Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

I'm not a Medium.

Do you have a source for the quote, please?

 

Who cares what the Herald wrote, there is nothing that they saw, that you cannot see on the film.

It looks like the ankle injury might have been caused by the first knockdown (usual health warning).

If that is the case then the knockdown in the first round that set the pattern of the fight, and the ankle injury, are effectively one and the same.

You talk about Carnera closing the distance for Baer, but Baer made him do this by moving, and was probably measuring him up for that right.

So basically it looks like Baer suckered him, and although Carnera recovered, the damage had been done.

 

Spot on.

 

Sure - because ringside observers are notoriously unreliable.
Carnera was decked 10+ times. That alone speaks to how easily Baer was handling him.
Carnera's best round (7) was a round in which Baer took a breather.
Other than that, it was a painfully drawn out massacre.

You can interpret the first knockdown and the fight, as a whole, any way you like, to suit your viewpoint. That's fine.

I doubt the ankle injury did occur after the first knockdown. Especially, when you consider the isolated moment reznick captured, of the 7th, in a GIF he has posted.

I've read impartial observers claim Carnera suffered the sprain, after the final knockdown. Either way, there's no measure of the degree of the injury and or how much it impacted Carnera.

I disagree with your analysis of the fight - pretty much in its entirety - and I doubt we will find any middle ground here. So, whilst I'd be happy to read any new and relevant information, which supports the claim of Carnera's marvelous defense (which clearly failed against Max Baer and again, against Louis), there's little more to debate.

 

We don't actually know exactly how many knockdowns occured.

A lot of knockdowns can occur when a fighter is being handled easily, but they can also occur when a fighter is hanging on by a thread.

One interpretation would be that Carnera was saved by the bell at the end of the first round, and that he was hanging on from there.

Watch Carnera get up from the first knockdown, when shown with the slow motion camera.

There seems to be something wrong with his ankle, though it might be a minor injury which laid the ground for a worse one later.

He did get brutalised by the two best punchers of the era.

He was never in the class of Louis, Baer, or even the best version of Jack Sharkey.

He was however very consistent against the contenders of the era.

If you put him in with somebody like Hamas, Levinsky, or Neusel, he would handle them with almost mechanical certainty.

 

No - I’m not telling you that. And, there’s nothing in the post you are responding to that would suggest I am. So whatever it is you are referring to as "flawed", I suggest you unimagine it.

I’m not crying; merely highlighting your desperate need to qualify your own evidence, after you’ve presented it to make your case, and then had the weaknesses in it pointed out to you. Invariably, your counter-points involve creating new side topics, which stray from the original subject matter and, in any event, fail to properly address the opposing observations put to you.

Alternatively, you just make something up.

A good example of this is your summary of what my argument "seems to boil down to", which is completely baseless. I haven’t asked that rhetorical question about Carnera, Baer and Louis; neither in the post you’re replying to nor in any other post I’ve made within this thread.

I have maintained that Benny Leonard's pre-fight reasoning (on Carnera/Baer) is sound, but relies on Carnera actually using his size and reach advantage, which he did not do in any sustained manner against Baer and that, quite oppositely, Carnera kept his hands low and seemed determined to close the distance between himself and Baer.

I cannot see, from the comments I’ve made along those lines of reasoning, how any sensible person could infer what you just have.

***Re you’re repeated question in respect to “judging Carnera’s form”, please see the previous response, above.***

What would be the proper context in which to put your interpretations; someone who believes Primo Carnera is - in your own words - “a bonafide SHW great”?

You accuse me of being oblivious to moments where he does good in the fight. How could I be? You’ve provided the GIF, demonstrating his use of reach, as evidence… …all 5 seconds of it, within which he also made a clumsy error in the placement of his feet. What should I extrapolate from that?

The burdens of being a Super Heavyweight?

Are these the burdens Benny Leonard was referring to - the ones giving him a “marvelous defense”, because of his “long reach of eighty inches, Carnera is difficult to hit with his long left extended”?

I don’t really need to explain anything to you. It’s clear you not only have a fixed idea of how good you think Carnera was but you have also cultivated a bag of excuses for any reasonable opposition to this idea - a lot of which seem to rely on your interpretation of what 'good' and 'poor' looks like, in several-second segments of film, and your concept of a Super Heavyweight.

No - What is truly pathetic is you taking a swipe at my wording, in respect to a point I’ve already taken out of my argumentation, whilst simultaneously missing the point, yet again, just to serve your need to be that special kind of delusional cretin.

I've made clear in previous posts that I don't think an effect of the ankle injury is obvious in the available footage - least of all, ironically, in the 5-second clip you posted, which is from round-7. Thus, it does not appear to have a noticeable impact on Carnera's so-called defense; certainly not on his ability use his reach.

In which case, it doesn't really matter if I refer to the ankle injury as a 'sprain'; a 'fracture' or an 'amputated foot'. As far as I'm concerned, the injury has no bearing on the topic of "marvelous defense".

Do you understand that or can I expect some p!ss poor retort, which completely reinforces your utter lack of credibility - all over again?

 

And, on that^, I'll rest my case...

 

Serious question - Is English your first language? Because, I am not sure you understand the simplest aspects of its vocabulary and, if so, you really shouldn't be making arguments that attack people's use of words, even if your delusional claims have been turned into dust.

I can understand why semantics might be the only recourse left to you. Your strangely elevated view of Carnera doesn't leave you too much to work with, in terms of convincing others.


BTW - I mentioned to some people I know that I'd read from someone, who claims "Primo was a bonafide SHW great". They didn't believe me. And, were genuinely falling off their chairs laughing when I showed them your posts, as proof that someone like you exists.

So you keep bending that arm. One day you might realize what maximizing the length of the jab means.

 

Indeed, you did see something and I do not have a problem with that (though, I wouldn't describe this "merit" in the same terms that you do).

But, what has your wider, inspirational view of Carnera and broader perception of Super Heavyweights got to do with the specifics of this thread's topic? (something I have asked you, previously)

If you found my post complex and confused; the product of an unorganized and abstract mind, then my question, prior to this post, was all the more warranted.

Moreover, it was necessary to respond to you - if only to address several points you made, which included misleading implications and misrepresentations of my stated viewpoint, to the extent of supplanting it with a completely false summary made up by yourself.

You might think it acceptable to lie and give a false impression of someone else's account. I don't.

What I wrote was a simple, clear refutation of your distorted counter-points and included a reiteration of what is a very, very basic argument. That you consider it was anything other than this, is indicative of someone who perhaps misses the straightforward and instead conjures up complexities that aren't and needn't be there.

I think it is you, who uses a "veil" to hide their lack of rationale; whose only evidence is a flowery and quite questionable interpretation of mini video bytes of the Boxer in question.

I needn't take pains to distract you. You provide enough diversion for everyone.