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

I wasn’t defensive at all but I guess I shouldn’t have been so dismissive. I’ll give you my more detailed breakdown when I have time to go back through the footage again.

 

What cash Johnson received for the Jim Johnson v Jack Johnson fight can be seen on page 354 of
"Unforgivable Blackness" by Geoffrey C Ward ,chapter 11," The Fugitive " and any **** who doubts that statement is welcome to try and disprove it. I see the little toads have come out of their holes,well birds of a feather----.

 

I don't have very many sets of monthly / quarterly ratings from this period, but I can tell you that Uzcudun was rated by the NBA in September 1929 (7), January 1931 (8), and March 1932 (10).

 

There is valid criticism often made of The Ring ratings, as it is only a magazine.

But why genuflect to the ratings put out by an organization of US state boxing officials. First place, how many US states do they actually represent? It never included the biggest, New York. Nor Massachusetts. (hard to tell how many states were involved. When Illinois legalized boxing in 1925, it was one of 22 states which had legalized boxing. In 26 of the 48 states boxing was still illegal. I don't know how much the situation had changed by 1933. Also, many states were sparsely populated and hardly boxing centers)

But cutting to the chase, how good are these ratings? What does it amount to that Uzcudun isn't listed?

I think it doesn't matter at all.

Isadore Gastanaga is rated the #6 contender. Well, at this point his record was 37-23 with 10 KO defeats, and he had lost 5 of his last 9. He had scads of bad defeats in Latin America. Looking at his record at boxrec, I have my doubts if he had ever beaten a top ten fighter to this point.

In contrast, Uzcudun had been fighting the best in the world for over half a decade, had been twice European champion, had lost for the most part only to top men, had won his last six, including the Euro champion Pierre Charles, and McCorkindale, who whatever one thinks of him, had just beaten Perroni, who in turn had just beaten Gastanaga, plus Uzcudun held victories over such as Wills and Baer.

So why is Gastanaga rated? He was fighting in the US and therefore it was in the interest of American promoters and the American powers that be (read the mob, which probably controlled him) to have their puppet officials rate him and build him up as a contender. His rating shows how corrupt these ratings are.

My take is that the IBU was much the more important governing body, as it represents countries rather than some provinces (which is what a US state is) of one country. The IBU sanctioned the fight between Carnera & Uzcudun and accepted Uzcudun as a worthy contender, which I think is far more valid than whatever the NBA or The Ring thought.

Looking at it, and just my opinion, I think Uzcudun fairly could have been rated somewhere between 6 & 10. As a respected veteran who had campaigned against the best for years, I think his getting a shot at the title is very justifiable.

Someone mentioned Uzcudun's erratic record. He had gone 18-8 in his last 26 fights. Gastanaga had gone 14-12 in his last 26 fights, and against far lesser competition.

 

The ring annual rankings are a good source of info but they will never tell a complete picture. Plus they are prone to human error. I updated them myself for a bit and whilst I did triple check everything I don't know about the editors who did it before me.

Some of you may recall a poster call hhascup. He had every monthly edition and compiled an insane database using those rankings.

He would know if Uzcudun was ranked or not.

I feel we can use the ring almanac as positive reinforcement "he beat a guy in the top 4" etc. But we can't use them negatively without doing more research. Saying Uzcudun wasn't ranked and hasn't been for years is a bold claim.

 

"Uzcudun was not listed in the published NBA rankings"

Doesn't mean a thing to me, especially after looking at the record of Gastanaga who was highly rated. I don't see why the NBA, which was a loose confederation of some state boxing officials, should have the definitive say on world ratings.

The IBU actually has the better claim as it represents sovereign countries, not provinces or states. And the IBU sanctioned Uzcudun as a challenger, so they must have rated him (even if they didn't put out official ratings)

 

Yes, they represent an armature useful to get some perspective on the shape of the past.

But the reason The Ring ratings were respected by the public is that they seemed relatively accurate and unbiased, whatever their flaws.

Ask yourself, who is more likely to be truthful? The press? Or the politicians? The press certainly has its flaws and biases and is often wrong, but the NBA was at this point a collection of hack politicians who probably often took orders from the powers that be.

 

Schmeling was coming off a KO defeat to Baer.

Gastanaga probably wasn't as respected in Europe as Uzcudun, for very valid reasons. I have posted on that. Gastanaga in the fall of 1933 was 37-23 with 10 KO defeats, had lost 5 of his last 9, and was coming off a defeat to Perroni.

 

I looked at this boxrec. This Jackson was 5' 10" but had an 80" reach. I picture him as pulling on his socks while standing straight.

 

Yes, I am certainly familiar with the story behind the Annual Ring ratings are in fact annual. I was using it as more of a crude tool regarding the justification of Uzcudun getting a title shot. So yes, I agree he may have had a cup of coffee in the ratings in the middle months of a given year. The fact is that I doubt he was an actual top contender entitled to title match.
I also realize the discussion is moved on from a Boxing to the personal in this case. I do not pay enough attention or concern to opine. I have experienced Mendoza making unsupported claims and then disappearing and I do recall seeing him get unnecessarily personal and actually digging into someone’s personal life so in that regard I am dismissive. My collection of Rings magazines around the period in question is very spotty but when I get a chance I will take a look.
At one time, I believe it was a Yahoo site, someone had compiled an actual collection of Ring monthly ring ratings. Unfortunately I’ve never been able to locate this site. I have previously discussed an even started to create a collection of ratings but got busy and fell down on the job.

 

I don't mean to nit pick but this isn't always the case either.

Quite often the rankings were year end rankings. As in the monthly rankings from December.

So someone could be say ranked 11th in December, beat number 3 in Feb, lose a title shot in June, lose a comeback fight in November and go back to being 11th

That guy won't show up on the rankings database.

 

Yes. Like I said it was a crude tool and as we have already discussed Paulino did beat Dangerous Dan McCorkindale and when Dangerous Dan is involved,like Unknown Winston, you throw the records out the window!

 

It's apparent to me that McVey has used the ring annual rankings as his guide and fallen into the trap of relying too heavily on them.

I believe his stance is that if someone was ranked and isn't on the boxrec database then the onus is on someone to prove they were ranked.

 

Apparently Unknown Winston after getting knocked out by Jack Sharkey was made to fight him again immediately the same night by an angry mob after which time he was KOed again. So for his effort, or lack of it, he was suspended for a year it is unknown what Unknown did for that year he was suspended perhaps fighting as Tut Jackson not to be confused with the real Tut Jackson.