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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mendoza, Jan 4, 2019.



  1. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Just on the records of these men. Only Risko had a good 1932,

    1932
    Risko-----3-0
    Uzcudun-----1-3
    Levinsky-----2-6
    Loughran-----1-3

    In 1933 the records to Sept when most like the challenge to Carnera was finalized,

    Risko-----2-2
    Levinsky-----4-2
    Loughran-----4-1
    Uzcudun-----6-0

    Putting the two years together

    Risko-----5-2
    Levinsky-----6-8
    Loughran-----5-4
    Uzcudun-----7-3

    Much is made of Levinsky only losing (if often) to top men, but that was true of all of them, with Risko in early 1933 with Daniels being the possible exception. Uzcudun only lost to top men also. Clearly Uzcudun is the one contender who was on a winning roll in 1933.
     
  2. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Thank you very much. I appreciate this, and am certain others will also.
     
    mcvey and Man_Machine like this.
  3. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,889
    1,596
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    Once again, the numbers do not tell the whole story and the problem with the above is that Uzcudun hadn't actually beaten any "top men", either. So, he's the stark exception of the bunch.


    Apropos of the my comment above, Uzcudun had a pleasant run in '33, up until Carnera, because he'd faced modest opposition.

    The numbers alone do not strengthen your position. The quality of the opposition must be taken into consideration and to state that: "Uzcudun is the one contender who was on a winning roll in 1933", ignores the fact that his first four opponents for that year were nowhere near ranked and the next two were fringe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    mcvey likes this.
  4. reznick

    reznick Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,205
    4,236
    Sportsbook:
    1,611
    Mar 17, 2010
    Using great/perfect boxing technique as the odometer? Yes.
    Comparatively specifically with modern SHWs? No.

    Also, if I show you Joshua and Klitschko throwing a heavy right hand with their feet a bit more squared than they normally should be, what meaning should we derive from your example?
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  5. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    13,814
    3,686
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    The thing is, this isn’t some unrepresentative, cherrypicked example. This is how Primo punched. Anthony Joshua has much, much better mechanics than Carnera. He just looks, moves, and punches like a boxer with superior training, despite the stiffness that comes with being his size. Some of the worst, most awkward punches that Joshua has thrown in his career might look like some of Primo’s usual punches but don’t be fooled! Watch their fights in full and there’s simply no comparison.
     
  6. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    13,814
    3,686
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    I guess...in the same way that any pass that's caught is all good.

    But I think his technique and mechanics are still worth noting, considering how often he gets compared with (or used as a stand-in for) other, better big men.
     
  7. Woller

    Woller Active Member Full Member

    1,124
    28
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    Well Morbius - I can only recommend that you read the book.
     
  8. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    I think the weakness of your whole argument is that the ratings are totally American centered. I would say for two reasons. One might be bias or corruption, the raters reflect what the American promoters and other boxing powers wanted the ratings to be.

    The second reason I think might be the critical one. These ratings are simply provincial, whether by state boxing officials or by reporters. There was no TV. Even if a fight in Europe was filmed, how likely was it for the film to reach America? I think even radio hook-ups between Europe and the US were rare, if there were any, in the early 1930's. Certainly I doubt it if there were fight broadcasts. And how many Americans read Spanish or French or Italian or German papers? They simply weren't abreast of what was happening in European boxing.

    The double standard is that Americans can lose and lose and still retain top ratings. From the beginning of 1931 to Sept of 1933 Levinsky was 14-14-1 but always highly rated. Sure he lost to some good men, but he also lost to some second tier guys and not all of his wins were against the best. Here is his 1931 record:

    Jimmy Slattery-----L
    Harry Dillon-----W
    Jack Gagnon-----W
    Tuffy Griffiths-----L
    Con O'Kelly-----W
    Johnny Risko-----L
    Emmett Rocco-----L
    Emmett Rocco-----W
    Pat McCaarthy-----W
    Ace Hudkins-----L
    Con O'Kelly-----D
    Joe Sekyra-----W
    Jimmy Slattery-----W
    Primo Carnera-----L
    Tommy Loughran-----W

    That comes out to 8-6-1. He ends this year ranked #4 by The Ring. He loses 6 of 8 in 1932, but ends that year ranked #7.

    I want to compare him to Larry Gains, Pierre Charles, and Walter Neusel.

    to be continued
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  9. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Larry Gains-----starting at the beginning of 1925 to the end of 1932, Gains goes 64-5-2,

    including wins over Max Schmeling, Bud Gorman, Romero Rojas, Marty Burke, George Godfrey, George Cook, Phil Scott, Jack Renault, Don McCorkindale and Primo Carnera. He also had a draw with Mike McTigue. There were also of course wins over top Brit and Euro heavies with good local records.

    I notice he does makes the ratings when he defeats Carnera (note that Carnera seems to have been dropped from the top ten for this "terrible" defeat.) Gains loses in Paris to Neusel and finishes the year with three more wins.

    In The Ring ratings, Gains ends the year #9 behind Neusel, at #8, and also behind Levinsky at #7, who has lost 6 of 8 that year but so impressed the raters in his losing performance to Carnera that he gets rated ahead of Gains despite Levinsky losing more fights that year (and also the year before) than Gains had lost since 1924.

    Walter Neusel--where did he stand at the end of 1932? Well, he was undefeated with a record of 31-0-2 and coming off wins over Gains, (who had just beaten Carnera), and Gipsy Daniels, who owned a one round KO of Schmeling back in 1928. This wasn't enough to get him ahead of Levinsky, of course.

    Neusel, though, would come to the US in late 1933 for six fights. He was undefeated in the six fights in the US, including victories over Poreda, Levinsky, and Loughran. However, he went back to Europe, was stopped by Schmeling, and drew with Len Harvey in London. He was, of course, dropped permanently from The Ring annual ratings, but don't fear, Levinsky kept his rating.

    Neusel would never return to The Ring annual ratings, despite quite a few impressive wins, but they found room for Eddie Mader, Ford Smith, and also twice for Ray Impellitiere, who never seems to have done much of anything but was rated in 1935 and 1936, as high as #6, and who had lost to Neusel back on Walter's American tour.

    to be continued
     
    mcvey and PhillyPhan69 like this.
  10. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,100
    3,912
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 20, 2006
    Good, informative stuff. Looking forward to the rest
     
  11. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Pierre Charles-----was a three times European heavyweight champion and defended that title nine times. From 1929 to 1935 he went 31-4, losing in the US to Loughran in 1930 (Levinsky lost that year to Loughran also) and then to Hein Muller (which he reversed), Primo Carnera, and Uzcudun. In 1933 he handed the still undefeated Neusel (33-0-2) his first defeat, and also beat Young Stribling. He later lost that year to Uzcudun. I think this was a very worthy world-class win for Uzcudun, but the American raters always ignored Charles. Yes he lost to Loughran and Uzcudun, and Levinsky did have one win in three tries with Loughran, and won against Uzcudun, while both lost to Carnera. But Charles also won against Neusel and Paul Pantaleo, both of whom beat Levinsky.

    Personally, I think Charles was about on Levinsky's level, but no way was the Euro champion going to be the darling of the American raters and be rated like the Kingfish.

    Don McCorkindale was not rated after KO'ing Gains and beating Neusel. He only made the ratings when he came to the US and beat Perroni, which moved him up to #5 in The Ring ratings and #6 for the NBA. The wins over Gains and Neusel are far more impressive to me, and Uzcudun deserves full world credit for his victory over McCorkindale.

    So my bottom line is the American raters were too American centered for their ratings to mean much when comparing American to European fighters. American versus American perhaps okay. And they might have had some handle on foreign fighters who campaigned in the US. But for the most part they simply ignored the outside world, and I think there was more than a bit of chauvinism involved.

    *this won't mean anything to posters outside the US, but this reminds of the NFL versus the AFL back in the 1960's. The old NFL was completely smug about being the best and having all the best. They had a dominant champion who managed to win the first two of four Super Bowls against the AFL, but were embarrassed in the next two by losses. The Americans considered their boxers in a league above the Europeans in the 1930's, but my take is that the white Americans might well have been inferior to the best Euros. It was Joe Louis, for whom white Americans other than Conn were more or less cannon fodder, who established American dominance. His only loss in his prime was to a European, Schmeling, and the only two times he went 15 in his prime, it was to Farr, and to another foreigner, Godoy. His American competition, other than Conn, didn't prove as dangerous.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    Ra's Al-Ghul and PhillyPhan69 like this.
  12. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,889
    1,596
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    The above are broad and assumptive statements, for which you are not providing any evidence in support. Can you give me specific examples of when Schmeling was a victim of bias in the ratings, during the period in question? Can you provide the same for Carnera, who quite probably generated more revenue in the US than any other US boxer during the early 30's?

    You have queried Gastanaga's placement in the NBA ratings. He is, as you well know, Spanish. What bias and corruption led to the NBA rating him as a Top-10 Heavyweight in September 1933?

    My argument is based on written record. Your claim of weakness in my argument is based on conjecture, which does not stand to reason.



    Again, the above is thick with conjecture. You need to provide stronger evidence to illustrate the failure of the American Boxing press to assess Boxers in Europe and to what extent any such failure had an adverse impact on non-US Boxers within the ratings - both the NBA's and The Ring's.
     
    mrkoolkevin likes this.
  13. reznick

    reznick Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,205
    4,236
    Sportsbook:
    1,611
    Mar 17, 2010
    That is not how Primo normally threw a right hand. He doesn’t usually sacrifice his stance.

    I’m not comparing the twos entire body of work. You singled out a specific example, and I mentioned that others, like Joshua, can be clipped showing something similar.

    Yes Joshua is a better boxer than Carnera was. But the gap isn’t as big as some say. Vitali even less much.

    Technical mistakes are far more often forgiven when it’s a modern SHW because we sense the mass, strength, and power behind the punches. With the cameras in the 30’s, not so much. If you show Carnera footage to a large group of people, many, maybe even most, wouldn’t guess he was over 210lb.
     
  14. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    "the above are broad and assumptive statements."

    Yes. This is not a courtroom. It is just shooting the breeze on the internet. And I used the word might.

    "bias"

    It is a form of bias, I think, but not straight out we are not going to be fair to foreigners bias. Clearly a foreigner who got on their radar by coming to the US could get rated, including the unworthy Gastanaga.

    What it amounts to is something like the Romans saying "all roads lead to Rome." Well, I don't think all the roads in China led to Rome. Nor those in India. Siam. or Persia. What they meant is that all the roads in the part of the world they cared about led to Rome.

    Same with these Amercian raters. It is less bias than an ingrown perspective. They basically rated the fighters who fought in the part of the world they watched, which wasn't the whole world.

    "a specific example of when Schmeling was a victim of bias in the ratings"

    Okay. In 1927 Schmeling won all 15 of his fights with 12 KO's, won the European light-heavyweight championship, and successfully defended it. Ring Magazine rated 15 light-heavies that year. Schmeling was not one of them. (Now I don't think they failed to rate him because they refused to rate Germans. I think they just had no idea who Schmeling was or what he had done or what type of prospect he was) Schmeling was not rated in 1928 either, but suddenly jumped to near the top of the ratings in 1929 when the Amercians raters got a look at him.

    Carnera-----you gave the example of biased ratings against him. He seems to have dropped off the NBA ratings after losing to Gains. Why a loss to a fighter who was the British Empire champion and was on a 27-0-1 roll going back over three years should scrub anyone from the ratings raises flags with me? It is not a question of bias, but of reasonableness and fairness.

    On the whole though, Schmeling and Carnera were rated fairly as long as they performed in the US.

    "Gastanaga"-----"What bias or corruption led the NBA rating him a top ten heavyweight in September, 1933."

    As you would point out, it is conjecture what their reasons were. But the bottom line is did Gastanaga deserve that high rating over the top European fighters? I think not. And that seems obvious off his record. With a spotty 37-23 record with 10 KO defeats, he earns a higher rating than Gains or Neusel with their sterling records could earn. Why? My guess is because he was performing in the US, and there also might have been mixed in there a hit at Carnera by implying that Uzcudun was not even the best heavy in Spain. They might not have been pleased with Carnera making a defense outside of and beyond their control.

    "You need to provide stronger evidence to illustrate the failure of the American boxing press to assess boxers in Europe and to what extent any such failure had an adverse effect on non-US boxers within the ratings"

    I gave the records of Gains, 32-1-1 over the last several years to the end of 1932, and coming off a win over Carnera, and Neusel, still undefeated, with a win over Gains, being rated behind Levinsky, who was 10-12-1 in 23 fights during 1931 and 1932.

    So if having a great record and beating a guy who beat Levinsky twice, and being undefeated and beating the guy who beat the guy who beat Levinsky twice, before coming to America to beat Levinsky himself, isn't providing evidence, nothing will.

    We should just agree to disagree. You have no problem with these ratings. I do, and I have explained why I find them lacking.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  15. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,101
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Something which just occurred to me. The guy in the street had no way of looking up the records of a fighter in those days. If the raters said X is better than Y, where would anyone go to check the records to draw his own conclusion? You could perhaps plow through a whole lot of newspapers, but the typical busy working guy just had to buy into the ratings as posted.
     

Share This Page