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

For what it's worth I agree with you. I don't if that is his stance or not it's just how it seemed to me reading his posts.

 

There were definitely people in Europe in the 1930s, who wanted to set up a locus of boxing outside of the USA.

It had been a dream of Carnera's former manager Leon See amongst others.

They realized that they would have to be successful within the American market to accomplish this of course.

Uzcdun was on the slide at the time, but he was a name fighter, and the European Champion at the time.

The fight was attended by both Mussolini and Roosevelt!

The Schmeling Neusell fight held at Adolph Hitler Stadium was a huge event, and offers were made to Max Baer, for a defense against the winner in Germany.

Perhaps wisely, Baer's manager declined.

Steve Hamas subsequently agreed to fight Max Schmeling in Germany, because he could make more money than he could fighting King Levinsky in America.

 

I don't think any one is holding up any set of ratings as Gospel.
I'm also quite certain that a simple recounting of the available written records is not tantamount to giving them undue favor.

They are a tool like any other and, given the IBU was not publishing rankings, I see nothing particularly contentious about referring to those of the NBA, as well as to the Ring's Annual Ratings.

The question of whether or not Uzcudun was a deserving challenger is valid - regardless of how much importance any given observer places on it.

The focus on Gastanaga distracts from this question and overlooks the caliber of other respective challenges from those waiting in the wings, such as Baer, Levinsky, Cavalier, Hamas and Perroni - over that of Uzcudun.

I am not quite sure why there's a fixation on Gastanaga, or why the last 26 fights for both he and Uzcudun are of particular interest. I'm less inclined to use Gastanaga as the benchmark, against which the worth of the NBA ratings or Uzcudun's challenge are measured.

For three or four years, Uzcudun had been afforded ample opportunity to prove himself against the best; dropping results to Schmeling; Griffiths; Risko; Carnera (pre-Championship); Loughran; Levinsky; Walker and Schaaf.

In amongst those losses, his only wins of note are against Otto von Porat ('30) and a green Max Baer ('31). We can, of course, point to Uzcudun's wins over McCorkindale and Charles, but their value in relation to the question is also debatable.

The Carnera/Uzcudun World Heavyweight Championship event was a nationalistic showcase. Uzcudun was not given a chance. No betting on the fight took place. It's doubtful there was any sporting merit in the contest, at all.

 

Interestingly our Jack Sharkey aka the Boston Gob . .whatever means , was actually a Joe Zukauskas. Thank you, you set me down a Jack Sharkey wormhole. A quick look on Boxrec, which is never quick, revealed a sea of Sharkeys. There are roughly 53 JACK Sharkeys, approximately 59 if you count the JACKIES, and the Italian, Iron jaw and baby Jack Sharkeys.

 

"both Mussolini and Roosevelt"

Jimmy Roosevelt.

"locus of boxing outside of the US"

I think nothing wrong with that per se. In retrospect, it is easy to point to Hitler & Mussolini, but where they would go might not have been as clear in 1933 (when Hitler first came to power).

 

Because to read it you have to buy it.Do you think I would do you a favour ? I'd **** on your grave you turd.
Of all the posters on this forum you should be the last one to employ the word integrity.
I hope you'll be happy with your new ally.

 

Well, who were the other contenders and what were their records?

King Levinsky--has some big wins including a split decision over Uzcudun in the Kingfish's home town of Chicago. On the down side he was very erratic, going 13-12-1 in his last 26, had lost twice to Carnera in fights in Chicago, and also lost twice to Max Baer in fights in Chicago. Other than the hometown win over Uzcudun (and I am not questioning the decision, but he did have the home folks behind him) there is nothing I think to put him above Uzcudun.

Steve Hamas--had a good won-lost record and wins over Loughran, but was 2-3-2 in his last seven and coming off a loss to Loughran that summer.

Jack Sharkey--coming off a crushing KO defeat to Carnera and losses to Levinsky & Loughran.

Max Schmeling--coming off a crushing KO defeat to Baer.

Isadoro Gastanaga--I covered him in an earlier post. Not a worthy contender at all.

Patsy Perroni--coming off a loss to McCorkindale who in turn was beaten by Uzcudun.

Paul Chavalier--he had a strange career. He has an excellent won-lost record for the time, but seems to have spent his career as a preliminary fighter in big venues or fighting off in backwater towns. To this point in 1933 his big win seems to have been a decision over the 21 year old Tony Galento in 1931 in a semi-final at MSG. His one opponent whom I can find in The Ring's yearly rankings, Larry Johnson, beat him, also in a preliminary at the Garden. He appears to have been a fairly small man, at 6' and generally in the 180's with little power but a fairly good boxer. Off his fightsrec weights, he could make the light-heavy limit even later in his career. Hard to see him as much of even a theoretical threat to Carnera, and I doubt if he was generally well enough known to be picked as a likely title contender.

Tuffy Griffiths--has been mentioned, but was past his last fight, and apparently retired, after losing 5 of his last 8.

Max Baer & Tommy Loughran--yes, better contenders than Uzcudun, but both got shots in 1934, so I have a hard time seeing what the big issue is, as Carnera in fact is most unusual in making a defense at all in the year he won the title.

"why there is a fixation on Gastanaga"

Because the NBA ratings have been adduced as evidence that Uzcudun didn't deserve a shot, and Gastanaga was their #6 contender. I find a position that high in the ratings for him to be strong evidence for the probable corruption, and certainly for the uselessness, of the NBA ratings for that time.

"green Max Baer"

Well, Baer was 26-6 going into the Uzcudun bout, and after this defeat would go on a 14 bout winning streak which took him to the title. Truthfully, except for that winning streak Baer was always erratic. Hard to see him being that green for Uzcudun, but not that green only a few months and fights later when he was handling Johnny Risko and King Levinsky, and in less than two years total, handling Ernie Schaaf and Max Schmeling. On paper this win over Baer was impressive and I can see why it wasn't dismissed in 1933.

So Uzcudun? He had a decent overall record for the time of 51-14-2. He had never been stopped. He was making a comeback and on a six bout winning streak, which included wins over the Euro champion Charles, which made Uzcudun the European champion, and McCorkindale, who was coming off wins over top ten guys of the era Gains, Neusel, and Perroni, and was rated #5 by The Ring for 1933. Plus, in the past, Uzcudun had some worthy wins over top men like Harry Wills, and he was the last to beat Max Baer, an imposing win from the perspective of 1933 & 1934.

"the question of whether or not Uzcudun was a deserving challenger is valid"

Yes. And I am addressing it.

"The focus on Gastanaga detracts from this question"

It gives perspective on the NBA ratings.

"We can point . . . to Uzcudun's wins over McCorkindale and Charles"

Yes.

"but their value in relation to the question is debatable."

Depends on what exactly the question is. Is it whether Uzcudun was an outstanding contender who stood out above the pack? Obviously not. Or is it if it was a worthy contender who had built a solid record over the years, had impressive wins over really top men, and was on a decent comeback with wins over contenders? And so was a worthy contender for what seems to have been a "hometown" title fight for a new champion before that champion again left his homeland to fight the highest ranked men? I think the answer to this question is yes.

"I see nothing particularly contentious about referring to those of the NBA, or The Ring's Annual Ratings."

And I see nothing particularly contentious about critiquing those ratings.

Bottom line--I see Uzcudun as a very worthy contender compared to the average over the decades, and see no valid reason to put him down as the guy who got a shot in 1933. Looking close at the records, it makes sense. As for what Uzcudun means to Carnera if we are evaluating how Primo stacks up against Lewis or Joshua, oh, come on. Carnera was a giant in an era of small guys, hardly comparable to modern super-heavyweights. But Uzcudun as an historical contender is a different issue.

 

I think you really understate how bad a lot of his punches are and compliment him for things that don't look particularly good to me. I don't get any joy piling on Carnera's flaws but here are a few observations:

Like I wrote in my first post, he has awful mechanics. It seems like he never really learned how to coordinate his legs and his punching properly. Any decent modern coach would have someone who punches like him spend a lot of time doing very basic punching and footwork drills so that he can get more out of his punches and protect himself better. Primo could learn a TON by studying Anthony Joshua's form and mechanics. Joshua's are far superior.

Primo throws ugly right hands throughout the clip. The right you mention at :58 is one of several (throws other really bad right around 1:20 and 2:20 for example).

He doesn't seem to know how to get body rotation and snap into his hooks. The "hook off the jab" you mention at :58 was extremely weak with no snap, and he seemed bit off balance while throwing it (looked like his right foot may have even come off the ground). Very poor mechanics. The hooks you mention at 3:22 appear to be arm punches with zero snap or leverage behind them.

His jab doesn't look good at all--it's slow, underutilized, and he doesn't deliver it with form that would allow him to work off of it with other effective punches (a lot of the jabs are basically jousting style punches). Most of them could have far more snap if they were delivered properly. Often drops his jab and would be wide open for counters if his harmless opponent had been a better fighter. Lots of instances where his opponent is well within Primo's jabbing range but is either too tentative to throw his jab or neglects it because he's hoping to throw a right-hand lead (that will probably never land flush).

He also brings his feet too close together often (though at least he doesn't cross them), which is bad for a number of reasons.

So like I said, if you disagree with my view on Primo's mechanics, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

 

I 've never thought much of Primo ,but his basic mechanics aren't any worse than Wilder's or Breazeale's ,two currently ranked heavies.

 

Interesting-- I don't think Wilder's basic mechanics are nearly as bad as Carnera's. Wilder gets reckless when he's too excited, but his basic punching and footwork look better to me.

I think Vitali is a closer comparison to Primo, but even his mechanics are better than Primo's in a number of ways.

 

Wilders balance is awful ,all his punches are long and he leaves himself open when he throws.His power makes his opponents circumspect about taking advantage of his flaws imo Carnera pushed his jab most of the time, but his balance wasn't too bad for such a big lump.

 

I agree that Wilder gets reckless and does plenty of things wrong that he gets away with because of his power. But I still don't think his mechanics are as bad as Primo's. Wilder throws much sharper punches than Primo and gets more snap into his jabs (when he's not pawing them to set up his right), rights (obviously) and his hooks. He also throws much better 1-2s than Primo because he knows how to shift his weight and bring his feet with him when he throws combinations. Wilder at times loses his balance when he throws big punches but Primo seems to lose his and stumble a bit to reset himself after a lot of pretty ordinary punches, because he doesn't move his feet properly. This is all basic stuff but Primo doesn't seem to have mastered it. I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean when you say all Wilder's punches are long.

 

Listen silly bollocks, I've told you where to find the information, if you're too mean to fork out for the book, remain in ignorance,your usual state of affairs.lol
If you want to continue ****ing up this thread, be my guest ,you made it!

 

I think Wilder's footwork, though unorthodox, is much better than Primo's. He's far more agile and covers more ground more quickly. He keeps a wider base and brings his feet with him when he punches so that he's not stuck leaning and pushing punches, or stumbling as often.

Wilder looks very awful in his "lowlights" clips but for the most part in his actual fights his technique and mechanics look mostly pretty ordinary imo. Limited but ordinary. He's no technician but I think there's a difference between his recklessness and lack of discipline and Primo's lack of certain basic mechanics.