Floyd Patterson vs. Primo Carnera

The book I mentioned earlier says that he was dropped by his managers sometime around his 2 fights with Leroy Haynes, after that the promoters wouldn't book him as he wasn't regarded as a draw.

I'd have thought if there was any belief that Carnera was a genuine fighter he'd have been able to carry on fighting in the US after 1936.

 

Don't duck my question now. I'll repeat:

What information makes you say Carnera's career was a fix for a fact?

 

Floyd is too fast.

Paterson TKO.

 

Anecdotal and circumstancial evidence. How many primary fight reports can you dig up that say crowds are booing a fix? Many fighters had early bouts that were fixed. It's been suggested a few of Liston's early fights were fixed.

 

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0712F63C5F11738DDDAF0894DB405B818FF1D3

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...NERA+WINS+ON+FOUL+IN+FIFTH+ROUND&pqatl=google

 

The thing I find most interesting about Carnera is the terrific gap between what was actually said when he was fighting and the spin put out today. I recently read the biog of Carnera at boxrec. Here, for example, is the comment on the first Uzcudun fight, as the writer is telling us how transparently bad Carnera was:

"In his very next match, against Paulino Uzcudun, Carnera again appeared to be badly outboxed. Though reporters subsequently remembered seeing Carnera win two rounds of the scheduled ten rounds, he was awarded a dubious decision."

Here is the New York Times report on the fight--11-1-1930

"80,000 see Carnera win from Paulino--Giant Italian dominates fight in Barcelona and gains unanimous decision. Clearly beats rival in 10 rounds."

Carnera won a unanimous decision in Uzcudun's home town, but this is spun to show what a bad and overrated fighter he was. What about the 1933 rematch? Here is what the New York Times said on 10-23-1933

"Primo Carnera, recently crowned world's heavyweight champion, today retained his title against the onslaught of the 35 year old Basque, Paulino Uzcudun, in one of the most one-sided contests ever seen. Carnera won all fifteen rounds."

 

Certainly Carnera had many failings as a fighter, but even so, I think you are being too rough on him. He did legitimately beat several top fighters of his day. At his peak, Carnera was definitely a legitimate top contender, and he won the title in what was apparently a fair fight.

Watch Carnera's fights on youtube.com. It's clear that he uses his size effectively to compensate for his relative lack of ability. All in all, he was a moderately skilled fighter who was no worse than many of the other leading heavyweights of his day. He cannot be dismissed as a total bum.

As for Carnera's losing record after losing to Louis, I think the simple truth is that he was over-the-hill physically and emotionally. That happens to fighters all the time when they fall from their peaks.

 

After 1936, Primo was washed-up as an athlete. That he was in decline at this later stage of his career does not prove that he was a bad fighter earlier, when he was at his peak.

 

I agree.

It's almost certainly true that many of Carnera's small-time fights in the boondocks -- tune-up fights against mediocrities -- were fixed. But I don't think there's any serious evidence showing that Carnera's major fights (Sharkey, Uzcudun, Loughran, etc.) were fixed.

 

Carnera was in the hospital for months after his second loss to Haynes. He was diagnosed with diabetes in an era when they did not have the type of treatment they have today. He lost a kidney in 1938.

Carnera won four impressive fights after the Louis loss, including a knockout of contender Walter Neusel. His physical collapse between 1936 and 1938 certainly raises the possibility that illness was at the base of his decline.

 

I can't view either document without paying for it, but at any rate, what does it prove? I've seen the DQ win of Carnera over Godfrey, and it was legit. A fight was bood, okay. Read the following:


Here is a report on one of Dempsey's fights: "Dempsey landed only one blow, a left hook to the solar plexus. Carl went to the canvas writhing and stayed there until the very long count was completed. He had insisted on full payment before the fight. Everyone thought that he had "flopped" and cries of "Fake!," "Police!," and "Jail the big tramp," and the like, were heard."

And Dempsey's career went downhill after he lost the title too, when they stopped fixing his fights and after years of avoiding the legit top contender in Harry Wills. So when he couldn't win anymore with the power of fixes, he started wrestling.


Feel free to refute any of the above stated.



By the way, i wouldn't be surprised if any of Carnera's early, obscure fights were fixed. But those things happened often back then. Hell, still today, i've heard many rumours of Foreman's comeback opponents being payed to lay down. The same goes around about Liston. What matters is that when these men, and that includes Carnera, stepped up to top competition, they delivered and in a legitimate way.

The circumstancial evidence and ton of speculation that would lead you to believe Carnera's career was fixed is just laughable to me; perhaps even more so than the ******ed 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

Was it though.

Carnera got his title shot based on his wins over Levinsky, Lasky and Schaff who were all ranked when Carnera beat them. There is no suggestion from even his harshest critics that these fights were fixed.

I have played back the fight where he won the title from Sharkey many times and there is no way it was fixed.

If the aforementioned fights are on the level then Carnera earned his title shot and won the title by a prety uncontrovertial knockout over the reigning champion.

That would make him as legitimate a champion as any other.

 

Carnera is one of those rare fighters whose legacy actually got worse over time. And not because people started realizing how bad/good his opponents were, but because lies are being made up based on nothing but speculation.

Pretty sad, really.