Carnera v Godfrey,Was It Kosher ?

Zero shot it was on the level ... zero.

 

Carnera old manager who blew the whistle in print on Primo actually listed this as genuine. If it was then Primo is a better fighter than I usually rate him.

 

Hard to be sure.

Leon See, who was the principal driving force behind the alegations against Carnera, said the fight was on the level. Since I do not think him reliable in terms of the fights he aleges to be fixed, I will not draw huge inferences from him saying this fight was on the level.

Godfrey frequently wore the cuffs, but it is also possible that he had a Golotta moment.

 

I would agree with some of those but not others.

 

This performance shows how Carnera was good in the close distance, with good uppercuts, controlling well Godfrey in the clinchs......
His best filmed performance is Schaff, easily......but this a good one too.....he also looks fast IMO, especially his feet.....

I don´t see nothing that wrong with Godfrey to say this was a fix......

 

I think it was probably on the level.
A couple of ringside reporters who had previously commented that they thought Godfrey had tanked some other fights actually remarked that he seemed to be fighting in full gear this time. For what that's worth.

I think there's a lot of myth surrounding Godfrey, almost as much as surrounds Carnera.
Maybe Godfrey was out of shape a lot and maybe he was undisciplined and liked to land a few too many low blows. But instead people believe ALL or most of those fights were tank jobs.
Rumours, rumours, rumours.
Same with Carnera.


It's funny how the fighters of more recent eras have none of the suspicions cast on them that the ones in the 1920s and '30s did.
We just assume fighters are human beings and sometimes are 'unmotivated' or lacking in ambition. Back in the day, the same fights would be called 'handcuffed' and 'fake'.
I've seen tomato cans go down without being hit umpteen times on televised fights, against prospects being groomed for stardom. It barely raises a eyebrow.
But people are still upset about the fact that Carnera might have had some such outings ?

 

I don't mean literally emotionally upset - possibly a bad choice of word there - I just mean people find it quite remarkable and even troubling that Carnera might have had a few wins against guys who flopped or dived.
It's often seen as a 'problematic' surrounding Carnera.

But it's barely mentioned that other heavyweight champions were groomed on set-ups and dive-artists too, many of them in the televised era.

 

I don't know. I would expect several have had opponents who have had their purses witheld or have been suspended. Both Peter McNeeley and Bruce Seldon had their purses held up after facing Tyson, that's two opponents with four fights for Iron Mike ! But boxing is corrupt and inconsistent, so a lot of it goes on unhindered. I actually think the commissions in the 1920s and 30s might have been far stricter about certain things than in more recent times. They made more of an effort to clean up the problem of unsatisfactory fights and fighters. For example, the NY commission banned Galento and even threatened to ban Max Baer because they didn't always appear to be training or coming in the ring condition. Referees OFTEN disqualified fighters for 'stalling' and the commissioner suspended or banned them. Nowadays, if you watch a heavyweight match you can expect to see two fat guys stalling all night.

 

You inadverdantly raise an interesting point. We could set up a bout between say James Toney and Les Darcu at heavyweight in NYC. Who wins such a fantasy fight? Does Toney get DQd and banned for failing to train properly or does the fight get cancelled because Darcy didnt want to enlist in the services.

And another, now i think about it, How shallow would the current heavyweight division look. The Klitchskos at the top but would a number 1 contender even exist most of the time?

 

Also, shortly after Tyson beat those two opponents (McNeeley and Seldon), whose purses were held up, or who were suspended, ...... Lennox Lewis fought two consecutive title fights where the Nevada commission were forced to withhold the purses of the opponents and suspended them temporarily or for a length of time.
Oliver McCall and Henry Akinwande - both of whom offered no real effort or resistance in championship fights, or performed strangely and unsatisfactorily.
I think the McCall case dragged on for almost a year. He was certainly forced to pay a massive fine.

 

Champions who had opponents who were suspended

Jack Dempsey is among them.

Fred Fulton was later suspended in Minnesota when he told a reporter that the Dempsey fight had been pre-arranged to go 10 to a no-decision but that Dempsey had double-crossed him.

It is certainly relevant that United States Senate investigators (the highest body I have heard weigh in on such an issue) concluded that six of Sonny Liston's fights on the way up were fixed.

As for being 'upset' about claims early Carnera fights were fixed---I think the real issue is whether his later fights, and championship fights, were fixed. Carnera was a man who won the title in an era of weak titleholders. In the long run of heavyweight champions, he is close to the bottom, but his size, and skill on film, leads some to think he would have been a tough night at his best for anyone who didn't have the power to take advantage of his weak jaw. Others conclude that because some of his fights were fixed all or most were fixed.