Did Siki expose Carpentier as being mostly hype?

According to how the rules were applied in the UK at the time ,and they were stringently followed ,Corri acted correctly, hitting when your opponent was down resulted in an immediate dsq,whether the blow was intentional or not whether it was a full blooded punch or a glancing one there were no exceptions. Corri gave the same verdict in a later fight when the man winning the fight unintentionally landed a blow on his opponent that was deemed low.

Gourdy looked to be well on the way to some kind of victory when, in the middle of an exciting melee in Cain’s own corner, the former swung his left outrageously, if no doubt quite accidentally low. Cain sank to the floor of the ring in great pain and the referee gave the only possible decision according to the rules – a disqualification of Gourdy.”
Western Daily Press - Tuesday 22 January 1929

The power of the punch, or the intent of the man who threw it were not deemed excusable.
I would agree it is farcical to blindly follow such a rule and of course we don't today , but boxing in the UK at the time did adhere strictly to that interpretation .
Eugene Corri had an impeccable reputation and refereed many big fights,in a 32 year career, to suggest he was incompetent and biased does him a disservice,he later expressed his own regret at the verdict but explained why he arrived at it.
Deschamps as you said ,was always ready to cry foul whenever his boy was in trouble , but lets not forget that the 170lbs Carp had Smith down in that fight too.


Looking at Townley's record, [23-14-1 having won 1 of his last 9,]and I admit to knowing nothing about him, the obvious question one would ask is why would it be deemed necessary to bribe him to take the fall ?

I'd say Carpentier was a good European level fighter, that feasted on the poor crop of British heavyweights we had at the time , but when he stepped up to true world class he ran into trouble.

 

I understand Corri's position but many ringside and more who watched the film stated the punch didnt even land and added that Descamps jumping into the ring before Corri had even rendered a verdict trumped anything Smith had done. Corri wasnt immune to controversy or bias, just a week earlier he had been the sole vote in Ritchie-Welsh and voted for the hometown fighter by one point in a fight that a lot of people felt Ritchie deserved no worse than a draw and should have retained his title. Ritchie landed the harder punches, was stronger, and forced the fight but Corri, as was typical in England at the time, gave more credence to Welsh's pitty pat punches and seemed to censure Ritchie for infighting which was frowned on in Europe and Australia. Later he once again ruled for the hometown favorite in Wilde-Moore in another close fight. Corri wasnt infallible. He made mistakes and as I said, he admitted that had he seen Descamps enter the ring he would have disqualified Carpentier. This is all academic though as the point stands, it was hardly a convincing, emphatic, or impressive win for Carpentier. And while the 170 pound Carpentier dropped Smith, Smith dropped Carpentier as well. And if the point about Carpentier's weight is to somehow illustrate that he was at a disadvantage its not like Gunboat was some huge HW. The guy was making the 170s himself until the end of his career without even trying.


As for Townley, no he wasnt that good, but neither was Battling Siki. Why was it necessary to fix a fight with a unskilled brawler like Siki who never accomplished anything else the rest of his career? Siki had never fought or beaten a world class fighter when he faced Carpentier. Why attempt to fix that fight? They were well aware of Siki's skill level. I dont have any evidence that Townely was fixed but he literally goes down from punches that miss him by nearly a foot and does a horrible acting job in the fight. I dont need anymore evidence than that. The fight was a joke. Like I said, it was the Georges Carpentier show, it was sports entertainment. Why fix a wrestling match today between a ripped 6' 8" 300 pound athletic headliner and some local toughguy who cant even afford his own tights that shows up flabby and in blue jeans? Because its all for show thats why.

I agree 100% with your assessment. I think he was a good regional talent, on par with a good club fighter over here (which isnt an insult as a good club fighter was a good thing in that era, not so much today). Maybe even a lower tier contender but like I said: In terms of all time status I think there were dozens of guys across many weight classes who would have embarrassed him and in his own time I think there were quite a few guys from MW to HW who would have handed him his ass. He was a very very important figure in boxing history but in my opinion he want a great fighter.

 

Tommy Loughran said a lot of crazy stuff. He also said he beat Greb every time they fought (didnt happen), that Greb didnt lay a glove on him in their first fight (he lost by most accounts), that Gene Tunney ducked a rematch with him (it was actually Loughran who cancelled their scheduled rematch), and so on. Loughran is one of those fighters who has an excuse for every loss, and who builds up guys he beat easily to inflate his reputation. Its kinda like those Ring Magazine articles where they interview a guy on the best hes faced and he comes up with some odd name that he beat easily who wasnt even that good but for some reason refuses to acknowledge some all time great that whipped his ass. Ive seen very few moments or real candor from Loughran. Loughran did struggle a bit with Carpentier though which is kind of surprising but Loughran may not have had enough firepower to keep Carpentier honest. Its notable that after Loughran knocked Carpentier down late in the fight Carpentier was much less aggressive and much more manageable for Loughran.

 

Good points.
Reading the Wilde v Moore fight the UK position was that Moore slapped with the inside of the glove,so a lot of his punches did not count.The Americans obviously disagreed ,I haven't seen the fight or any extensive reports ,so I am ignorant as to who deserved the win. Corri was not infallible ,who is? But he wasn't crooked or biased as far as I can tell, maybe he applied the rules a little too by the book?
I actually believed Carpentier was a great LHVY until I joined this site and read some opinions of him, yours being particularly informative after that,I did a bit of research on my own account and have now revised my opinion.He wasn't a great,just a good Euro level fighter and his record supports that.

Deschamps apparently knew the truth and that's why he baby sat Georges so closely.
To my way of thinking that is a lot of what this site should be about assessing ,and re-assessing fighters, bouncing our opinions off each other ,so we arrive at a balanced and informative conclusion.
Smith wasn't a great fighter either but you already know that,he had a purple patch of about 18 months then subsided to his real level.Clay Moyle puts Smith's win over Langford in its proper perspective.
The GunBoat scaled 182lbs for Carp.

 

I agree about Loughran according to his interview in," In This Corner," he never really deserved to lose a decision.
A great fighter but "selective" in his recall.
.

 

If I remember correctly the only time Ive really seen Loughran give an honest assessment of some of his opponents was when he was testifying before the Kefauver Commission... and he was under oath. LOL. I might be remembering that wrong but there was one time I read Loughrans comments where he basically admitted that he lost to Tunney and Greb and gave them a world of credit, which was unusual for him and I think that was in the kefauver transcripts.

Maxie Rosenbloom was another who always claimed to have won every fight although you can sometimes find him give his opponents some credit, more often than Loughran for sure.

 

Whoever said Carpentier was Euro level had it right imo.

I find myself slagging off the guy more often than defending him. This is not disrespect, it is just that there is a fair bit of film of him, and he doesn't look great in any of it. He had *****, a good right hand and was a good judge of range, but where is his inside game? where is stamina? if he's any sort of master boxer where is a jab?

I've seen signs of as many, if not more, good things from Jim Corbett's very limited film than from Carpentier tbh.

edit - slag, ball, *****.

edit 2 - apparently slag is a better word than 'more than one ball'.

 

Another factor that should not be overlooked is Carpintiers age when he was fighting the best middleweights.

He was just an 18 year old kid when he fought Klaus and Papke, who were basically the greats of that era, yet their title claims still turned on beating him!

Not hard to see why he was respected at the time.

 

You see this argument bandied about all the time in relation to Carpentier but you can watch him fight in 1912 and watch him fight in 1924 and his style and ability didnt change, evolve, or progress. He wasnt losing to guys in 1912 because he was inexperienced and then beating guys in 1920 because he was so much better. That one doesnt hold up.

Neither Papke, nor Klaus' claim to the championship hinged on beating Carpentier. Where exactly did Carpentier then or now establish himself as a championship claimant??? Just because some French promoter calls Carpentier a champion, like some Australian promoter called Darcy a champion, in order to sell tickets, doesnt make it so.

 

I thought hype came from hyperbole, which is exaggeration.

Nothing was exaggerated about Ruth. The record for home runs was 27 in 1918, set in 1884. Ruth broke it with 29 in 1919. Then hit 54 (!) in 1920. Any athlete who not only does better than anyone has ever done, but doubles the previous record (and later raised it even higher) is simply sensational. Jim Brown as a running back was another such. I wouldn't consider them hyped.

In contrast, Carpentier was a middling champion, at best, who failed against the majority of his top opponents. His is hardly one of the outstanding records in boxing history, even to that time.

"Physically he was a match for any lt hwt who ever lived."

Well, on film he looks smaller and weaker than Siki. There were those in his own day who claimed he was actually around 165 lbs and his weights were often exaggerated. Who knows? However, he does look smallish on film.

The bottom line for Carpentier is that he was the outstanding Euro boxer at a time the sport was just catching on across the continent. He ko'd a couple of weak jawed Brit heavies (Wells and Beckett) on the way up. He won the title from a so-so champion, and lost it badly to another so-so champion only two years later. No reason to think him in the same class as Conn or Moore, or even Joey Maxim.

And I am giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming all his fights were on the level.

In fairness to Carpentier, it is valid that his early fights were before he was mature--he left for the war at 20. He re-started his career seriously five years later. He was still pretty young, but it can be argued that he lost his best years. But that is an argument for might-have-been rather than was.