I think you might be wrong here. I remember an interview way back about 1962 after the Griffith-Paret fight in which Al Tighe (sp), whose brother was or had been a Republican senator, interviewed Herbert Brownell. Brownell had been the Republican leader in the New York state senate in the 20's and 30's and would later be Attorney General in Eisenhower's cabinet. Tighe (sp) was a sportscaster for KSTP in Minneapolis but knew Brownell through his brother. Brownell was a big sports fan. Among other things, they discussed boxing and the talk about banning it at the time, and Brownell brought up that there was a strong move for a ban boxing bill in the New York State after the Carnera-Schaaf fight. It died in committee but not before a deal had been struck between the black caucus in the state legislature, with their liberal allies, and the pro-boxing supporters that black fighters in the future would be given better treatment and fair shots at big money fights and championships. Banning boxing in New York state would have effectively crippled it in the United States.
The evidence that Carnera's win over Sharkey was fixed or that he was built up on loads of fixes is not forthcoming in these discussions. There seems to be a lot of innuendo and rumour but little factual basis. Did Carnera fight a load of easy set-ups ? Yes, I think he did. Did his mob-connected handlers fix some of his fights ? Probably. But it's blown out of proportion when Carnera is singled-out as a special case. Lots of top fighters are built up on stiffs, and many of them benefit from "funny stuff" along the way too. Some of the stuff written about Carnera by a few well-known writers of the 30s and 40s smacks of sensationalism and prejudice. Carnera's fall from the top coincided during a time of hysteria about fascism and organized crime. That counted against him. He was associated with both, but not necessarily created by either. His circumstances made it possible to make up the most outrageous rumours about him, some of which may have had some basis in truth. But the tendency has been to cast a huge shadow of doubt over every achievement he made as a boxer. That's wrong, considering that mobsters and fight-fixers were involved in the whole sport and not just one single fighter. On top of that, his fighting ability did not live up to his physique or to the hype surrounding him, and when he was found out as being less than he looked he was unduly judged to be a wholly incompetent fighter. This is common in boxing. Budd Schulberg wrote a sensationalist novel and claimed that Carnera's story was exactly the same. He claimed that ALL of Carnera's wins were fixes, more or less. Paul gallico, another sportswriter turned fiction writer, wrote that Carnera was beneficiary of fixed championship fight with sharkey, and in the guise of sympathetic pity for the exploited giant he thoroughly slandered Carnera's professional credentials. The writers and movie-makers create the official history in these cases. I dont think it's all necessarily true about Carnera. I dont think he was much of a fighter, but I dont think the mobsters bothered to promote one who couldn't fight a lick either. I dont think all those fighters would have been bought or threatened off either. Not everything happens like in the movies.
As I understood it, it was a temporary over reaction to the Schaaf fight, but I am happy to be corrected by more in depth facts.
Looking closer at Ramos he would appear to have at least as valid a claim as Ali that year ,as you say, Ali was not especially convincing over Jones or Cooper. I think with the heavyweight title being undisputed then ,and considered "the richest prize in sports", anyone who won it was normally a lock to get the award.Ingo had kod Machen the year before,and, kod Floyd in a shocking upset ,it's not surprising that he walked it.
Because one is about as obvious as the other. There was no fix, that's the common factor. Got it now?
No, actually I haven't. A dissipated out of shape 37 year old champion who has not been in top shape for the last 5 years of his title reign ,exiled from his own country ,a fugitive from justice , takes on a giant ,who, though crude ,possesses a thunderous right hand and a top jaw . This giant is in the best shape of his life. The older Champion does his best to draw the sting from his adversary and,after 20rds in tropical heat is still in front. The Giant however is still strong and, still coming forward,after another 6rds the older man runs out of steam, and hope ,takes a very hard overhand right to the head and collapses,to be counted out. I don't see much similarity betwixt the two at all. I see a few marked differences. 1 Carnera did not take a very good punch 2 Carnera did not possess a very good punch 3 Carnera was handled easily by the same opponent in an earlier fight,and knocked down into the bargain. 4.Carnera NEVER kod anyone else in that manner. 5.In fact men he outweighed by up to 88lbs lasted the distance with him without being in danger of going down. GOT IT NOW?
Carnera scored 72 KOs. Of course, some will say they were all fixed. But I've seen him looking heavy-handed enough in other fights to not doubt that he had the potential to score one-punch KOs.
I didn't say that the two matches were exact now did I? Don't go getting ****y on me here. Didn't Carnera have 72 KO's? He never KO'd anyone in the same manner? Wow, so you saw all of Carnera's fights? Let me borrow the tapes there, buddy. Carnera was handled easy in the first fight you say. Well Joe Louis wasn't much trouble for Max Schmeling the first time around, but we all know what happened in the rematch.
Why didn't he then? Furthermore, why is he not in the top 100 punchers list ? Or on any credible list as a puncher? He had a 70% ko record after all. Why not have a trawl through Carnera's record ,and look closely at his 72 stoppages in 88 wins,then, ask yourself who he actually kod?
He did. He KOd Sharkey with one punch. And others most probably. I have only seen a few of his fights. Why should he be ? He was not that much of a puncher, but like most heavyweights (and a 260 pound one to be sure) he was capable of landing a KO punch. You can do that yourself. What's your point ? Are you saying that Jack Sharkey was by far his best KO win ? I would agree. Are you suggesting that's any sort of proof of a fix ? If I you are then I would say that's bull****.
I am saying that a man with a 70% ko record should have been able to ko lightheavyweights he outweighed by 86lbs,that is IF his record is Kosher. I am saying Carnera could not ko a rated fighter or even drop one ,other than Sharkey How do you prove a fix? Several of Carnera's opponents had their purses suspended, that is as far as it can be proven,beleive what you want to beleive.
Actually, it's an easy thing. Can you prove the second Sharkey fight was a fix? If not, you should give Carnera the benefit of the doubt.
I am not getting c***y with you ,you were the sarcastic one ," get it now" I responded in kind. Joe Louis shut Schmeling's eye in their first fight and bruised him up quite a bit facially with his jab.Sharkey dropped Carnera int heir first fight without being in any trouble himself Carnera had 72 kos in 88 wins for a 70% ko .He makes NO LIST as a puncher,in any book, article , magazine ,I have EVER read. No I have not seen all his fights ,have you? More to the point ,can you show me ONE single punch ko he scored, other than the Sharkey one? In fact who the f**k did he ko, who was not a ham and egger? Gorman 's rep stunk,Neusel was stopped on cuts ,likewise Impelitierre Please dont say Schaaf atsch I dont really care a **** if you want to beleive Carnera was this or that,its your opinion,I just questioned your analogy. Sharkey Carnera . Johnson Willard ,are about as similar as a rhino and a dormouse.
Although the end came due to a massive uppercut I think that it was in many ways an atrition based knockout. Carnera had been landing a lot of clean shots on Sharkey in the latter half of the fight and keeping the action where he wanted it. In some ways I compare this bout to Tyson Douglas. You have a confident and underprepared champion taking on a challenger who does nopt intend to miss this once in a lifetime opportunity. The challenger fights a smart fight and breaks the champion down gradualy, but ends the fight in a visualy spectacular manner. The fight was Sharkeys to loose and he lost it. Full credit to him that he had the integrity not to hide behind a claim that he had taken a dive like Jack Johnson did.
Ok, a man as big as Carnera is fully capable of landing a KO punch. Look at Jameel McCline. He is not a puncher at all. Who was the first and only guy to drop the iron chinned Sam Peter? McCline. Now don't say, "but McCline didn't knock Peter out." I know that. What I mean is that it is possible that a man can knock someone out even if it isn't his custom to knock someone out in that fashion. It is boxing! And really, the burden of proof is on you, my friend. The video clearly shows a knockout punch. Just because you say that it wasn't real, suddenly makes it legit? Oh, ok. And as far as you questioning my analogy, like I said before. I was only comparing the two fights (Johnson-Willard, Sharkey-Carnera 2) because some say that these two fights are fixed. To me, one is as obvious as the other that they aren't fixed. That's the analogy. The thing with analogies is when someone is trying hard to prove a point, they'll easily take the other parts of it and say "those are two completely different fights". Yes, they were. That's why I made myself clear that the aspect I am comparing the two fights to is simply that fact that the KO blows are clear and that some say they are fixes. There. No one is being sarcastic, c*nty, an *sshole, etc.