Sharkey vs. Carnera II, Was it fixed?

He wasn't exactly coming off it but he had indeed suffered a bad KO at the end of the Baer fight although the bell saved him in a fight that ended in a majority decision. In the next 6 months, Schaaf scored KO wins over Stanley Poreda and Unknown Winston and then fought Carnera in the fatal bout.

 

"he still won a clear decision"

No one is disputing that, but Carnera did not look that bad according to James P Dawson, and he was one of the most respected boxing writers of the era.

*Just because Carnera was knocked down by no means proves he would have been knocked out if Sharkey didn't lose his head. NO ONE, including Baer and Louis, ever put Carnera down for the count. So I would dispute that Sharkey "let" Carnera back into the fight.

 

I agreed with you, I just clarified that while I felt Sharkey let Carnera back in the fight, the decision was not controversial by any means. Sharkey won but Carnera also won a lot of people over with his courageous effort.

I'm not saying that Sharkey would have knocked him out, because that was Sharkey, he let his temper get the better of him at times and often lost his focus in the ring. He was not a finisher like Louis or even Baer. Sharkey had Carnera's number with those left hooks that he was setting up beautifully but he got away from that. Carnera was also able to take it for the most part although the one he was knocked down with was a devastating punch.

 

Interesting write-up of this fight:

http://www.boxinggyms.com/news/sharkey1933/sharkey_carnera1933rounds.htm

 

I have read the New York Times report on the autopsy of Schaaf, and I remember that the pathologist did not find evidence of prior trauma. He also didn't think Carnera's punch did it. The blame was put on the flu.

 

Baer was overawed against Louis,he halfheartedly tried in the first round,then tried to foul out ,then quit.
Carnera took a hellish beating from Louis ,but he did try.

 

Carnera had over 50 fights under his belt when he met Sharkey, if he hadn't developed a big punch by then he was not going to.
This appraisal by Dawson is hyperbolic balderdash.
Fights generally supposed to have been" arranged ", include.

Big Boy Peterson x2
Elzier Rioux
Ace Clark
Chuck Wiggins
Neil Clisby
Leon Chevalier
George Godfrey
Bud Gorman
Seal Harris
Isidoro Gastanaga ?
Jack Sharkey ?
No proof no conviction.Open verdict.

 

But Loughran was a durable fighter and a great boxer. Even Earnie Shavers failed to KO some light-heavyweights.
KO percentages are not relevant anyway. I dont think Carnera was a HUGE PUNCHER at all. But you're saying he NEVER scored a legit one-punch KO, that's a bold claim that you have failed to back up. If you've seen all his fights then maybe you can make that claim. Otherwise, what's your basis for saying that ?

OK.
But Sharkey was looking like a shot fighter in this fight, in my estimation, so it's no surprise.
And Carnera upped his game in his championship challenge.

I believe that some of his fights were fixed, and many others were set-ups.
I have seen hundreds of fights where overmatched bums take the easy way out and deserve to have their purses suspended.
Often when confronted with a heavyweight specimen of Carnera's physique and proportions many third-raters WILL take the easy way out. Other times they just cant take the power, or cant handle the strength and fight negatively. This is no surprise. Carnera may not have had an explosive punch but he was strong and big enough to club away and hurt a fighter.
I've seen bums and stiffs take the easy way out in fights against just about every heavyweight prospect and rising contender of the last 25 years !
Carnera was a modern-style manufactured heavyweight, brought along on set-ups and easy pickings maybe, so his record was NOT completely "Kosher", and I daresay that a few were pre-arranged fixes, but the suggestion that this amounts to his whole career being a fraud and that he couldn't fight at all is somewhat ridiculous, and unfair. He's more or less on the level of a Frank Bruno, overall, but less of a puncher.

 

I am saying Carnera NEVER scored another ko like he did over Sharkey ,and unless you can find one, my opinion stands.
Shavers failed to ko Vincente Rondon the weight difference was 201 - 191 lbs a mere 14lbs advantage to Shavers his other distance fight over a lighter man was Stan Johnson ,180lbs -202,22lbs advantage.
Carnera went the distance with.
Mose Bouquillon 265lbs -188 77lbs advantage.
Hermann Jopper 265-183 82lbs advantage.
Don McKorkindale 266 -182 74lbs.
Art Lasky 266-1883/4 78lbs.
Tommy Loughran 270-186lbs 84lbs.
Can you imagine Dempsey,Louis,Foreman ,Liston,recieving those weight advantages and not actually knocking completely senseless their opponents?

I never said Carnera's career was a complete fraud he was a courageous man who, over time developed into a fair,if somewhat mechanical boxer . He never developed a big punch or the chin resistance to take one .
Carnera has ONE KO over a ranked Heavyweight,and that is circumspect imo.

 

McVey is completely correct. Carnera's case is unique in the history of the heavyweight champions. He was a WWF style manufactured attraction.

He did manage to become a halfway decent fighterr, maybe a top fifteen contender but he was not championship caliber in any way. The fixes and arranged fights and handpicked opponents that padded his career are the vast majority. Not only did he have no legit KO's, he was know to not have power to break an egg ...a pure muscle bound arm puncher ...

I always say the ame thing, look at his record after losing the title, especially post Louis when he was no longer acommodity .. and still a young man no less ..

 

No.
But Carnera was just a big strong giant, not a monster hitter. And if Liston had 80 pounds on someone he'd be up against a lightweight. Dempsey would be in with a flyweight.

I think all of us understand that at some point the bigger a heavyweight gets doesn't necessarily make him a harder puncher. And, yes, for his size, Carnera had a light punch. Still, that doesn't mean he'd be totally incapable of ever landing a KO punch.
Even boxing's light-hitting fighters sometimes score big KOs over seemingly durable foes. Billy Conn scored a KO over durable Bob Pastor.

It's wrong to take one exceptional performance and say that it must be a fix because it is exceptional and atypical.

Well, I agree with all that apart from the suggestion that the win over Sharkey is most likely a fixed fight result.

 

He carried on for a couple of years in the USA, and registered the same sort of results as he had previously. Being KO'd by Joe Louis (no shame there) and Leroy Haynes (who was a decent fighter and puncher).

I think you should be looking at Jack Sharkey's record after losing the title.
That's a better indication of why Carnera beat him. Sharkey was done, and in truth he'd looked in decline when "winning" the title from Schmeling a whole year before he fought Carnera again.

 

Carnera seemed to knock down Larry Gains here:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJNlc8qNfQg[/ame]

2:05

 

I never said Carnera was totally incapable of landing a ko punch, he was taken round all the tank towns to do just that ,and fed a collection of stiffs to beef up his cv.
Having a 70 ko % and possessing a"light punch" are a contradiction in terms,and are what lead me to beleive more than a few of his fights were pre -arranged.
I havent actually said the Sharkey fight was a fix ,but,if anyone is interested ,I think it probably was, even Sharkey's wife did not beleive it was legit.
Carnera was,as you say a big strong giant, not a monster hitter.
Nor even a hard one so how come the 72 kos in 88 wins?

Something smells and I think its GORGONZOLA .

 

See claimed it was arranged!