Would you vote for Primo Carnera to be inducted into the IBHOF?

Probably not.
Firstly, no one would bother fixing a fight if it was easy to recognize.
Secondly, there are fights and KOs that happen every week that are ambiguous. For example, two guys hugging and stalling too much - is that a fix or just a crap fight, a lack of ambition, a poor mesh of styles ? A KO result from a ordinary-looking punch - again, in most cases who can really say ?

I read at least one report that said Godfrey "for once" was fighting WITHOUT the handcuffs on - evidenced by the fact that he'd given Carnera quite a hammering at times before the fouling. But who knows.

 

Thanks for the reply and the footage , we seem to be at odds lately, but it is because I am interested in your opinion that I often reply to your posts. I suppose that is a compliment.:good

 

The Primo Carnera v Ernie Schaaf fight was always viewed with suspicion. It could well have been fixed.
The fact that Schaaf died doesn't say anything about the legitimacy of the fight.

Here's the longest version of the fight I have seen on the internet, 24 minutes :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmi9xs_primo-carnera-vs-ernie-schaaf-1933-02-10_sport

 

The fixed fights that I saw which were later proven to be outright fixed were fairly obvious atleast.

I don't think fixed KO's are too regular because the risk of being caught is too high. A journeyman taking a dive or otherwise looking to go home early is nothing new, but does not necessarily indicate a fix. A fix by definition is pre-arranged by both parties with an agreed outcome, like pro wrestling.

The question is whether a mismatch between a washed out boxer and a 6'5, 265 pound Carnera truly needs to be fixed, or whether the opponent just decided to not give it an effort.

It looked legit to me. Carnera may have milked the low blow, although Godfrey did have a vaunted punch below the belt.

We have opposing views on the Carnera "issue" but I recognize that there is reasonable doubt over many of his victories especially early on and that he was unquestionably among the first truly built-up fighters with management looking after their interest (not his interests as he wasn't left with a penny for his troubles).

Over here people see Carnera's worth as a decent big man (not great but not necessarily awful) which is why I might seem overly defensive of his career.

I'd say that for the most part he is still seen as a complete joke however, because the media was absurdly harsh on him back in the day.

 

Schaaf fought like a warrior to his death in my opinion. Carnera landed a ton of leather on him. I do not understand why an ill man would wait until the 15th round to take a dive and then fall into coma.

 

He didn't take a dive.

But he may have been fighting handcuffed, with Carnera set to take the decision.

 

The type of punches Schaaf was throwing did not indicate that he was wearing the mythical "cuffs".

Robinson vs Fusari is an example of a fighter wearing the "cuffs" and he was throwing nothing but light jabs and occasionally to the body. Overhand rights and wide left hooks are the type of punches designed to knock an opponent out.

 

It's not always as easy as that to tell how much intent and power is behind a punch.
Just as a 'weak-looking' shot might actually be hard enough to cause a legit KO, a decent-looking hook or an overhand right might not be as dangerous as it looks.

I disagree with your general theme that we can tell how hard someone is trying.
Perhaps Sugar Ray Robinson was too great a fighter, too great a puncher, to carry an opponent without making it obvious.


Having said all that, I don't believe Carnera necessarily needed Schaaf's help in going 15 rounds.
I'm also of the opinion that Carnera improved greatly as a fighter from 1930 - '33, and many seasoned observers saw the same thing.
Whereas he was a bit of a joke and involved in some shoddy fights and fake ones when he first came to America, after a few years of busy campaigning he had undoubtedly picked up skills.
Everyone at the time seemed to notice that. It was only after Baer and Louis beat him, and years later with the Budd Schulberg story, that the revisionism painted him as a fraud from start to finish.

 

If Tommy Farr, who arguably should've won a decision over Louis, is not in the Hall of Fame, there is no way Carnera belongs.

Like most such institutions, there are many who are there based on sentiment and the old boys club culture.

...

 

Farr was beaten cleanly by Louis ,and never claimed anything else, he did believe he beat Braddock though.

 

No I wouldn't, Braddock beat John Henry Lewis, Max Baer, Jimmy Slattery,and Tommy Farr.
Braddock went 8 rds with Louis flooring him along the way,he was pretty much washed up at the time with arthritis,and hand problems, he was 32 years old.

Carnera had half the life punched out of him in 6 onesided rounds by Louis in a fight he was never in , at 29 , he was in his prime .


You've come up with one Braddock fight that there were "accusations about" and its the wrong one.The Feldman fight was a gratis performance , a benefit Braddock broke his hand during it. You are possibly confusing it wth the last Rosenbloom fight?

There are a dozen of Carnera's that there were more than accusations about ,some of his opponents had their purses with held
,and licences revoked..

 

Because Carnera beat better fighters IMO.....

Btw, I posted on YT some footage recently....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl370ZWpvcQ[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYnbQYa-TKE[/ame]