Carnera hits Sharkey with a phantom punch? (Great Quality)

How many fixed fights has Douglas to his name?

 

If you are going into the tank do you train with the same intensity that you would if you were going into a straight fight you were trying to win?
If you are intending to lie down ,you would make it look as though you were trying by launching big swings ,being careful to ensure they were slow enough to be seen and avoided. Langford did it in one fight with Jeannette when he intended to take it easy\he threw a telegraphed big shot and Jeannette accidently came into it and was floored.

Did Sharkey fight like that in any other bout?
Watch his fight with Schmeling only a year earlier, do you think he forgot how to box in a year?

 

The Sharkey was flabby because he didn't train argument runs aground because Sharkey was obviously going to flab, and indeed looks just as flabby, against Max Schmeling in 1932. I just watched that film. Sharkey should have lost the decision to my eyes and really looks to already be going back quite a bit. And this is one year before the Carnera, Levinsky, and Loughran losses.

I also watched Sharkey-Maloney from 1927, and the Sharkey-Carnera 1931 fight. Against Maloney, Sharkey shows a great deal of torso movement and subsequent head movement. (In fact, he seems sort of like an adumbration of the later Ali, hands low and moving his head and body to avoid punches). There were some wild rights early in the fight.

In the 1931 fight Sharkey really worked Carnera over with lefts hooks. Carnera didn't seem to have any defense. In 1933 Primo blocked a lot of those lefts with his own right. He had improved. I don't think the overhand rights in 1933 prove much of anything as these were the punches that were reaching Carnera. What else was Sharkey to do with a man so much taller?

One factor that really argues against a fix is that Sharkey lands a perfect overhand right during the fifth round. You can see it caught Primo right on the chin and spun his head around. He took it well. But how would Sharkey be certain of that? If Carnera went down and out it would have ruined the fix, wouldn't it? Actually, Sharkey was fighting just as well in this fight over the first five rounds as he did in 1931, except that he had clearly slowed from 1931 and Carnera had improved his defense against left hooks forcing Sharkey to rely more on overhand rights.

 

I’m conflicted on this, I lean towards it being legit but with trepidation. It is true that Sharkey often mingled with gangsters of the era. He also won the title, in a fight that was likely fixed by the judges. So it’s not as if he never engaged in fights where back room deals already occurred. Now with the Schmeling bout the participants in the ring were probably unaware of any shenanigans. Also the motive may not have been gang related it could of just been New York State getting payback on a foreigner whom they felt unjustly won the belt on a foul. In the Carnera fight Sharkey’s back leg to me actually does look fake.
On the flip side Sharkey clearly was slipping he is not the ripped specimen he was in the late 20’s or the first Schmeling bout. In this fight and the Schmeling rematch he clearly looks flabby. Oddly enough both those bouts have suspicion of fix. His performance clearly diminished in both bouts.
I think it’s the legit because to me the punch looks like it lands and Sharkey while looking sloppy clearly did some things earlier in the bout that could of jeopardized the fix. You wouldn’t do that.
While I don’t think Ali/Liston was a fix, it does hold that if you were to fix a fight try and get it over with quick. Too many unpredictable things could arise in a combat sport. Much like Wilder vs Scott which I do believe was a fix get the fight over quickly.
I think Carnera while not good, was victim of an overzealous media to tarnish every good performance he had and to make a buffoon of him for every had performance. The narrative stuck for decades.
I wish we could get a definitive biography on Sharkey. His career and list of opponents as well as the mob intrigue would make a fascinating book. Hopefully he gets the Pollack treatment. From the Dempsey bout, to Wills demolition, to Schmeling Foul and fishy rematch, to the Carnera, to Schasf mentor ship and mob intrigue, I think he may have one of the most intriguing reads of all time.
As a final word it is odd he couldn’t get up , look at the right hand he gets up from that Louis hit him with

 

An excellent post, that I do not agree with.

 

Adam,after reprising his excellent bios on both Sullivan ,and Johnson, said he might skip Willard and go straight to Dempsey.

 

If Sharkey was going to go into the tank, he would almost certainly have gone down in the first round.

 

That is a shame, because Willard might have benefited from it more than most.

Sharkey's results after the Carnera fight, make his showing look very explicable.

 

I find it highly unlikely that Sharkey would have voluntarily given up the most valuable prize in sport.

 

WHY?

 

If he had outside pressure brought to bear on him.
We know that he cut training to check on his children's welfare.Can you give another example of this happening?

 

I'm in contact with Adam,he seems to feel pretty burned out at the moment.
ps Very worth while thread with some cogent points from both sides.

 

Let's say that we are going to fight, and you are planning to go into the tank.

You need to call the round when you will go down, because that makes in far more lucrative from a betting standpoint.

You would get much longer odds on Janitor to win by KO in round seven, than Janitor to win somehow.

Now if you decide to go down in the seventh then you have a problem, because I am going to be trying to knock you out for those seven rounds, and you are going to have to defend yourself without risking knocking me out.

Unless you want to share the plan with me and anybody I might talk to of course.

The safest and surest way to complete your task, without any risk of deviating from the script, is just to go out in the first round.

This is almost certainly what Sharkey would have done.

 

I have to doubt that even Carnera's handlers, would have been audacious enough to try to lean on an American heavyweight champion.

If Sharkey had picked up the phone to the police, the FBI would have been all over it.

As for Sharkey cutting training, the kid could have been ill, or it could just have been an excuse to get out of training camp.

 

Of course it was about his chin. If I was arguing for his consistency I'd go from his loss to Weinert just after his first year as a pro until the Carnera loss, 22 fights against rated fighters, losses to Gorman, Dempsey, Schmeling and Risko. Regardless of wheather you believe Sharkey was hot/cold, his records indicates that he didn't get ko'd easy which was my point as regards the question of this thread, however I can't decide what to think despite looking at this for over 40 years.