Paulino Uzcudun vs. Primo Carnera. ( 1933 world title fight )

Let’s cut to the chase. I think everyone can see where this going.

Dan McCorkindale vs Santiago Alberto Lovell! Who you got?

 

Ten - including the Champion, Primo Carnera, at the time.

Carnera is followed by:

Max Baer
Max Schmeling
King Levinsky
Jack Sharkey
Tommy Loughran
Isadore Gastanaga
Paul Cavalier
Steve Hamas
Patsy Perroni

This is according to the list, as published in: The Los Angeles Times - Wednesday 20th of September, 1933.

 

"not that McCorkindale was any sort of top heavyweight"

Depends on what is meant. He was ranked #5 by the Ring in 1933 year end ratings off victories over Larry Gains, Walter Neusel, and Patsy Perroni.

Uzcudun was coming off wins over Pierre Charles, the European champion, and McCorkindale, who had just KO'd the British Empire champion, Gains, in what for some reason was a non-title fight.

As for the Carnera fight, the IBU sanctioned it, and I can't see any good reason to get all worked up about this being an unworthy defense compared to the long run of title defenses. Most champions didn't defend at all in the year they won the title.

If we are talking ATG ratings or something, beating old Uzcudun doesn't mean much,

and Carnera looks very mediocre here except for being big.

 

|Yeah,maybe you're biased.

 

Forgive me I if I can't take your strident responses too seriously.

Here's a suggestion.
Look them up your ****ing self !!!!!!

 

I have long loved boxing but were any of you able to watch all the way through? Oh geese this made some lame sparring sessions I've seen thrilling by comparison.

 

Put me on ignore you've bored me long enough!

 

Look pretty much all the giants look clumsy at times .. Primo seemed ok. Uzcudun looked like he was sparring at best to me but other than crushing an old Wills years earlier I"m not sure he was any big deal himself other than a tough and strong guy .. Carnera looks like what he was, a big , strong guy, maybe a bit heavy handed at times but little snap to his punches, well conditioned and decent if not pressed too hard.

 

It appears that he was not ranked after 1928 at least according to The Ring Annual Ratings. Granted, I understand you’re looking for the NBA ratings. But I would argue that if they are not pretty close that the NBA ratings are simply the result of promoter politics of the time and of less import.

I couldn’t help but notice that there was a fighter named Unknown Winston rated 10 in 1932! Apparently he and another fighter fighter shared the nom de plum “Tut Jackson”.

“Unknown Winston fought in Connecticut as "Tut Jackson" of Waterbury early in his career. Another boxer, Teddy Jackson of Bayonne, N.J., also saw action in Connecticut at about the same time, and was sometimes billed as "Tut Jackson" of Bayonne. It is therefore difficult to separate the fights of these two men, although Teddy Jackson was a heavyweight of about 185 pounds at the time, and Winston ("Tut Jackson of Waterbury") was then a light-heavyweight.”

I like that his solution to raise his profile and distinguish himself was to change his name to Unknown!

 

McCorkindale was a destroyer. My careful study and research has revealed that no one who fought him survives today!

 

The Ring's Annual Ratings, available on boxrec, have not given me reason to doubt them, in terms of the names included. However, I have seen at least one example of a minor difference in boxrec's placement of a couple of listed names, compared with a newspaper report on the same listing.

Uzcudun, tends to linger throughout the period of the early '30s after what were clearly his best days of the late '20s - particularly 1928. The impression I get is that, from 1929 onwards, he is seen as a popular "veteran", a word used to describe him quite frequently. His record, from 1929 through to 1932, becomes a bit patchy; losing almost as often as he wins, going 9-8.

So it does not surprise that he is not listed in the Annual Ring Ratings again, after '28. However, I do see why he might have drifted back into the NBA ratings, with the occasional good result, e.g. Otto von Porat ('30) and Max Baer ('31).

 

I think that the political importance of this fight, outstripped it's military importance!

There were people in Europe at the time, wanting to set up a base of operations for boxing, outside of the USA.

This fight made sense!

 

So that I can rebut it with a lengthy time-stamped post calling out all the things Primo does wrong? No thank you.

I think you’re arguing against a straw man—I never said he’s completely useless and inept in the ring. But we can agree to disagree on Primo’s technique and mechanics, and whether he looked good in that performance.

 

I've not encountered much, if any, evidence relating to a European power play in boxing, at the time. However, if there was something of that nature going on in the early '30s, wouldn't a more highly regarded/ranked opponent have served any political purposes more effectively, e.g. facing either Schmeling or Gastanaga?