Some Questions for Carnera advocates

Mismatches are not, out and out fixed fights that's the difference .I think we may be arguing over terminology rather than having differing opinions on the subject in general.
Carnera has been singled out on this forum because three posters have made claims for him that, imo are incompatible with his record and the footage we have of him as a fighter.
The same negative opinions have been expressed when a couple of posters stated that Marciano had good balance and clever defence.
If a poster made a thread about say Jack O Brien , extolling his boxing skills I should expect some one to mention that he was believed to have participated in fixed fights.That would be telling the story warts and all.
It isn't personal

 

Well as far as many of Tyson's early pro fights go, I don't see how finding an opponent with virtually zero chance of lasting a round, nevermind winning, is that much different from finding someone to take a dive.
Most of his first 19 fights were planned mismatches where Tyson was guaranteed an easy early win.
His managers even said they were looking for guys he could score spectacular early KOs over to gain publicity, and vetted the opponents carefully on that criteria.

No, they didn't have to be paid to take dives. But they had to be paid to get in the ring against an opponent that was clearly several levels above them already. They were mostly desperate tomato cans who need the money. Some of them might have looked for an easy out, but Tyson was so fast he tended to get a legit KO before any of them even had time to take a dive.

To me, that's almost a cynical and finding opponents and paying them to lose.
Not that I want to single Mike Tyson out. George Foreman, Jack Dempsey, Deontay Wilder, Frank Bruno ... any number of menacing heavyweights have been fed a steady stream of sacrificial lambs to build up that KO record. And some of the opponents went down at the first sign of trouble.

Bruce Seldon is another matter, a world title fight. He froze, yes. He did take a "dive". No, I don't think he was paid to take that dive. He was scared and looked to get out of there.

Now, don't you think perhaps Primo Carnera frightened some of his opponents too ?
I mean, your average has-been palooka on a losing streak might not fancy hanging around too long when faced with the sheer size and strength of Carnera.
Carnera may not have been much of a boxer and never did punch his weight, but he was obviously a strong and dangerous lump of a man and was trying his best in there.
I don't think many average or low-level fighters 50+ pounds lighter than him would consider it easy to share a ring with him.

 

This ^

 

Historically, Primo Carnera has been singled out.

I don't make as much of a clear distinction between gross mismatches and 'outright fixes'. (In both cases the opponent is bought so the favoured fighter gains a definite KO win that goes in the record book but is virtually meaningless. For all practical purposes, the two cases are virtually the same).

Also, there's little evidence that most of Carnera's dodgy wins were the 'paid fixes' rather than the 'gross mismatches'.
Some fighters were seen to take dives (and were suspended) but where's the evdience they were paid and explicity told to do so ?

 

The crucial difference as I see it is a mis -match is when a fighter of limited ability is thrown in above his head ,with a fighter who is clearly superior. He then 1.Opts to do his best ,and takes what can be a messy and protracted beating ,2.Has a go for a few rounds, realises he has no chance and opts for survival,making only token efforts to return fire.3.Decides to get out of there as soon as something heavy lands.In none of these scenarios is there a pre-arranged ending as in ,"you go down in the sixth and make it look good".
Whereas in a fixed fight the result is pre-ordained,and the nature of the result is already known.
I'm certain that a lack of ambition led many of Carnera's early victims to seek the safety of the canvas,and look imploringly at the ref to, "do the right thing".I'm equally sure that some of his better opponents were induced to succumb ,either through menaces or moolah.

 

Maybe.
I think we probably rate him about the same as a fighter.

Maybe that's true but I don't think it's fair to Carnera or useful to the debate on his abilities to focus on the story of his allegedly "fraudulent" record, that's where I think he's been used as a historical scapegoat.
I think it's been overemphasised, simply for the fact that even most of the greatest fighters were groomed on some very bad matchmaking and had some dubious allegedly fixed wins too, nevermind all the contenders, forgotten or not, who had similar incidents.

 

I agree, there was probably a bit of all that in Carnera's career, but we can't quantify it.
The most sensationalist (and perhaps the least realistic) versions seemed to make it to press more often than not and became part of boxing lore. Certainly in the decades afterwards.

The interesting thing is that Carnera didn't always win and wasn't always the beneficiary of an easy KO when he did win. Even the most cynical assessment of Carnera should acknowledge that he actually acquitted himself quite well in some of his losing fights or well-fought decision wins. Even his worst critics during his day seemed to acknowledge clear improvements in his game too.
He could box a bit.

 

I thought most of the debates about Primo tended to focus on his ability or lack of,rather than his dubious record. Either way I 'd say we have all had a surfeit of the Ambling Alp for some time to come!

 

Yes he could certainly box a bit ,better than Baer anyway, the problem arose,imo when posters made threads headed Carnera's Wonderful Defence,and described him as being a great fighter. I think both opinions were incorrect and apparently so did the overwhelming majority of others that posted on the Carnera threads.

 

I just don't see how a 6"5 270lb behemoth HW title holder, who racked up two defenses, 71 KOs and many notable wins isn't a great fighter. To me, he's part of the Schmeling-Sharkey-Baer pack.

 

Well you can't bribe everyone.Nat Fleischer talking about Carnera's first fight with Jimmy Maloney said Maloney was known to have a soft chin, but he had too much pride to succumb and become one of Primo's ko victims.Carnera beat him in the rematch which is believed to have been on the level,which also indicates that Carnera did improve.

 

It's gone midnight here in the UK,and I have enough Ambling Alp to last me for awhile , I don't want to row either so I'm going to leave it here.
We all have our own definition of greatness.

 

Exactly, Carnera was as much part of that era as Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey and Braddock. He paid his dues as much as any of them. After all, Baer and Braddock lost the title in their first fight as champion where as Schmeling and Primo at least managed to successfully defend it. So on that score Primo cannot be seen as any less of a champion of the 1930s than those guys. Primo at least deserves this.

It seems Being a scapegoat for all these years has taken this away from Carnera.

Then there is the question of how good he is for his size, something that was not relevant for many years because at elite level primo was in a weight class by himself, but as time has gone on the favourable relevance of his modern sized opponents allow us to draw comparisons with modern SHWs.

 

Jacobs beach, the mob, the garden and the golden age of boxing. Kevin Mitchell.

"Was Baer-Braddock a fix? There is no evidence.but Baer was the only heavyweight of the era not to go openly with Madden. Owney wanted him out of the picture. And it suited him and others to have joe Goulds heavyweight fighter as the worlds champion, because he could be more easily manipulated through Gould, his one time point man to Dutch Schultz. It is inconceivable that Max took a dive -and what was to follow does not constitute a case for prosecution. But whatever the reality things fell neatly into place for Gould and his Cinderella man."

 

I have the book and know the story, I also know of several glaring inaccuracies in the book.