No heavyweight champion in history, ever made their career confession, to a men's health magazine. Whether it was true or false, they sold it to the highest bidder!
Cardinal Richelieu once said: "Give me three sentences written by the most honest man, and I will find something in it to hang him." I think that the prosecution is working on that basis here. They are looking for some sort of confession, some sort of throwaway remark, that will somehow circumvent all the other evidence!
No they don’t. If you don’t understand why this is, I’m not even going to begin trying to explain it to you. (You’ve had it explained to you in previous threads).
What an utterly fatuous remark. No luck required. The case is already beyond reasonable doubt. But, in almost every case, there are the handful of moon pilots, who can’t digest the evidence - being blinded by their own version of events. (There’s usually no helping them). This^ demonstrates, quite starkly, that you don’t know what you are talking about. Your dismissive and or warped attitude towards perfectly reasonable evidence is a weakness in your critical thinking ability. It does not constitute a weakness in the evidence itself.
Im just joshing with you, I love Carnera i have never even seen the quote anywhere but in this thread, Boredom does things to a man.
That's because you already have opinion about it and you pick arguments to support your opinion, not the other way. You know that Willard supposedly also won the title in a fix, right? Why don't you doubt this one as well?
Not being convinced about something, rather indicates I might NOT have formed an opinion either way, doesn't it? I've really not focused on the Sharkey (II) match in this thread. I wasn't the one to bring that match up. So, I really don't know what you are trying to get at. Yes, I have looked at this. I can't see the two are comparable, other than there was some kind of controversy over them. I think this fight was on the level.
I don't believe that either Willard or Carnera won the tile on a fix, but the evidence against Willard is arguably much stronger. At least there you have a confession by one of the two men in the ring. It would have some sort of chance in court on that basis!
"I'm not sure if he was ever put into a panic or fluster, until he encountered Dempsey" What about the Joe Cox fight?
I agree that the critics take the "It is all true" line and run with it far further than it is worth. Carnera specifically maintained that he won the title on the level to the end. (and Sharkey backed him up). Without context, we don't know what exactly he was referring to within a work of fiction. It might be just about the corruption generally in boxing or boxers being shafted by their managers. Also the guy doing the quoting, Jack Sher, is very inaccurate about filmed fights which we can judge for ourselves.
"very broad book" Actually a work of fiction dealing with a fictional fighter named Toro Morino. Carnera specifically maintained to the end that he won the title on the square according to his daughter. Just as an aside, the poorest historical evidence for anything is a quote, which are often distorted or taken out of context, or simply fake. I would ask a question. Has anyone actually heard Carnera say this on film or tape? You are relying on Sher's accuracy, but reading the article, Sher obviously has an agenda and I don't think his accuracy about things we can judge for ourselves, such as fights which were filmed, is impressive. In fairness, if anyone wants to use this as a rebuttal, the same is true of his daughter's quote. She might certainly be biased for her father rather than against him.
Interestingly, there is a written confession by Johnson that he threw the Willard Fight. Sharkey to his death maintained that his loss to Carnera was on the level. Interesting that the hard to know what the context is "It is all true" quote is taken as unquestioned proof, while the same critics spin on a dime to dismiss Johnson's detailed written confession.
Leaving aside the question of fixed fights, if we take their records at face value, I can't see how Willard could possibly be favoured over Carnera's much more impressive resume. Willard took 25 rounds or thereabout to dispose of old man Johnson in his best performance. Carnera has wins over Uzcudun, Sharkey, Loughran, Neusel and Schaaf. His resume is also about 4 times longer. Willard never fought anybody with the size and strength of Carnera whereas Carnera had faced similarly sized opponents and beaten them. Carnera also has a degree of technical skill, whereas Willard is woeful, from what film we see of them. Willard has gameness, I'll give him that, but I don't think it will be enough.
