Until a few days ago, you didn't even know the article existed. Now you feel quite confident in casting doubt on the veracity of Sher's work. Sher was quite clear about the context of the piece and what Carnera was referring to. Carnera's words and how they were obviously taken to mean, were reprinted over and over again, in the same context, in the national press for years and never once refuted, or even corrected. No action was ever taken against Sher or other writers, who laid out Carnera's story. But now, more than 70 years later, a couple of posters on an internet forum want to question the veracity of the article, as though no one else since its publication (who'd had much, much more at stake than they), could have contested it at the time? I'd have to say that, from where I am sitting, I find that more than just a little amusing.
I am going to be honest with you here, I don't think that this quote is the Carnera uppercut that you take it to be. Even if you take it at face value, it doesn't actually say very much.
"No action was taken against Sher or other writers, who laid out Canera's story." For the good reason that they are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Here is a comment on defamation lawsuits by the General Council for the First Amendment Coalition: "The First Amendment does not encourage nor promote lawsuits against newsgatherers. The First Amendment provides strong protections to news organizations and others that publish information, and defamation claims in particular are difficult to prove." Here is the definition of defamation under American law as given by Black's Law Dictionary: "Defamation. An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation and good name." Note that key word "intentional" The Law Dictionary elaborates: "A plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statement was published with malice. Malice as used in this context means that it was published either knowing that it was false or with a reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false." This is a high bar. You not only have to prove the statements false, you have to prove that the writer knew they were false and went on anyway. Also in an earlier post you seemed surprised that Carnera didn't sue Columbia pictures for libel concerning The Harder They Fall, but only for invasion of privacy. Well that movie was about the fictional Toro Morino, not Primo Carnera. Even the invasion of privacy suit struck me as off the wall and unwinnable. Also, if one loses the lawsuit, almost a certainty in defamation cases, he will most likely have to pay the fees of the defendant's lawyers. "Just a few days ago, you didn't know the article existed" I read it in True Magazine back in the early 1960's. It was syndicated. I just didn't remember it, but it came back reading it. It was easy to forget as it is not an impressive or memorable article. "Carnera's words, and what they were obviously taken to mean, were reprinted over and over again, in the national press, and never once refuted, or even corrected." I don't know what this is supposed to mean, as the idea that most of Carnera's major bouts were fixes, including the 2nd Sharkey fight, has often been rebutted, including by the way in True's Boxing Yearbook back in the 1960's in a direct answer to Sher's article. That writer went into the what the films of Carnera's fights show versus Sher's take. Your spin on the "It is all true" quote which is specifically about a fictional book is only spin. There is really nothing to be corrected, as without context we don't know what is meant, let alone that Carnera was conceding that all his fights were fixed. For me, filmed evidence and a total overview of Carnera's career trumps a quote taken out of context. I am not really into Carnera, but he is an interesting case with all the conflicting takes, reminding me of the Kris Kristofferson line: "He is a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction"
For what it's worth, the First Amendment protection against defamation lawsuits from public figures wasn't quite as robust back then, before New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) established the modern "actual malice" standard.
Valid point. Carnera might have had a stronger standing prior to 1967 in a suit. But Sher's article relies so much on innuendo about fixes with it made explicit that Carnera was not aware of the fixes, that I don't know what Carnera could sue about. He was not being accused of being dishonest. Just of being an inferior fighter. I don't know if that is something any court would hear a suit about. Reputation is about character not ability in a sport. For certain though, there was no case to sue Columbia Studio for defamation about The Harder They Fall because that movie was about the fictional Toro Morino. As was the novel.
My sister is an author, and I asked her about this once. Novels have the standard paragraph at the beginning, saying that any similarity to persons living or deceased is purely coincidental. This isn't entirely a get out of jail free card, but you only have to prove "sufficient differences" between the fictional character and the person suing you, and you are pretty much untouchable. The fictional character of Toro Moreno would have more than met that standard.
Suffices to say that, in addition to making sure you have an understanding of the law and it’s applicability to the times in question, you’re probably better off not flinging a few excerpts from a law dictionary together, to make your case. But that’s by the by. The reality here is that there is nothing wrong with the article. It is an honest redemption piece, in which Sher deplores the circumstances that Carnera found himself in (and those who facilitated those circumstances) while, at the same time, pouring praise on Carnera’s rehabilitation, after having been treated so badly. Strange for a writer (whose writing you described as “slippery and deceptive”, in another thread) to taint an article with misrepresentations, in what was an otherwise relatively positive story about the subject. There is no spin required. Sher provides the context and what Carnera is saying is made clear. It really is that simple. With this, you seem to be implying that the quote from Carnera (which really isn't taken out of context) is the only evidence to support the view that his career was manufactured. Why? There’s ample other evidence to support the claim. Backstory and behind-the-scenes dealings are rarely filmed and pretty much never, if the dealings are illegal. If simply watching Carnera on film tells you the whole story then I can only assume you have a big imagination - which tends towards the bright side. It is ironic that the writer you have been quite critical of, during these discussions, was quite onto something, when stating: " This content is protected " Are you going to disagree with that line, too?
While the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in the Sullivan case established the actual malice standard as Federal Law, it was an extrapolation from common law based on several earlier state Supreme Court rulings Snively vs Record (1921-California) Lafferty vs Houlihan (1923--New Hampshire) Coleman vs MacLennan (1908--Kansas) Coleman vs MacLennan was the central case, with this ruling, "We think a person may in good faith publish whatever he honestly believes to be true, and essential to the protection of his interests, or the interests of the person or persons to whom he makes the publication, without committing a public offense, although what he publishes may in fact not be true, and may be injurious to the character of others." I didn't drag lawsuits into any of the discussions of Carnera, but want to clarify why I am skeptical of using their absence as proof or, or even evidence of, the truth of any particular article.
There has never been a consensus about Carnera, and the modern controversies go back really to early in his career, with vastly different takes on his abilities the norm. Here is James J. Corbett in an as told to article in The Ring Magazine issue of May, 1931, with this comment which could be a post on this thread: "Some experts tell me the Venetian has tremendous possibilities. Others say he is a pusher and is so muscled that he never will be anything but that. Some say he is fast. Others decry his ungainliness. I don't remember when there was so much conflicting opinion on an outstanding heavyweight, that is outstanding in so far as public attention is concerned." and "there may be possibilities in Carnera, after all. You must admit that he is comparatively inexperienced, and that considering his background, he has done pretty well." In the November, 1933, issue of The Ring, after Carnera won the title, Jack Kofoed commented on the reaction to Carnera's victory: "Jack Sharkey backed against the ropes. He unleashed a smashing right that landed flush on Primo Carnera's jaw. The gargantuan Italian smiled his snaggle-toothed smile, came close, whipped in a right uppercut. His flying fist plu-unked against Sharkey's chin. The champion fell on his face. His big, smoothly muscled body hardly stirred while the referee counted him out. He had been beaten in the first defense of his title that he had arranged. "There was an immediate blah-blah from observers about the difference in size of the men. People who had called Carnera a circus freak prophesied there would be no one to beat him in years. They harped on his 265 pounds. They forgot that two years earlier Sharkey beat him handily. They did not remember that inept Jim Maloney had suffered no damage at Primo's hands in two ten-round bouts. The Italian's rise to the heavyweight championship of the world was due not to size alone, but to his vast improvement in boxing and hitting." later--"I am not convinced that Primo Carnera deserves to rate with the really great heavyweight champions of the past. He has yet to prove how good he is. Neither am I sure that the mammoths are so dangerous they deserve a special 'Dreadnaught' class and should not be allowed to fight average heavyweights." Interesting take on a fighter supposedly viewed as helpless by everyone at the time according to Sher and other critics. Years later, in the June, 1955, issue of The Ring, Ted Carroll commented on Carnera: "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, Carnera lacked Big Jess' ruggedness but moved much faster than was to be expected from a man of his 260 lb. bulk." In more recent articles, the claim is made that there was no real controversy about the Sharkey KO from ringsiders, with some quoted. James Dawson, "Terrific right uppercut." Nat Fleischer, "A strong right hand to the chin." (I don't know how accurate these are. Fleischer is also quoted as saying an "invisible punch" felled Sharkey.) About the Baer fight, one internet article claims this, "Carnera had x-rays done on his right ankle at the Columbus hospital (June 16, 1934) which found the ankle to be broken, the astragalus bone to be precise." (lot of detail here, and it is supported by a photo of Baer visiting Carnera in the hospital with Carnera's elevated leg in a cast. The article quotes Carnera that the injury came in the first round and the writer feels he can see on the film how it happened when Baer fell on him. If true, it really flips the Baer fight. Lasting 11 rounds against Baer on a broken ankle is quite a feat.) To paraphrase Kris Kristofferson, whose lyrics seem to be on my mind these days, I don't know what is right or wrong, but I do try to understand, and I need more info than just a sloppily written article by Jack Sher. Carnera was obviously a manufactured fighter who lucked into the championship by getting a shot at a faded champion, but is the simplistic take that he couldn't fight at all and it was all a fix the explanation. I think the true answer is more complicated and deserves good research. I would love to see Adam Pollack do one of his in the ring with books on Primo Carnera.
"There is nothing wrong with the article" Couldn't disagree more. Jack Sher was born on March 16, 1913 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was educated at the University of Minnesota. That age and background makes it unlikely he saw live the major Carnera fights he comments on, and very improbable he was at ringside as a reporter. Sher appears to have been a journeyman writer who wrote for a wide variety of magazines, such as Screen and Radio Weekly. He was also published by major magazines like Collier's. While he wrote some on sports, it seems to have been profiles on past figures. I can't find any evidence he was ever a boxing reporter. His main career would later be writing fiction as a screenwriter for the movies and TV. His best credit was for additional dialogue on Shane (1953). A. B. Guthrie wrote the screenplay. This doesn't surprise me as the style of this article reads more like fiction than factual reporting. Off the writing, Sher might not have done much research on Carnera as a boxer, nor been very familiar with his record: About the first Sharkey fight: Carnera learns abruptly that---"he was not the one-punch killer that he had been led to believe since the days in Paris." (Wouldn't going to two ten round decisions, and losing one, with the past it Jim Maloney, have told him that.) Sher gives this melodramatic reading for Carnera dropping back down to one knee to take a longer count after being dropped by Sharkey: "Those who crucified him as being cowardly, who taunted him with boos and derisive cries, did not know what was going on inside the huge man. As later fights proved he was courageous beyond belief. He could take merciless punishment. That night it was not Sharkey from whom he was cowering. He was hiding from himself, from the realization that he was nothing but a gigantic fraud in the hand of hoodlums, that he had nothing, neither a punch nor a defense." This major epiphany in the few seconds after getting hit by a left hook on the chin? I guess Carnera was the first future champion ever to get knocked down. Never happened to somebody like Joe Louis. Well, wait. The more likely explanation for why Carnera dropped back to a knee is the one given by other writers. Carnera looked to his corner and was told to take advantage of the count. Sher earlier wrote "The fact that a slight tap on the jaw would send him reeling." and "The giant had a glass jaw." Apparently not so glass that he couldn't stand up to take "merciless punishment." Does seem to me to be a bit of a contradiction. Following the first Sharkey bout, "After he beat King Levinsky and Vittorio Campolo, they hustled Carnera out of the country until the stench of the upset would blow over." Upset? Was Carnera favored over Sharkey? How does that square with it being obvious he was a helpless oaf? And why exactly would losing to a fighter who had beaten Harry Wills and Tommy Loughran create a stench? And Sher not only doesn't mention Maloney as far as I can tell, but also Larry Gains and Stanley Poreda. Carnera lost four decisions between 1930 and 1932, and went the distance twice with Maloney, twice with Levinsky, plus with Lasky and McCorkindale and Uzcudun. I would like to know why the "mob" fixing all his fights allowed him to lose so often. or unimpressivly go the distance so often. on the second Sharkey fight--"Carnera climbed through the ropes that night looking very unlike a confident, keyed-up, challenger" To me the film shows a confident Carnera carrying the fight to Sharkey in the first round and winning it. On the Baer fight--"after being knocked down in every round for a total of 13 times, Primo was still in there taking it." He wasn't knocked down in every round, and in fact after early knockdowns rallied well from rounds 4 to 9. This is without considering the possibility that Carnera suffered a broken ankle in the first round. Your point of view on redemption is beside the point to me as the issue is if Carnera ever needed redemption in the first place. "Sher provides the context." The context would be the questions asked. What are they? "The story of Primo Carnera . . . will be difficult for future generations to believe." Yes, you seem to have a very tough time believing Carnera possibly fought his way honestly to the title. "backstories are rarely filmed" But fights are and are the visual evidence of what actually happened. I will stick with using films as evidence.
Depends on the time and rule set imo. 1919 and back, fight to the finish, I give it to Jess, Carnera takes this under a 1930's rule setting.
The internet has a lot of information on some of the issues debated here. One, which is I think not directly relevant to Carnera as a boxer, is the question of acromegaly. I came across this quote from Kenneth Ho, described as a world renowned endocrinologist from Macquarie University Hospital: "There is no medical evidence to support any contention Primo Carnera suffered from acromegaly. There are no medical records, no diagnosis, and most of the physical symptoms are nonexistent." I don't know what is right or wrong concerning this issue, but I thought this quote worthwhile to share.
