Some Questions for Carnera advocates

Thank you for putting your questions in a civil manner.


Question A

I would not class Carnera as a great heavyweight champion personally. I don't think that he was in the class of Schmeling, or Baer, or even the best version of Sharkey. I see him as an overachiever, who did a lot with what he had, who was a very consistent performer against contenders who were not great fighters.

The people, who describe him as a great superheavyweight, seem to follow the logic that there have been very few superheavyweight champions, so he must feature on a list of the best somewhere.

When I ranked him relative to the other top superheavyweights on various criteria, I did put Bowe ahead of him on my head to head list, and my resume list. I did this with some reluctance given the gaps in Bowe's resume, and did it almost exclusively based on the Holyfield trilogy. I ranked carnera higher in terms of boxing technique and effective use of his size, because I felt that he made much better use of range against smaller opponents.


Question B

There were a number of elements out to blacken Carnera's name during his day. His former manager Leon See became embittered over losing control of his top fighter to some shady underworld figures, and wrote a lengthy diatribe against him. Many people in the media did not like the idea of an Italian heavyweight champion, who was used as a poster boy by Mussolini. This resulted in a lot of mud being thrown, and some of it stuck. In the end the more sensationalist stories proved to be more memorable, and ultimately more enduring.

 

This thread I think is needed, to put the argument s and people's opinions in to a clear context. The Carnera thing s been raging on for a while now. This is what it needs.. Hopefully. So good idea Contro.

 

"The challenger...Whom we should all have faith in as Americans, to bring back the title to the good ol USA..."

Actual ring introduction. An Italian Heavyweight Champion in 1934 just wasn't going to be well received. Especially a giant one at time when large athletes were stereotyped as oafs.

Imagine the outrage if Kovalev vs Ward was introduced like that.

 

Wladmir ruled the HW division for a decade.
It took me a while to come around to Klitschko.
In hindsight, way too long.

I had to do some soul searching to figure out what I had been missing this entire time. Why couldn't I recognize Wladmirs greatness earlier? How did I not appreciate seemingly obvious talent? Where had I erred?

As I tried to figure this out, looking over tons of footage, I realized a few things.
One, was that a great SHW has different characteristics than a great <220lb fighter.
And when assessing a SHW, you can't merely look for the things you would look for in Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Frazier, etc.

Two, was that I started realizing that if Klitschko were American, I believe domestic press would've spotlighted more of his good qualities as a boxer. Not due to malicious bias so to speak, but rather because what the American audience sees. There has always been very little interest of Klitschko by mainstream American sports fans. I realized that if we could look beyond Floyds non action in fights and still make him a huge pop icon, than Wlad could be the same if his name was Joe Dempsey from Brooklyn.

All of these things apply to Lennox Lewis as well.
When measuring every heavyweight against the <220lb greats, Lewis balance never looked so great.
But for a SHW, he had really good balance.
He also never got the same attention.

Once I came to this realization, pieces started fitting together nicely.
I could see the effectiveness of SHWs much more clearly, fights started making much more sense, as did results and resumes.

Now fast forward in time, and I'm making my Max Baer video.
I got an HD version of the Carnera fight. After getting past the exciting first round performance of Baer, Primo immediately caught my eye. What struck me was right away recognizing the skills I had learned to value in good SHWs. Mobility, lateral movement, strong jab and using reach to keep opponents at range. Really good range control, hard punches, strength on the inside and using weight in the clinches. His punching technique was more than sound. Stepping in with the double jab properly. His reflexes looked really good, his feinting looked really good.

I had seen Carnera plenty of times before. But my newly developing ideas on SHWs, combined with the clarity of the footage was pretty surprising to me. I dug around and found some more good footage, like the Sharkey KO. That uppercut was huge! And I realized we don't have over 65 of his KO's on film.

Exploring this topic more on this forum, it quickly became apparent to me that he was, and still is seriously underrated. On film, he looked far ahead of his reputation. And had a pretty killer resume. This despite the handful of instances where foul may have been afoot in mostly record padding fights. If the Godfrey fight was fixed, and it looks to be good reason to suspect so, it would have be the biggest asterisk on his resume.

However, it's important to note that Primo was never aware of any of this.
If he were American, I feel he'd have more sympathy points. But people seem satisfied with just using these moments to judge him negatively as a boxer.

Some people have brought up good counter points.
But some seem over eager.

I honestly think that him and Bowe should be a toss up.
In both H2H and all around.
If you really dig into Bowes's career, you can find some pretty glaring criticisms about him as well.
And you could put them through harsh scrutiny the way Carnera detractors do. I just don't think anyone would be comfortable doing that to an accomplished champion. But people seem comfortable calling Primo all kinds of things. Almost as if he isn't human.

 

Carnera was not as good as Bowe.
I don't think he was underrated in his day either.

He did tend to be singled out for scathing reviews by "historians" though. Being managed by gangsters, having farcical or fixed fights, a manufactured career, too much hype etc., ........ the same things you could throw at dozens if not hundreds of contenders and champions in history. Primo seemed to be used as a scapegoat for everything sick about boxing in he 20th century.

 

I seen Bowe as a teenager in the NY GG and he was a monster, as he put on weight he got worse and worse. Bowe IMO was the better fighter and puncher but it depended on which Bowe you were fighting, those fights with Holy took a lot from Bowe.

 

Bowe was no fighter to look up to. Hated to train....hated to train with a passion. He could have done something special with himself but instead he pissed it away.

 

I also feel that the people who condemn Carnera for being a mob controlled fighter, completely overlook the other famous fighters who were controlled by exactly the same men.

Madden and Duffy also controlled Maxie Rosenbloom, Ace Hudkins, Jimmy Braddock, Bob Olin, Mickey Walker, and Leo Lomski at one time or another!

If Primo Carnera is guilty by association, then how can these fighters avoid similar criticism?

 

How come Max Schmeling didn't experience all this." so called hate and bias" his ability was recognized and appreciated ? This is a lame excuse for the reason respected sportswriters and fighters, including world chmpions such as Joe Louis and Gene Tunney were very disparaging and negative about Carnera's abilities.
Are Louis' remarks,"he had nothing""he couldn't punch, "he pushed with his right"
And Tunney's," he had a vulnerable chin" " his boxing technique was extremely limited"," he can't punch" .
Anti Italian bias and prejudice against a large athlete?
Or are they honest and informed opinions from two world champions who know rather better than a minute proportion of fans on this forum what they are actually talking about!
Ray Impelletiere, a man bigger than Carnera ,a contemporary of his , and of Italian extraction was very popular with both the media and the fans.
Super heavyweights were always popular and managers trawled obscure gyms looking for them because they knew they would pull in the public.
Hence the careers of such men as.
Ray Impelletiere
Ewart Potgeiter
Ray Pettifer
Mike White
James J Beattie
Jess Willard
Ben Wray
Gogoa Mitu'

 

Two factors.

Firstly public opinion in America crystallised against the fascist regime in Italy, significantly earlier than against the Nazi regime in Germany.

Secondly Schmeling had more respectable management, and was an articulate and charismatic fighter.

 

Carnera is guilty of being in fixed fights and being a not very good fighter.How much he knew if anything about the nature of the fixes has never been determined.
In short Carnera isn't condemned for being managed by mobsters,something that was entirely not of his choosing, he is criticized for not possessing any great ability.
This and the fact that without a proportion of his early career opponents being chosen by these very same criminals for a cynically stage managed exercise of choosing carefully selected dive artists and palookas lacking even a trace of ambition or desire to give of their best,to share the ring with him in hick towns and obscure arena's,his career would never have gotten off the ground in the first place!

 

So it is fair to assume that Carnera's handlers used all these underhand methods to advance his career, yet they acted in good faith with all their other fighters?

 

Just to add some context to the discussion, Tunney picked Primo to beat Loughran due to reach advantage:
http://imgur.com/a/u9CUL

He also picked Willard over Ali.
And Dempsey to KO Norton and Holmes in 1.

I think he's right about Dempsey-Norton...

 

That's true of hundreds of fighters.
In professional boxing it is almost common practice.
Many of those opponents were probably intimidated by Carnera's size too.