Georges Carpentier

I have the Carpentier-Tunney fight also and Carpentier did give Tunney some problems. Even the newspapers reported that the fight was close with Tunney having a slight edge until the 10th round beating.

This is not the whole fight but one can easily see that Carpentier had his moments in the fight:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i5I7Fhkppw[/ame]

 

Like I said, you havent seen the whole fight. You are watching hilights. They wouldnt be hilights unless they picked the best shots that made the fight look exciting. If Carpentier was so competetive why did the papers the following day say he was through as a fighter etc. The following day Carpentier went to the view the films of the fight and the press reported him as being swathed in bandages with a badly bruised and swollen face. Does that sound like he was competetive? Ray Coll, who was highly critical of Tunney, stated that it was an ordinary fight with one man (Tunney) slowly outpointing another (Carpentier) until the 10th when Tunney battered Carpentier. From that point on Carpentier noticably faded round after round until capitulating. Another writer familiar with Carpentier's inclination to cry foul termed it Carpentier's usual hokum and marvelled at how some of the writers had bought into his act. Once again, a further example of how star power often overrides actual ability in this sport.

 

You present a pretty interesting viewpoint, and i hope that a few of the Carpentier fans take you to task on this as i have seen some pretty good posts by his supporters over the years.

I am no expert, but it seems to me that the real answer to the question may lie somewhere between the two views. Are you suggesting that Carpentier was not really a world class force at any weight? I can accept and even think that he was not as good as Say a Tunney, but surely it is a hard mark to hold losing a fight to Tunney against him. Tunney was no Slouch! He bested Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey amongst others.

His legacy looks pretty good to me, certainly he would have surely been (at worst) a solid top 10 fighter of his time. Would you agree with this, or are you thinking that he was even lower on the world scale.

 

Could you provide more details on the Levinsky fight please.

And what do you make of the Carpentier-Jeanette fight ? I've read it was a close/controversial decision that went Jeanette's way.

 

Because he was beaten like a drum by Tunney in the 10th round? I'm not saying that Carpentier didn't get decisively beaten in the end, and badly beaten he was, I'm saying that he was competitive for 10 rounds, which he was.

Blow by blow:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=georges carpentier tunney&pg=1489,5161751

Tunney's body punch did seem to stray low. Now there's no doubt that Carpentier cried wolf many times but maybe this time he was right. He had taken a battering yet kept continuing to fight. He showed no quit in this fight.

In fact I'll upload better quality footage of the punch right now.

 

If this punch wasn't low:

[DM]xcjdzt_carpentier-tunney-controversy_sport[/DM]

Then this must have been legal too:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162Qk7ARqNY[/ame]

 

I dont need newspaper reports. I have the fight. All 14 rounds. Tunney was in control for the entire fight. Did Carpentier land punches? Sure he did, its a fight. Did they bother Tunney? No.

Boilermaker: I think Carp was world class/able to compete at the world class level. But you mention his legacy. What is it? At every stage of his career he lost to fighters at every weight class he was fighting in and often times they werent even top ten quality fighters. We know now that several of the lower tier fighters he fought laid down so if you have to get guys who arent even top twenty fighters to lay down what does it say about your ability? The Siki fight is very telling because at the time Carpentier was a huge favorite over Siki. He was expected to knock Siki out without any trouble in four rounds. Despite this they STILL bribed Siki to lay down and yet somehow Siki managed to knock Carpentier out. Then when Siki steps up his class (he had up to that point only been fighting domestic fighters) he loses nearly every fight hes in and many of those against journeymen. Its similar to the Willie Lewis fight. They brought Lewis in as an "opponent" to showcase Carpentier. He had been a sparring partner/trainer for Carpentier early on and was now well past his prime and over his best weight. In addition to this Lewis was known to have a very shaky chin, having been stopped by the best fighters he met and often early. Instead he outboxed and out punched Carpentier knocking him down several times and taking him to school. Yet, the decision went to Carpentier anyway...

 

No mention that Carpentier had only recently turned 18 years old when he faced Willie Lewis.

Carpentier participating in fixed fights is certainly a black mark on his record. It's difficult to say how significant the Siki loss truly is if Carpentier went in expecting Siki to take a dive against him, yet ended up having the fight of his life against a very strong and determined man.

Tunney was in control against almost everyone he ever fought. I certainly saw Carpentier land punches on him with more consistency than the likes of Jack Dempsey, Tommy Gibbons and Tom Heenan. Still no opinion on whether the punch was low or not?

 

I think the footage is unclear at best and besides the point. Do you think Tunney had somehow mentally crumbled and decided to foul out? Was Carpentier suddenly making a comeback and Tunney decided to try to win in any way possible? Please! If it was a low blow it was an accident and as such Carpentier would have been given time to recover and if he couldnt continue it would have been called a KO. So did the possibility that it was a low blow somehow change the course of the fight? No. Unless you think Carpentier was going to somehow land some sort of million to one hail mary punch that would KO Tunney (a guy who was never KOd) in the 15th round. If thats what you think then I guess we dont need to go any further in this discussion.

It doesnt matter if Carp was 18 or not, that wasnt the point. The point was that all stages of his career he was getting beaten and at all stages of his career he was getting preferential treatment (maybe even shady treatment) by favorable officials which made his record seem more impressive than it was.

 

klompton,
What is your take on the Carpentier-Jeanette fight ?
I heard it was close, even controversial.

And what about Carpentier's KO over Levinsky ?

 

I don't question that Tunney won, regardless of whether the punch landed low or not, but you seemed to indicate that it was only Carpentier acting and crying foul. The punch seems to land clearly below the belt and Carpentier was justified in claiming that the punch was low. It was a courageous effort by Carpentier that shouldn't be dismissed because of how the fight ended.

Also we do know that the heavyweight championship was won by Max Schmeling on a low punch, despite having lost all the rounds, so anything could have happened had the punch been called low, even though Tunney was winning big.

In this case he was certainly not getting preferential treatment.

 

If it was an isolated incident it would be one thing but Carpentier ALWAYS cried foul when he lost. Period. How you can categorically say that punch was foul is beyond me.

Despite, what you think, I still fail to see how even if the punch was low it matters in any way shape or form. It wasnt blatant even if it was low and as such it was handled correctly. Unless you think the fight should have somehow been awarded to Carpentier on a foul which it shouldnt.

Keep in mind that there was some talk of a rematch and Carpentier wanted no part of it. If he really thought he had a chance he would have jumped at it. Futhermore, you seem absolutely certain that the punch was a foul whether accidental or not. The day after the fight both Carpentier and Descamps claimed that the punch wasnt the foul but that Carpentier was kneed in the groin, this after watching the same films that you are watching. So you tell me, how can you be so sure of the outcome if neither of them were???

Unforgiven: Some people have said that Carpentiers loss to Jeannette was controversial. I dont buy it. Carpentier who was then the idol of France and drew thousands to watch him walk down the street (this is no exaggeration I have films of it) loses a bout in Paris in front of several thousand rabid french fans by close decision... lets get real. Ive read the same reports that those on here have read and while they give the impression of a close, competetive match they also make it clear that they add a lot of weight to the KD but they also mention that Jeanette was the aggressor and did a lot of work inside that may have been missed by ringsiders. Furthermore, to refute anyone saying that the ref was unduly on Jeannettes side he continually badgered Jeannette throughout the fight.


As for the Levinsky fight: Levinsky had been getting beaten regularly, held even, or putting up poor performances against subpar fighters for years in ND matches before facing Carpentier. He was getting older and wasnt training like he used to and there was nowhere for him to go. He couldnt win the HW championship, Dempsey had proven that, and there several people (not the least of which was Greb) who had been camping on his trail waiting to get him into a decision match for the title. The only thing Levinsky could do was fight and earn money and because he didnt have an exciting style, and people were getting tired of his act he wasnt even making a lot of that per appearance as a champion. It made sense for him to cash out. Enter Carpentier. Tex Rickard was trying with all his might to match Carpentier against Dempsey for a million dollar gate. He knew it was a sellar but a lot of people were calling the fight a mismatch for a number of reasons: Carpentiers size, his relative inactivity due to the war, and the impression that he was a physical and nervous wreck after suffering injuries during the war. Rickard needed something to quiet the naysayers, give Carpentier some instant credibility, and add a little more luster to his promotion. First he enticed Carpentier to come over to the USA and do an exhibition tour which he hoped would build interest and quiet critics. It was only marginally successful. Then he put together the promotion for showdown with Levinsky. A week or two before the fight several outlets reported that the fix was in. They seemed justified when Levinsky showed up soft, pudgy, and undertrained. Photos of the weigh in show him with a slight paunch and a double chin. Not nearly the blonde adonis that he had once been termed. A collective groan went up when Levinskey made little or no attempt at fighting and finally crumpled in the forth. Knocked out for only the second time in several hundred fights. The first time had been against the larger, much harder hitting Dempsey, and that KO had occured in a fight that Levinsky took with no training because he couldnt get leave from working in the shipyards during the war. Afterwards an investigation was launched after the boxing commissioner was heard to publicly remark that the fight was fixed. He was called to the carpet and quickly clammed up. Now Rickard had his champion and could begin working on the promotion. His first order of business was to make sure his manufactured champion didnt get beat before he could cash in on his million dollar gate so he had Carpentier sign an agreement whereby he wouldnt fight until his bout with Dempsey. It was no secret that Carpentier was beatable and the risk was there that if he took a fight between Levinsky and Dempsey he could lose and lose badly blowing any shot at Rickards first million dollar gate. It was all about business and not a whole lot different than how things are still run by Arum, HBO, King, etc.

 

I don't think there's any way to deny that the punch landed low, unless you do not want to believe your eyes. The footage is right there and it's clear that the punch went well south of the border. Perhaps the film they viewed wasn't as clear as this.

Tunney won and I never disputed that he did, but you were calling it an act even though Carpentier was justified in calling a low punch low. He showed a lot of heart in that fight and was in fact competitive for 10 rounds and doesn't deserve to be called a quitter and an actor. He landed more punches on Tunney than the likes of Dempsey or Gibbons managed based on the film.

 

Either way, it sounds as if Carpentier did well against the experienced and bigger man.
And Jeanette was still a good fighter.
I think it adds weight to the assessment that Carpentier was a very good fighter, and a great puncher. And he fought well against heavyweights.

Very interesting. Thanks. :good

 

Like I said, justified how? What does it change? Throw it out of his record completely and its still littered with instances where he tried to take the easy way out of a fight. Do you deny that??? Hector Camacho Jr. is a quitter and only did it ONE TIME. What does that say about Carpentier who has done it several times even if you dont count the Tunney fight. His heart isnt the issue, it always occured when he was too far gone and there was no chance of winning a decision or staving off a KO. He did it against Klaus, Smith, Siki, Gibbons, etc. Throw the Tunney fight out, which isnt nearly as conclusive as you make it sound (and even they admitted this) and you still have a handful A HANDFUL of fights in which he tried to win in an underhanded fashion.