moreover, the fight was not stopped on account of his injured ankle. It was stopped because he was being battered in the face, head and torso.

 

What guard?

 

Louis said he pushed his right.