Was Willard the worst ?

My argument is mostly circumstantial, as you imply, but it all points in one direction. I don't think that we can afford to give any of his victories over real contenders the benefit of the doubt aside from perhaps the Sharkey fight. He was up to his eyebrows in sharkskin for that part of his career that people validate. I wink at it, that's all.

 

I understand the basis for your argument and I'm not disagreeing. For me, it really doesn't matter if his wins were the result of legitimate efforts or fixed fights. I'm not impressed with his fighting ability one way or another. Carnera was one of the crudest and clumsiest looking fighters that I ever watched. I'm sure I've seen journeyman, tomato cans and club fighters who were far worse, but as champions go, he really was very unpolished. Fixed fights or not, I wouldn't give him much of a chance against any decent champion, contender, prospect or high end journeyman. As crazy as it may sound, I'd actually pick a man like Ross Purity to beat him.

 

Don't mind me -If a post spawns new thoughts like yours did, I just type away! I agree. "Primo" fought like zero. Niete. His strength was close to grizzly strength though, but without balance and coordination it wasn't necessarily a factor. It is actually sad for me to see what Louis and Baer did to him.

 

Willard should be seen as a product of the rule set of his day.

Under the rules he fought under he would beat a lot of linear champions.

 

A lot of cr4p has been written about Carnera. Some of it due to xenophobic atitudes in the media at the time. The writtings of Gallico and others are total nonsense.

The important facts are these:

The fight where Carnera won the title from Sharkey was legit.

All the key fights that established him as a challenger for the title were legit (nobody disputes this).

Therfore he won the title simply because he was good enough to establish himself as a title challenger and then beat the champion.

At least alow him that.

 

I think it is romantic to allow him that.

Primo was surrounded by several shady characters from the moment he arrived in New York -he wasn't simply connected, he was an instrument. It doesn't have to be as clean as you think it should be to prove his record untrustworthy. In fact, the wiseguys would be stupid to fix every fight and invite spotlights from the sportswriters and jeering crowds... that stuff could get too much attention and could be dangerous (like after the Chevelair fight when the button in the corner almost got killed by enraged spectators).

They had one objective -make lots of money. By pulling strings and buying off opponents, corner men, and managers, they engineered too many fights to allow us to give Primo the benefit of the doubt.

To suggest that Primo's bouts that got him the title shot were legit when it is clear that dozens previously were not is like arguing that his managers wanted to make a little, but not a lot, of money. It doesn't make sense.

 

As you said, a lot of your evidence is circumstancial. Have you seen the Godfrey fight ? The fights of him that i have seen are legit and against top class opposition. That's all i need to know.

If they were all fixes, then why did he lose some fights to fighters he could've realistically lost to? Why did he lose to Sharkey earlier on? You claim that he travelled and changed location all the time not to rise too much suspicion at one place - but all of his title fights and defenses were right in MSG, and these also happened to be his biggest wins.

And for someone who could not fight, it sure is one hell of an accomplishement to make it into the 6th round with the greatest puncher of all time.

 

I've seen that one. Is that really all you need to know? Does Primo's handlers' status as felons and known gangsters factor in? How about the suspicions held by many contemporary observers of the sport that at least 4 fights were known to be fixed and probably many more?

They were not all fixes. They couldn't be. It simply doesn't and couldn't work that way. This stuff isn't clean!

Madison Square Garden had many figures in it who were either owned or influenced by Owney Madden and co. It is New York. New York has always been homebase for the American gangster.

That someone who could not fight was 6'6 and 280 pounds. A gorilla can't box but I'd bet it would take Louis at least 10 rounds to put it down and out.

...........
I'm not presenting the case against Carnera's career, taken in toto, as fact. This is a matter of probability and credibility. This stuff is all shadowy, but if you want to have an understanding of Carnera's boxing career, you first must understand how the American underworld worked in the 1930s and beyond.

 

Dempsey beat him. How good could he have been?

 

I currently rank the following champions below Willard (in chronological order):
Hart
Burns
Carnera
Braddock
Leon Spinks
Douglas
Moorer
Briggs
Rahman

Of course most of those are highly debatable, but Willard is still far from the lowest-ranking linear heavyweight champ in my book.

 

With the Colour line still in play, could Willard really be considered The Heavyweight Champion of the World between 1915 and 1919?

IMO, no, others may beg to differ.

I say Shannon Briggs was the least of all The Heavyweight Champions of the World.

 

Well Willard DID used a color line, but what parts Willard from say Sullivan, or Jim Jeff so to speak is he did WIN against a black man in a title fight(Johnson) Sure after the fight, the color line was used again. But Willard did at least prove himself so to speak.