Primo Carnera

Leon See is the fly in the ointment.

He certainly had a grudge against Carnera and his testimony is contradictory if not incredible in some instances. This is where everything stemns from.

In a way it is a bit like the legend of the Bermuda Triangle. You have a huge and sprawling mythology which looks impresive but when you trace it back it all originates with a single source which is unreliable.

 

Bingo.

 

Don't get me wrong here.

Carnera was certainly controled by the mob and was involved in at least one fixed fight probably more.

What I disagree with is that he should be singled out among all the top fighters of this era for criticism. Baer and Braddock both had dubious fights.

Compared to Young Stribling for example, Carnera was a choir boy.

 

What were Baer and Braddocks dubious fights Janitor?

 

Max Baer's fight against Dutch Weimar-

"A light slap to Weimer's ribs ended the bout, causing the crowd to roar its disgust. Someone threw an empty whiskey bottle at Baer. Leaving the ring, he turned to the crowd and shouted, "Well, you paid to get in - suckers."

The bout, termed "a fake, fiasco and disgrace" by Premier Mitchell F. Hepburn (who had been in the crowd), resulted in the reorganization of the Ontario Athletic Commission and the appointment of P. J. Mulqueen as Chairman to restore confidence of fans.

Jimmy Braddock has two dubious no contest bouts-

One against Maxie Rosenbloom

"Braddock and Rosenbloom were accused of a pre-arranged deal -- the MN Commission allowed each $350 in training expenses, the balance of their purses was donated to charity".

And one against Abe Feldman which resulted in his boxing liscence being revoked.

 

You mentioned Young Stribling,he fought Carnera twice both fights ended in dsqs,one apiece,both are generally accepted as fixes,and that information doesnt come from Leon See,,but from writers who were present at the bouts ,Carneras fights with Ace Clark,Bombo Chevalier ,and George Godfrey are also highly suspect,when a new Heavyweight Champion is crowned ,traditionaly he is rated the fighter of the year by the Ring magazine ,the year Carnera won the title ,no award was given.doesnt it seem a little strange that a man with such a string of kos ,meets a light heavyweight whom he outweighs by over 80lbs ,a man past his best yet not only does he fail to ko him he never looks like dropping him ,in fact the light heavy ,[Tommy Loughran},who was almost devoid in punching power staggered Carnera in the 4th and 10th rounds.Though Jack Sharkey denied taking a dive to Carnera he did say in an interview in 1971 that Carneras results in fights were "sceptical and dubious",and that reinforced the publics view that his defence against Carnera wasnt on the level

 

I am not familiar with the Weimar fight and will of course take your word on it . The Rosenbloom one has several versions I beleive,in the Feldman fight ,I think Braddock came in to the ring with a broken hand ,but concealed it as he needed the pay day.

 

I get the idea that if these fights were on Carnera's record you and others would draw the obvious conclusion.

Once you acept in principal that sombody participates in a lot of fixed fights you will start seeing them.

 

Jack Johnson explicitly claimed (incorectly) that he took a dive against Jess Willard.

If we are going to question the legitimacy of Carneras win over Sharkey based on a suggestive coment by Sharkey then lets look further-

Jim Jeffries claimed that he was poisoned against Jack Johnson.

Jack Johnson claimed that he dived against Willard.

Jess Willard claimed that Jack Dempsey beat him with loaded gloves.

Lets at least hold everybody else to the same scrutiny as Carnera.