Primo Carnera vs. KO Christner I (full fight now on youtube)

Vitali isn't ranked as a puncher either, despite amazing KO%.
You clearly have agenda against Carnera, who won all of his most important fights legitimately.

 

I have an agenda against GULLIBILITY.
Vitali is ranked as a puncher, not as big a one as his brother ,but clearly a harder one than Carnera.
If you doubt this make a poll .Harder puncher Vitali or Primo? I'll wager you a months voluntary self ban on the outcome Time to put up or--- you know the rest!WAITING!

 

Well, that's nice that you think he took a dive against Sharkey. The film doesn't back that up.

Sort of like Tim Witherspoon saying he took a dive against Bonecrusher Smith doesn't wash when you watch the film and see he got his teeth knocked out.

Where are the dives?

 

Schmeling came to the US in 1928. Hitler didn't come to power until 1933. After Hitler was in power there were efforts to boycott Schmeling fights, which is one reason why the 1936 Louis fight only drew 42,000. And Hitler in power probably had a lot to do with Schmeling not getting his deserved shot at Braddock.

"it was a reaction against Nazism not against Germans per se."

With German-Americans the largest single ethnic minority in the US at the time, that isn't surprising.

"dubious DSQ"

It certainly looks on film like Sharkey hit low. But this happened in 1930, well before Hitler came to power. Hitler changed everything, including Schmeling's image and how he was treated.

MussolinI was in power throughout Carnera's career. The cloud of Fascism might always have effected how Carnera was seen.

 

The first part of your post is confirming what I stated the negative reaction to Schmeling was not anti German ,it was anti Nazi.Hitler was Chancellor 3 years after
What was the second largest ethnic minority, could it have been Italian?
Two of the judges and the referee did not see a low punch.But you are pretty sure there was one from viewing a 90 years old black and white film?

I just watched the fight again ,it looks like a low punch.
Interesting that Sharkey fought in a completely different style than he had againt Dempsey 3 years earleir
Like to give instances in which Carnera was victimized because of his Italian heritage?
Carnera seems to have gotten a fair shake in his decisions in the US except for the Poreda fight after which the referee was summarily banned. Campolo, another Italian fought there 14 times during Mussolini's reign, any evidence he was biased against in fights?
Carnera and Campolo headlined in MSG in 1931.
Sharkey and Carnera's 1st fight was advertised as for the US Heavyweight Championship,any anti Italian bias there? All I'm getting from you is smoke and mirrors, might, possibly etc.You need something more tangible J T.

 

Just some things that are noticeable when watching that video.

Carnera is big and seems to be athletic, but he fights like he doesn't understand boxing. Christner, is much smaller, not skilled, and leaps/rushes in with a wild left or right, but most of the time it lands. That shouldn't happen time after time, getting caught with something like that occasionally happens but PC didn't make any adjustments and it continued to happen. It looks like PC lacks reflexes, but the problem is probably not his reflexes, it's probably just that he's not a natural fighter and he didn't understand how to adjust. PC also fought with his back foot almost directly behind his left foot, he was "bladed." If he had moved the back foot more to the right of his left foot, he probably would have had much more power and better balance. He'd be able to turn and transfer his weight for his right hand and left hook.

I don't know much about his background, but from watching it's likely that PC started boxing late? He reminds me of Mark Gastineau boxing. Big, athletic, but not a fighter. If Christner, who was not skilled, but he was a fighter, could have switched bodies with Carnera, the small guy would have gotten hurt.

 

"Levinsky 30-14-4 Awesome eh!"

He was ranked #4 in 1931, #7 in 1932, and #3 in 1933. One of the best of the era.

"McCorkindale." "what level was he?"

Ranked #5 in 1933.

"Lasky"

Would rank #3 in 1934. He must have been a prospect in 1932.

Uzcudun was rated #3 in 1928. Maloney #4 in 1926 and #6 in 1928. Sharkey was the champion. Loughran the #2 contender.

These were mainly the best heavyweights of the late 1920's and early 1930's. I think it was a very weak era which is a main reason Carnera was able to become champion. To put him in perspective with the three best of the era, he lost badly to Baer and Louis, and did not fight Schmeling. I think he was fortunate that Sharkey had gotten the decision over Schmeling. Sharkey in 1933 was not only stopped by Carnera, but beaten in his next two fights by Levinsky and Loughran.

What wasn't answered here was the question. Why have legit matches against the best of the time, mediocre as they were, while supposedly fixing setups and pushovers?

One thing about Carnera one must keep in mind. He was gigantic. If his weight were 190 lbs, and Christner the same percentage smaller, Christner would have weighed 146. A man that much bigger can have all sorts of technical flaws and still win, especially if the welterweight is ordinary to begin with. I think the comment one poster made that he was a super-heavyweight when there weren't many of any ability is valid. It is difficult to judge the impact of his punches against men so much lighter.

The Schaaf victory is under a cloud. But when the match was made they did not know Schaaf would get sick. They were putting Carnera in against what seemed at he time a dangerous opponent.

 

Two of the judges and the referee did not see a low punch."

I would like to know the source for this. The referee did not count. He did in the Dempsey-Sharkey fight.

"I just watched the fight again, it looks a low punch."

It sure looks that way to me and it would look that way to me if the two judges and he ref swore there was no low blow. I believe my lying eyes.

"instances in which Carnera was victimized because of his Italian heritage?"

Even if he was victimized, I wouldn't know if this was the reason. I can't think of any boxing issue in which Carnera was victimized at all, except perhaps the bad Poreda decision. But bad decisions happened against almost everyone back then.

The actual issue is if bias is driving some of the extreme putdowns of his ability and career. Here is an example:

"Old Satchel feet was a one time Fascist booster, photographed in full black shirt uniform, and later a vociferous denouncer of Benito and his reign. So an activist, a pragmatist, an opportunist, and, in his last years, an apologist."

I am not disputing any of this, but it doesn't have anything to do with Carnera as a boxer. Does it color this writer's opinion of Carnera's in-ring performances? Just as an American and just considering white American fighters, who were drawing the color line at a time Primo didn't, I don't think most of them have any high ground on political morality.

"might, possibly, probably"

I try to be precise when dealing with facts. I try to make it clear when I am drawing a conclusion. It is a distinction between what I know to be true and what I think to be true. Nothing smoke and mirrors about it.

 

Carnera always looks easy to tag with right hands to me,which again is something Tunney remarked upon.

 

I have no negative words to say about Carnera as a man he sems to have beena decent rather

The only official was said he saw the low punch was judge Harold Barnes who left boxing under a cloud in the late 1950's .You can either take my word for that or request primary sources from books which I can provide.You have no evidence of Carnera being victimised because he was Italian and no evidence of any other Italian boxers being victimized in the US during Mussolini's 20 year reign.
Carnera had several nicknames ."Old Satchel Feet ,"being just one of them ,it's no more derogotary than being called Everett Big Foot Martin, GunBoat Smith, The Garrulous Gob,The Weeping Lithuanian,The Black Uhlan,or The Livermore Larruper.

There are several photos of Primo in full Fascisti regalia ,again that isnt derogotary it's just a fact. When Benito fell out of favour and was shot and hanged upside down from a lampost with his Mistress[which my Father saw,] Carnera quickly changed allegiances to the US side,so that's being pragmatic and opportunist.Yes or No? Thousands and thousands of Italians did the self same thing I in no way condemn them for doing so ,its human nature and self preservation to side with the winner.In later years Carnera apologised for getting involved with , Owney Madden ,Frenchy Demange and Billy Duffy ,and also for, as he couched it, being duped by Mussolini, as a whole Nation was. So yes ,an apologist for his actions. Do I blame him for any of them ? No.
I fail to see anyone attempting to gain the high moral ground either in the past or here , just you and I exchanging thoughts. I'm done with the other fella, it's like trying to explain nuclear physics to one of my dogs debating with him.
Bottom line you have no evidence to offer to back up your claim that Carnera's bad rep viza viz fake fights stems from anti Italian prejudice,and since other prominent Italian fighters operated in the US throughout both Carnera and Mussolini's era without any negative press I see no basis for your allegations.

 

I don't understand the point of this post.

This is the post I quoted:

"Old Satchel feet was a one time Fascist booster, photographed in full black shirt uniform, and later a vociferous denouncer of Benito and his reign. So an activist, a pragmatist, an opportunist, and, in his last years, an apologist."

And I said on my post I didn't dispute any of this. So why a rebuttal to a position not taken?

And to the point of what does this have to do with his abilities as a boxer. All this could be true of a golfer who shoots several strokes under par on every course he plays. His politics wouldn't make him a bad golfer. Heaven knows you don't need to be politically correct to be a successful athlete.

This thread is about Carnera's performance in his filmed fight against Christner and by extension his overall abilities and career. Why was his politics dragged into the discussion?

"I fail to see anyone attempting to gain the high moral ground in the past or now."

This was specifically restricted to American boxers of the color line era versus Carnera swimming with the tide in Italy. What would that have to do with anyone not in that category, let alone now. Drawing the color line at least is relevant to boxing.

"Carnera being victimized"

The issue isn't what boxing officials did with Carnera, but whether his current reputation is distorted by political takes by journalists or boxing historians. The worth of films is that they are a primary source, not hearsay. I judge Sharkey hit Schmeling low because to me it is clear on the film. Who thought so or didn't think so at the time doesn't matter to me.

My take is Carnera was a huge and athletic man with some but limited skills, who managed to get to the top in a weak era in which he didn't defeat the best out there, Louis, Baer, and Schmeling, but won the title against an over the hill champion who was on the cusp of a severe career decline.

"prominent Italian fighters"

How many of these prominent Italian fighters were actually Italian-American. Italian-Americans had no direct connection to Italy and Mussolini's eventual aggressions. Carnera could be so linked as you in fact did.

 

Carnera won a split dec over Levinsky in 32,is that supposed to impress me? Let me ask you this seriously .Do you think McCorkindale was a world class fighter? Forget about the fact that he briefly held a ranking in one of the worst eras for heavyweights ever.The same year he lost to Carnera he went on to lose to journeyman Griselle 43-25-3 McCorkindale had won none of his last 3 fights.
Lasky was an untested kid, don't build him up into some new sensation, if the result was going to mean something the fight wouldnt have been staged in St Paul Auditorium before 4000 people!
Uzcudun was 3 in 28?The problem is he fought Carnera in1930 2 years later and had lost his 2 big fights in29 and been beaten byRisko in 1930
And Carnera again only managed a split dec.

Mediocre as they were,your words,and true ones,why bribe Journeymen to lie down?
Obviously because you are not sure your charge is capable of beating them!
Why not bribe the sometime ranked fighters that are a step up?
Obviously because it is harder to coerce a fringe contender into taking a bribe simply because he has something to lose! An oft beaten nobody has no rep to protect .
Carnera's manager gave a substantial proportion of Carnera's purse to Elzier Rioux to ensure the right outcome ,unfortunately for him and Carnera, Rioux' performance was woefully unconvincing and all of them suffered from the fall out.Carnera was so in the dark about the shenaningans that when Rioux had his purse withheld he offered him some of his own, unaware that had already occurred!
I spoke to Larry Gains one night at the Albert Hall,he was charmingly modestand gracious about some of his foes,when I mentioned Carnera he just laughed and would not be drawn.
I'm not going to convince you ,and you certainly are never going to convince me.
Let's just leave this while we are still on good terms. Agreed?

 

I didn't say that Carnera is bigger puncher than Vitali, you seems to fail to get the point of my posts...