Valuev would outbox and out class the helpless Carnera. It's not that Valuev is that good, it's just that Carnera was that bad.
Fair points. I'm not too far from where you sit on this. Carnera won a world title but is not remembered or ranked amongst the greats. There is also widespread doubt about many of his fights, particularly the early ones - has been for decades. None of us will never know who'd win between Carnera and Valuev......and that's what gives us such good topic material on forums such as this.
Well, Sharkey, Baer, Briggs are also never mentioned as greats even guys like Patterson, Corbett, Fitz, McVey, Jeanette are not often mentioned. Does that mean they were bad fighters? Okay, Briggs is a bad example but you get the point.
I'm not claiming that those fights had anything to do with anything. The people of the day seemed to think that some of those fights were. I wasn't there myself, and I'm not claiming that the experts or spectators were right or wrong, but Carnera's reputation for having a career that wasn't always on the level is pretty widespread, and I don't think the label came from just one man's book or film. To imply that I may have a double standard, is to bark up the wrong tree. I don't care for Sonny Liston, and to answer your question, there may very well be some validity to his being involved in a fixed match or two. He was afterall, connected to the mafia, and look at the suspicious outcome of the Clay rematch. To admit being involved in a fixed fight is just as discrediting for the man who layed down, as the man who falsely received the victory. A testimony such as the one Sharkey took to the grave, should be taken with a grain of sult.. Again, I admit having no proof on the subject, only years of hearing or reading numerous claims that this fight and perhaps others, were not on the level... I have no more or less proof on the matter than you do. I did not live through the period, and have no access to anything that was used to conduct any sort of investigation, assuming that their ever was one. Testimonies, claims, stories and folklore, are often all we have when looking at many aspects of history. There are many who say that Carnera's career was a farse. There are others who say that it was on the level. I don't give full merit to either side. I think its possible that SOME of his fights may have been fixed, while OTHERS may not have been. It is not unreasonable to take a balanced view on such an inconclusive, ( and apparently sensitive ) subject. There are many ( including yourself ), who claim that men like James Jeffries, Jack Johnson and even Jack Dempsey, probably had more fights than were on paper, due to inconsistant record keeping practices of the day. Some think Jeffries may have had as many as tripple the number of recorded matches. Do I tell people they're wrong? No. Do I take their word for it, and assume that he had that actual number, especially coming from people who can't produce evidence? No. I simply acknowledge the possibilty and move on.......You on the otherhand, seem steadfastly convinced that every match Carnera ever had was legitimate with no strings attached, regardless of what people have been saying for more than half a century. If this is truly your belief, then go with it. But, don't expect me to start a history project when: A. You're the one at difference with popular opinion B. I'm not calling the guy a complete fraud. Have a good evening......
Never used the words bad fighter. They are your words! Carnera won a world title. Bad fighter doesn't fit!
How was Carnera viewed at the time he was actually fighting? Ed Sullivan, Ring Magazine, March 1930 "Despite his trememdous bulk and girth, Carnera is as fast in his movement as a huge cat." "It is in the clinches that his terrific strength is most deadly. Tearing his arms loose by sheer power, he flails that right hand back and forth in a clubbing uppercut that sprawled Peterson on the floor as though he had been ejected from a cannon." Sullivan quotes former Dempsey manager, Leo P Flynn, as predicting, "He's the next world champion." James J Corbett, Ring Magazine, May 1931 Corbett evaluates the heavyweights in an article. Corbett is caustic for the most part about the field of heavyweights, and apparently has never seen the green Carnera in action, but provides an overview about how he was viewed by experts. "The contest with Maloney in Miami left Carnera's true abilities and position very much in the air. Some experts tell me that 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 as much conflicting opinion on an outstanding heavyweight." New York Times, 6-29-1933 gives this preview of Sharkey-Carnera fight. "Sharkey is favored in the battle, but the odds are slim. The champion has been quoted on the long end at 6 to 5 for the past two days. But several bets were reported at 11 to 10, Sharkey favored, according to Jack Doyle, Broadway betting commissioner. "Many who pick Sharkey to turn back the Italian giant base their predictions on the outcome of the last fight between the pair. On Oct 12, 1931, Sharkey met Carnera in a fifteen round bout at Ebbets Field, and scored a decisive victory. However, Carnera is considered to have improved immensely since that fight, and his followers see, in the improvement, a victory for the Italian. He has developed his boxing skill to a high degree, and is now rated as one of the fastest men in the heavyweight division." Max Schmeling, in his autobiography, gives this opinion on Carnera and this fight: "The experts said Carnera couldn't really punch, that he just sort of clubbed his opponents. In fact, his reach was much greater than that of his opponent, and the leverage that that gave him enabled his punches to penetrate almost any defense. In contrast to the experts, I had always considered Carnera to be a technically sound boxer, so I wasn't surprised to hear that he had knocked Sharkey out in the sixth round to become the second European to win the heavyweight title." Jack Kofoed, Ring Magazine, November, 1933. Kofoed responds to those who predict that "there would be no one to beat him in years" and it might be best for boxing to create a Dreadnaught class for Carnera to give smaller fighters a fair shot. He evaluates history's big men and concludes about Carnera: "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 that they deserve a special 'Dreadnaught" class and should not be allowed to fight average heavyweights." New York Times, 2-25-1934, has these headlines for a article on ATG Tommy Loughran, 186 lbs, and the reaction to one of his workouts. "Loughran Form Impresses Fans" "Belief Grows in Miami He has Outside Chance in Bout With Carnera" The text goes on to say that some fans were coming around to the idea that Loughran actually had some sort of a chance for an upset. New York Times 6-13-1934 has story headlined "Leonard Predicts Carnera Victory" concerning the upcoming Baer fight. "Leonard picks Carnera to win because of his ability to box and because of his marvelous defense." "The reason I pick the man mountain," said Benny, "is because it is sound reasoning, so far as advance reasoning on any fight may be sound. "Primo, who has developed from an awkward novice into a clever boxer purposes to capitalize his advantage, rather than resorting to a slugfest exchange. With his reach of 80 inches, Carnera is extremely difficult to hit with his arms extended." New York Times, March 28, 1935--and what of Max Baer, who had defeated Carnera so badly. Here is Baer on the upcoming Louis-Carnera fight: "Carnera Triumph Predicted by Baer; Picks Italian to beat Louis." Ted Carroll, Ring Magazine, June, 1955--has this evaluation of Carnera: "Carnera 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 bulk."
From the book the CINDERELLA MAN by Jeremy Schaap. Background: Remember that this is a book about JAMES J BRADDOCK and has no vested interest in Primo Carnera. Besides, Braddock never fought him. For that reason the book barely mentions Carnera. However, consider this: PAGE 5 & 6: Carnera had won the championship in 1933 from Jack Sharkey under a cloud of justifiable suspicion. It was widely thought that Carnera, who was controlled by the mobster Owney Madden, was the beneficiary of a fix. In latter years, after the mob cruelly abandoned him, he became a pro westler, something he was much better at than boxing. Comments: Perhaps the fixes weren't just early in Carnera's career. The mob were on a good thing. Why would they stop? Not very flattering about Carnera's ability either. Page 6: In preparation for the Baer bout, Carnera trained at Pompton Lakes and spared frequently with Corn Griffin. Because Griffin could actually fight a little, he often made Carnera look foolish - so foolish in fact that, that the writers began singing Griffin's fistic praises. Comments: Because Griffin could actually fight a little! A little, if you don't mind! Remember, Griffin was not only much shorter and lighter than Carnera, he was a virtual nobody, and he was making Carnera look foolish! Page 7: Jimmy Johnson (matchmaker at Maddison Square Garden) was so impressed with Griffin he signed him to fight on the Carnera vs Baer undercard. Comments: Griffin, after impressing by making Carnera look so foolish in the lead-up to Carnera vs Baer, went on to fight Braddock on the undercard. Braddock then set about making Corn Griffin look equally foolish on the night! How good is Carnera, who got decked by Baer 11 times the same night looking by now? Page 7: When I sent him up there to work with Carnera, I told him to be careful and not get hurt. Now all I'm afraid of is that he'll hurt Carnera - Charles Harvey (Griffin's manager). Page 164: Carnera spoke English the way he fought - awkwardly! Comments: More unflattering remarks! Page 165: Meanwhile, as Baer was getting a rubdown next door to his dressing room, two well dressed men with bulges in their jackets walked into his dressing room unannounced. They told Hoffman (Baer's manager) that they were representing Owney Madden's interests and Madden was interested in seeing Carnera win. The men were seeking Hoffman's assurance that Baer would choose not to win the fight, and implicitly threatening his life. Before Hoffman could respond, Jerry Cassall, Baer's bodyguard, stood up from his chair and opened his jacket revealing a pistol. Unprepared for a gunfight, Madden's men left. Hoffman decided not to tell Baer until after the fight. Comments: Did the fixes and attempted fixes stop prior to the Baer fight? It seems not! After all, why would people make up this stuff? Schaap was writing a book about Braddock, and to a lesser extent Baer. He barely mentions Carnera. But still found space to mention this! CONCLUSION: It seems people are setting about trying to change history when it comes to Carnera. There are far too many references in far to many books and articles to think there weren't at least some fixes in his career, in all likelyhood many. This thread started with the question of who would win out of Valuev & Carnera - there'll never be a correct answer because they'll never meet - but in my view Valuev would get the points in a very forgetable contest!
1. Jeremy Schaap was born in 1969, not only decades after Carnera fought, but actually after he died. I think it probably possible that he has never interviewed anyone who saw Carnera fight or was close to him, or his opponents. I don't see how you consider this "history" rather than the primary sources which I quoted. 2. Carnera became a wrestler? So did Joe Louis. 3. Primary source on Corn Griffin? Why does this training camp hearsay story trump first hand accounts that people hardly gave Loughran, a proven great fighter, a shot against Carnera. 4. Baer rubdown story. Great story. Sounds like it came out of an old Jimmy Cagney movie. This is the first time I heard it about Baer or indeed have heard anything about Baer being threatened by the mob in the 60 years I have been reading about boxing. I have heard this story, though, only it concerned Sugar Ray Robinson before a fight against Jake LaMotta. By the way, how likely is it that gunmen would show up in Baer's dressing room and threaten him in front of lots of witnesses? And mention Owney Madden by name? If anything subsequently happened to Baer, who do you think fries for it? 5. The Sharkey fight was viewed as an obvious fix story fails to account for the almost even money odds going into the fight and the widespread support for Carnera. 6. Why is unsourced opinion supposed to trump the opinions of Benny Leonard, Max Schmeling, and Joe Louis on Carnera's abilities? 7. History is the primary sources. I quoted primary sources only. Schaap is the one changing history.
In his major fights, Valuev got a questionable decisions over Donald and Ruiz I (though that one was closer) and the Bergeron was another somewhat close one that went in his favor. Of course in boxing anything could happen and it could be coincidence, but i wouldn't be surprised if a higher power, say, Wilfred Sauerland, had a thing to do with that luck. Every fight of Carnera that i've seen to me looks on the level. I don't see what is controversial at all about the Sharkey fight; these are heavyweights and knockouts happen. He was winning many rounds against Baer when he wasn't knocked down. He legitimately beat Loughran; a top boxer, Schaaf, Uzcudun twice, Levinsky, Godfrey and many others. I've heard all about the Godfrey fight, but fact is that Godfrey hits Carnera well below the belt with a power shot, and not for the first time in the fight. All those fights tell me the man has the ability not only to hang in there with top men, but also beat them. And frankly, the "evidence" that his career went south after he lost the title and that he wrestled afterwards means **** all and is completely circumstancial evidence. Jack Dempsey's career went south as well after he lost the title to Tunney. Did you see that Sharkey fight? Talk about a fix! After that he was again outclassed by Tunney because his opponent, for a change, wasn't payed off to lay down, so he retired from boxing and went into wrestling. See how easy that one was? Just because Jeremy Schaaf's wrote a book does not give his opinion any more value than any of us here; in fact, i'd venture to say that most people posting here make more sense than your average author. I've seen tons of boxing books with factual errors, descriptions of fights that went contrary to what film shows, etc. Sensationalism sells, and the story of Carnera thanking his career to the mob certainly made a few men richer. It's an ancient trick that has always worked: make up a controversial story for which there is no evidence but only circumstancial, random "evidence", get publicity and make money. The Lochness monster, El Chupacabra, UFO stories, Alien abductions, Bigfoot, Scientology (or any religion for that matter), conspiracy "theories" about 9/11, etc, etc. One last comment for now: i've come across several PRIMARY fight reports where it says the crowd screamed and yelled "FIX!", where the fight probably was on the level. I'm talking about pre-30's fights right now, including Dempsey's fights. Crowds weren't new to fixed fights and seemed to be able to sniff them out pretty good, even to the degree that they might have thought so when they were legit. Now, where are the primary sources of crowds screaming FIX! at Carnera's fights?
I'm moving on to something altogether more productive than trying to defend history. By the way, man DID walk on the Moon in 1969, and the earth is NOT flat it's ROUND! Good luck in your endeavors trying to change history guys.