You keep mentioning the book not me. I think everyone knows its a work of fiction based on a real person, Carnera . You seem to be meandering all over the place I couldn't care less about what Carnera did or didn't do in the War nor how well he did or didn't live. My interest in him is his boxing career and how many of his fights were kosher
I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not.All I've heard from you is," I think" as though your interpretation of events is the one true gospel. You've diverted to John Ford ,Henry Fonda ,General Custer and Uncle Tom Cobley and all! Now you're getting irritated and indignant and repeating what is your point? WTH's YOURS?
How many times must I say that I am talking about the film mainly, as that has been brought in (by others I think) as evidence. The novel is also fiction, isn't it? Why is fiction being brought forward, whether a novel, or a film, as evidence of anything. It is fiction. This is true on every subject. There was an historical Attila the Hun. But no serious person would think you are getting the "truth" about Attila from the Jack Palance movie.
"WTF's YOURS?" If I am irritated, which I don't think I am, I can at least avoid getting vulgar. My point is that real research should be done on Carnera's career rather than simply repeating what looks to me to be dubious information. I hope Adam Pollack does one of his books on Carnera. We could use someone giving us a wide spectrum of reactions to the man and his fights, at the time. My take, and I admit it is subjective, on the films of his fights is that they show Carnera being better than his extreme critics will allow. "I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not." So. The subject of the thread is Carnera, not you.
I've never said or implied the book or film is accurate as regards Carnera's whole career its obviously based on him does anybody doubt that? I said Schulberg got it right and spotting the fix was in for the Stribling fights proves he did. Now I'm a huge film buff and if you want to swap stories about the cinema,whether it be Bogie's last film,THTF or Jack Palance[ Kid Brazzo] who fought Joe Baksi I'm your man but it had better be taken to the General.As for this thread all I can say is Print The Legend TMWSLV Jim Stewart,The Duke ,Vera Miles , Lee Marvin,a young Lee Van Cleef Strother Martin,Woody Strode and Edmund O Brien who IMO stole the picture.
I'll take out the F .and substitute it with Hell's. Primo Carnera = mechanical boxer who did not punch his weight or take a shot to the head well, for his size had excellent stamina, brave enough, but pushed his jab. His long list of ko's should be viewed with extreme care imo. "He had nothing ,"Joe Louis
Okay. All I have said is that fiction is not evidence, "based on" someone or not. "Print the legend." I don't think that is the way historians look at it. The facts of what happened matter. I love that movie though.
These guys are celebrated sports writers not exclusive to boxing. Masters of the written word. Masters of Expressing the outsiders view of boxing. in my opinion they are not “boxing people” who boxed or trained fighters. If Ray Arcel or Eddie Futch have something to say about Carnera I am all ears. Max Scmeling, Sharkey and real champions all endorsed the legitimacy of Carnera. And that’s more than enough for me. you can keep Galico and Bud so far as the inside view of 1930s boxing is concerned. Champions like Schmeling outrank them for insight.
Film is a visual record of what happened. An eyewitness is a reaction, but hardly trumps a film. If there is a crime, and an eyewitness says one thing but the surveillance film shows another, which one will the police believe? I wouldn't say the Carnera case is closed one way or another. My take is I would like to see a book with good research by someone like Adam Pollack.
Joe Louis on Carnera- "he couldn't punch, but he had a pretty decent Jab. He pushed with his right and he was awkward. Mostly he tried to scare me with his weight. It was hard to get under his guard at first, but chappie told me to pace myself and the openings would come" "(Because)he never hurt me once, I felt ready for any heavyweight in the world - jimmy Braddock, Max Baer, anybody.” now compare that with how Louis described other champions and it is no worse: Joe Louis on jimmy Braddock - "I could have finished him anytime after the first round" . Chappie kept saying "wait take it easy, he knows a lot, he will come apart after five rounds, I'll tell you when to shoot" Joe Louis on max Baer "he came out of his corner like he was scared to death" "the only time he hit me hard was at the end of the second round. He'd hit me with two rights to the head, but they didn't hurt. He couldn't hit as hard as I thought he could " "for a while I think he tried to throw the fight. He just wasn't right. I don't know what happened to him that night. I felt he wasn't the fighter I thought he should have been"
"He had nothing," Joe Louis. I don't know that Joe Louis didn't say this, but where exactly did this quote come from? What is the context? In the June, 1955 issue of The Ring, Ted Carroll discussed Carnera: "Carnera would come apart at the seams when belted solidly, but to give the big fellow his due, he was a lot better boxer than he was given credit for being. Joe Louis among others is authority for this. Primo also had a ramrod left jab which was an effective weapon. Heavier than Willard, he lacked Big Jess' ruggedness but moved much faster than was to be expected from a man of his 260 lb. bulk." Now I don't know which is the true Joe Louis' opinion of Carnera. He had nothing, or he was a lot better boxer than he was given credit for. What I can say is I know that Ted Carroll was a respected boxing writer for The Ring and knew Joe Louis well. Where the other quote comes from I don't know.
Carnera."He had nothing,mostly he just tried to scare me with his size." The quote comes from Joe Louis Barrow his autobiography.My Life which I have.I don't make things up.
