Georges Carpentier

I never said he was BAD fighter. I just dont think he was great at all. He definately had a great right hand.

 

Justified as in he got hit low and thus it was no act that he claimed to have been hit low because he did get hit low.

As I said previously, Carpentier cried wolf many times but in this case he was right, not that he should have won the fight by any means as I'm opposed to outcomes like Sharkey-Schmeling I where a fighter is taking a beating and ends up winning due to an unintentional foul.

I was only disagreeing with you on this instance where I felt Carpentier showed a lot of heart even while taking a beating.

 

Just on the Jeannette thing, I've read a lot of the ringside fight reports, both French and British, and what I will say is that the vast majority of what I read suggest Carp won but on reading the detail I suspect it comes down to what style of fighting you favor. BUT WITHOUT DOUBT IT WAS VERY CLOSE and this been so, raises Georges up a few pegs in my eyes. Also I'm sure Wells did not lie down to him so at the very least he was an able operater at Hw. His performances in his teens were also remarkable and while I share some of Klompton's misgivings he certainly could fight.

 

Wells didnt have to lie down, I think for most of his big fights he entered the ring horizontal.

GreatA: He didnt claim to get hit low, in fact he said it wasnt a punch but a knee, did you see a knee there somewhere? Because not only can I not tell whether the punch was low, borderline, or legal, I sure didnt see a knee. After the fight Descamp was asked for the protective cup to see if it was dented. Guess his response: I absent mindedly threw it to the audience so I cant produce any evidence. If he got hit low and he had to know it if he did, why do you suppose he claimed he was kneed? Maybe because getting hit low on accident is not a disqualifiable foul. Getting kneed would at least change it to a NC. You dont suppose they were trying to get that loss erased do you? After all he was offered a rematch and didnt take it. Sorry but the evidence is all to obvious.

Im sorry but you referenced the story of the boy who cried wolf one too many times and thats exactly what this is. Its just another in the long line of examples of Carpentier either trying to win outright through trickery or trying to soften his public image after a loss by blaming conditions outside of his control. At some point a guy either has to be a man and accept his defeats or gets labeled a fraud. In this instance with so much evidence weighted against him Im going with the latter on Carp. Like I said he was in great physical condition, had a truly dynamite right hand, and was extremely popular BUT he was limited and nowhere near the great fighter that his press clippings would have you believe. And thats a point that needs to be kept squarely up front in this argument. The press was on Carpentiers side plain and simple. He was a media creation and a media darling. Therefore to place so much emphasis on media reports, when we have so much first hand archival material, is in my opinion folly.

 

By first-hand archival material do you mean film ?

I agree with much of what you've written, and I've learned a couple of things, but jusk out of interest : would you label Dempsey a "media creation" and a "media darling" too ?

 

He said it after the fight. He rushed in against Tunney in traditional fashion for Carpentier (much like Schmeling did against Sharkey) and got hit with an uppercut which seems to have gone low. That's how it seems to be on film. You say that we shouldn't go by newspaper reports because we have enough footage of him to judge him by and that's what I'm doing. I'm going by the footage.

[dm]xcjdzt_carpentier-tunney-controversy_sport[/dm]

In my eyes, the punch was low and the footage is clear enough. Carpentier had no complaints about losing and I've never once stated that he should have won on a foul, all I'm saying is that he did not put on an act in order to quit because he did seemingly get hit low and he was taking an all-time brutal battering before the end. If he did, then that's some Oscar-worthy acting because his immediate reaction to being hit is to hold his groin, not his stomach.

But Carpentier did state after the fight that he was beaten fair and square and that he had no complaints and that he would pursue a rematch with Tunney. Perhaps he did not follow through with the latter but those were his words immediately after the fight.

Either way I don't see any point in continuing this. I disagreed with you on this occasion where I felt Carpentier showed trendemous heart. As for the other fights, I can't say.

 

I don't believe Carpentier is a top 100 of all time fighter.

I don't enough of the facts/musings on the controversial aspect of his career. But the fact is he was good enough to be competitive with fighters that I do attest to be great. So I like him. I like to watch him as well, his style was fairly basic, but he could really whack with the right hand.

 

Yes and then he said he was misquoted and that he was actually kneed.

Carpentier did have complaints about losing. Isnt saying that you were kneed in the groin and trying to get the result changed a little like complaining? If you are so sure the footage is conclusive then why was he "seemingly" hit low...

He was also crying foul immediately after the fight and for days on. Sounds like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. I have never seen a quote where he gave Tunney credit for winning fair and square. Im not saying he didnt but Ive never seen one. What I have seen is numerous papers filled for days with his excuses for losing on a foul. If thats not complaining and saying you didnt win in a fair fight I dont know what is. Like I said, you can throw this fight out the window if you want. Its enough that Carpentier was past his prime and was fighting a prime Tunney. There is plenty more evidence and footage to suggest that Carpentier is vastly overrated today based on his relationship with the media while he was alive.

 

I use the term "seems" as in, what it looks like to me. If someone else sees the blow as legal then that's their right but to me it seems to have landed below the belt.

From the newspapers:

"We are making this assertion merely to give our side of the battle with no intention of registering any complaint against any of the officials or the public. We are both satisfied that the referee was fair and honest, meant us no harm, and we are satisfied to abide by his decision. In conclusion we hope for a return match with Tunney and feel confident if allowed another chance we can reverse the decision."

I think you are simply overly critical towards Carpentier to the extent that you won't even consider the point of view that Carpentier was not putting on an act and that he was in fact hit below the belt, and had every right to complain about it, futile as it may have been.

 

"I had to retire in the fourteenth round ,owing to a low blow, which the referee did not recognise as a foul .
A gesticulating Deschamps ,sprang into the ring ,and, allmost debagged me to prove to the referee that the punch had landed below the belt, but it was no good.
The blow had not floored me,but seeing me limping the referee stopped the fight ,and declared Tunney the winner.
In all fairness,I must say that if the fight had actually gone to the limit,I should not have been ahead on points,I should have lost,not by much certainly, but enough.
Carpentier, from "Carpentier By Himself".

 

I must say, on the film you showed last (good quality by the way) i do think that the blow lands okay. I am not sure about Carpentiers actions, whether he looks winded, faking, or a combination of both.

I do though agree with the suggestion being made that it wasnt intentional and wouldnt have made one difference to Carpentier's career evaluation. Klompton raises some good and interesting points. But so do you. Even if Tunney stopped Carpentier clearly there, he did still acquit himself quite well against Tunney.

I am thinking that Carpentier while a media creation was definitely still a top 5 talent at the various weights, ie somewhere between the two extreme viewpoints. I must say though, Klompton does drag him down in my mind when he read his writings on the subject.

By the way, i think the two of you have made this thread one of the great ones on ESB.

 

This is a question that I would love to hear comment from some of the experts (maybe a diferent thread though?) I sway between the two extreme viewpoints regularly and to be honest cannot make up my mind.

 

In a lot of ways yes I do think Dempsey was a media creation. I certainly think his cloak of invincibility and his current standing in the pantheon of greats is overrated. Thats not to say that he was a bad fighter by any stretch. He was far more a "real" fighter/talent than Carpentier ever was. BUT, I think a lot of his reputation is due to how well he was matched and promoted from the time Kearns got ahold of him to the end of his career.

 

There's certainly some validity to that. But I think the same is true to some extent with almost all of the greats.
Shrewd management is a vital part of success in the careers of most professional fighters, especially those who get to championship status.
Record-padding and efforts to create an inflated perception of the level of opposition is the norm for managers and promoters. And hype and ballyhoo is the name of the game in promotion and business, ie.maximizing the money pot.

Of course, we all draw the line somewhere and label some fighters beyond the pale as strictly "hype-jobs" or "manufactured fighters".
Carpentier is clearly on the right side of the line for me.

Dempsey I ranked among the top tier, in spite of the truth of what Kearns and Rickard achieved on their side of the bargain.

 

Good discussion.

By and large I believe Carpentier was a true fighter, deserving of his accolades. You don't tear into an enormous panther such as Dempsey, rise to face the Mauler again, and soldier on for four more rounds with Tunney after absorbing a vicious hiding otherwise.

Was he ballyhooed? Sure. Did he succumb to thespian craft as may come naturally to a man living in the spotlight? Certainly. Just look at his "blinded by the light/Fido at hydrant" performance in finally going out against Dempsey.

But he has my respect.