Let's try and improve Primo Carnera

I am no doctor, but my guess would be that the illness inflamed Schaff’s brain inside his skull, with the result that a punch from any heavyweight boxer might have killed him.

 

Any of them have 30 plus fights that are widely considered to be fixes? Carnera has.

Neither Braddock, nor Bear was ever accused of participating in a fixed fight.

 

Wrong on both counts.

 

Ernie Schaaf was killed by this
The New York medical examiner, Dr. Charles Norris, performed an autopsy on Schaaf’s body. He said he found “an inflammation of the brain caused by a bad case of Influenza.” In addition, the doctor said he found “recent signs of Spinal Meningitis.” According to Dr. Norris, the swelling of the brain from these two viruses and the accumulated jabs to the head that night, caused a cerebral hemorrhage (a brain bleed), that led to Ernie’s death at the young age of twenty-four.

He was severely damaged goods upon entering the ring that fateful night. He had also openly aspired to be a Priest after his ring career hardly a man that would take a dive.

 

I have speculated that Schaff might just have been champion with the right breaks, had he lived of course.

 

Do you know I'm getting pretty sick of you making allegations and when challenged on them ignoring the challenge and squirming out.
You've been called on this before, by me ,and totally swallowed your knob .
NOW PRODUCE YOUR PROOF OR RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT.

 

My take is we have a Carnera apologist on here in Janitor who, though he produces zero to back up his arguments refuses to address the evidence put before him by others. To somehow spread the guilt he airily states all boxers were involved in fakes at that time ,when challenged to provide some names to support his accusations he produces Jack **** .


Here is a post he made on this thread on January 25th.

"Can you name any champion of the period who was not involved in some crooked fights?[/quote]"

I challenged him to provide names to back up his accusations so far,[four months later],he has produced NONE.

 

Its the denying of those fake fights that is the problem surely that is self evident>

 

Couple of points on Carnera.
I have no doubt that many of his early/mid career fights were set-ups but even cynics at the time were aware that he actually improved as he learned.
The answer to the enigma is that Carnera was both a "hype Job" and eventually a top contender on his merits-eventually!
BTW he wasn't thick at all, he spoke three languages fluently but he was naive and trusting.

 

He had the right physical tools to be a force in the ring for sure. In those days there were few big men who new HOW to fight big the way that bigger heavys of later periods would learn to do. He had a good wingspan, decent jab, lots of strength and a chin that was fairly sturdy. It would have been interesting to see what a trainer like Manny Steward might have done with him in a modern era or for that matter what a charlie Goldman or Joe Blackburn might have done with him back then.. Taking into account the numerous testimonies of people who claim that he was involved in fixed fights, its hard to write them all off as just here say. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that while some of his were set-ups there were probably some that were legit. In either case, I think he had potential and good physical gifts. His potential just wasn't properly cultivated/

 

On Carnera--being involved in fixed fights on the way up doesn't exactly prove the man can't fight at all.

No less than the investigators for a US Senate Committee probing corruption in boxing concluded Sonny Liston had six fixed fights on the way up. Young Stribling was known for phony fights in backwater areas of the South. But Stribling and Liston were tough in honest fights.

Carnera's record shows the usual pattern of a built up fighter with a ton of KO's of has-beens or never-weres or flop artists. It also shows him losing to a past it Jim Maloney which kind of took the air out of the balloon. His handlers must have thought he could fight some or they wouldn't have matched him honestly with Maloney.

As to the big wins over Schaaf and Sharkey--I think Schaaf was a sick man who shouldn't have been in the ring. This win really proves nothing. Sharkey, in my judgment, was always somewhat overrated and was much further gone in 1933 than anyone thought, as his later fights proved.

Carnera was at best a fair fighter for a champ who was lucky at being the right man at the right time to win the title against a fading Sharkey. The film of that fight does show that he had improved a great deal since he was first filmed.

*I think it is fair to raise the point of what sort of career Carnera could have had in the 1930's if he used the modern big man jab and grab style. Fights were scored for effective aggression back then, not for clinching. Carnera would probably have been a box-office dud who would have been judged the points loser of fight after fight if he put on Wlad-style performances.

 

His chin was always suspect as Biilly Duffy admitted to Gallico. Louis manhandled Carnera, the idea that he was cute at using his strength is a fallacy At no point did he utilise his stength to over power the 80lbs plus lighter Loughran he beat him by stamping on his feet in the clinches. No one suggests that all of his fights were fakes but over a third of them are believed to have been pre-arranged , sure he improved and won some on merit. But look at how he did after the mob dropped him, he got kod in successive fights.

 

Interviews he gave to Peter Wilson columnist for the Daily Mirror indicate he wasn't too bright. If you dont know guys are laying down your fights I think you are beyond naive.

Carnera spoke a smattering of French ,obviously Italian and some Spanish and broken English,many people do ,that doesn't make them clever.

 

Hence my comment about his potential being poorly cultivated. The frame work was there, just never never put to good use.