Sharkey-Carnera II

[bjermaine]

just watched the fight again and wanted to hear everyone's thoughts about if you think sharkey threw the fight. i say no but carnera had to be the least talented champ ever.

[BoxBuzz]

Sharkey did not take a dive....exactly. He just kept giving Carnera the target until Carnera hit real paydirt. I don't think Jack faked the moment...but I think he allowed the moment to happen.

[Cap]

Sharkey always denied that he went into the tank, but his casual relationships with known hoodlums was well known. There was talk that Owney "Killer" Madden arranged a fix or had someone do it. No proof. Sharkey had beaten Carnera pretty convincingly before, and he'd only been stopped twice himself; once by Quinton Romero Rojas early in his career, and by Jack Dempsey. Question is could Carnera punch hard enough to knock Sharkey out? It depends on whether you believe that some of his wins were legit. With all the hype surrounding him and given his awesome physical appearance, I could see some fighters start looking for a place to fall rather than take a beating. Mike Tyson inspired a few to take that route.

[Flump]

This one has always smelt funny to me, I think Boxbuzz hit the nail on the head, though at least he fell more convincingly than Liston did thirty years later.

[dempseyfire]

I don't think it was a fix, I think Sharkey, a very tempermental man, went into the bout not focused and troubled by the death of Ernie Shaeff, who he'd been good friends with. Sharkey was winning the fight on my card, and was landing some good shots in the 6th but he basically ducked right into Primo's uppercut.

And Carnera for his size wasn't close to being a monster hitter, but come on, any athletic 270 lb man of complete muscle will get some steam on some of his shots. Look at McCline (not a recognized puncher) vs Peter.
Carnera doesn't look bad to me on the film. Fairly quick-handed, kept up a fast pace, could fight on the inside.

[Jaclem]

..sharkey tanked it. boxbuzz learned from my explanation and now posts it as if he ws the one gave the best analysis. sharkey bobbed and weaved for a few rounds until carnera's corner told him why. it was an uppercut with the wrist hitting sharkey's chin, and it may have hurt a little but it was the only way to make it look half-way legit. the odd thing is that reporters called "an invisble punch" when the film shows it very clearly.

another so-called invisble punch was that little pitty-pat ali threw against liston, when you can see it clearly. a nothing right hand. at least sharkey made it look better...though the circumstances are a little different. sharkey diving into the pool for reasons that are complex..having to do with money probably and some unsavory characters, while liston just plain quit.

[Collins2000]

..sharkey tanked it. boxbuzz learned from my explanation and now posts it as if he ws the one gave the best analysis. sharkey bobbed and weaved for a few rounds until carnera's corner told him why. it was an uppercut with the wrist hitting sharkey's chin, and it may have hurt a little but it was the only way to make it look half-way legit. the odd thing is that reporters called "an invisble punch" when the film shows it very clearly.

another so-called invisble punch was that little pitty-pat ali threw against liston, when you can see it clearly. a nothing right hand. at least sharkey made it look better...though the circumstances are a little different. sharkey diving into the pool for reasons that are complex..having to do with money probably and some unsavory characters, while liston just plain quit.

Sonny quickly knew he was going to have another painful night if he hung around and decided to bail out. No shame in that. It's a pity Jersey Joe didn't just count him out and let the ex-champ go out with a tiny bit of dignity.

[granberry]

The second Liston-Ali farce was an obvious fake.

George Chuvalo (who sat in the 4th row at ringside) said, "It was a phony."

Floyd Patterson said repeatedly he didn't think it was legitimate.

Don Dunphy said, "If that was a punch, I'll eat it."

Ali never scored a knockdown (much less a knockout) in the first round
IN ANY OTHER TITLE FIGHT HE HAD.

The fight stunk to high heavens.

In his VERY NEXT FIGHT, against a sore-backed Floyd Patterson, Ali showed he had no punching power.

[BoxBuzz]

The second Liston-Ali farce was an obvious fake.

George Chuvalo (who sat in the 4th row at ringside) said, "It was a phony."

Floyd Patterson said repeatedly he didn't think it was legitimate.

Don Dunphy said, "If that was a punch, I'll eat it."

Ali never scored a knockdown (much less a knockout) in the first round
IN ANY OTHER TITLE FIGHT HE HAD.

The fight stunk to high heavens.



In his VERY NEXT FIGHT, against a sore-backed Floyd Patterson, Ali showed he had no punching power.

As far as Liston losing his mental stability (courage) and wanting no part of the protracted beating he was about to receive I would tend to agree with you. You can never depend on certain psyche's to be able to hold up under pressure.

Tyson is an example, Golata another, and perhaps Foreman after the fight experience with Jimmy Young is another. Though Foreman regained his complete mental health and went on to become one of the strongest minds the sport has produced. A strong mind in boxing is a great ally. On that night Liston did not possess that particular asset.

[raylawpc]

I've always felt the knockdown in Clay-Liston II was a flash knockdown. I think Sonny was stunned briefly when he went down, but could have gotten up without a count.

Here's a clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cg6pM8QmOCY

I have no idea why he chose to stay down and flop around as he did.

[BoxBuzz]

From it you can easily see that a punch is delivered and the physics in this case are sound. Liston did not see it, and his head movement is not countered to the incoming..... Typical recipe for a punch that could stun beyond it's appearance. No one but Liston can know exactly what Liston felt at that moment. The fall is clearly not staged. I agree with ray that Liston could have gotten up faster.

Mentaly he was not there.

[klompton]

Sharkey did not throw that fight. He hurts Carnera, goes in for the kill and then gets caught and stopped. No controversy IMO.

[BoxBuzz]

Sharkey did not throw that fight. He hurts Carnera, goes in for the kill and then gets caught and stopped. No controversy IMO.

If you are settled in your opinion why do you think it has been discussed so heavily over the years as having a problem? Is it purely that people regarded Carnera as a light hitter and this did not make sense to the general public? Along with the rumors of Carnera's shady ties? It has become sort of a classic arguement over the years. With people taking strong opinions both ways.

I'm good with your accepting it was not a fix....just curious as why you thing the rumors and enuendos go on and on.

[dempseyfire]

Sharkey did not throw that fight. He hurts Carnera, goes in for the kill and then gets caught and stopped. No controversy IMO.

If you are settled in your opinion why do you think it has been discussed so heavily over the years as having a problem? Is it purely that people regarded Carnera as a light hitter and this did not make sense to the general public? Along with the rumors of Carnera's shady ties? It has become sort of a classic arguement over the years. With people taking strong opinions both ways.

I'm good with your accepting it was not a fix....just curious as why you thing the rumors and enuendos go on and on.

There's no proof of a fix, just speculation. Something some people forget, is that it's on the conspiracy theorists to come up with proof a fight was not legit, not the people saying it was on the level.

1) What incentive would Sharkey have had to throw the fight? The financial rewards of keeping his title and future defenses were very high.

2) Carnera's shady backers had failed to organize fixes once he started fighting upper-tier opponents. Carnera even got robbed in a fight vs the unheralded Stanley Poreda a year before . . where were his 'strongmen' then? Or the first Sharkey fight?

3) While Carnera for his size didn't have great power, a 6'5, 270 lbs of muscle man would not be able to throw well-timed punch to knock out a man 65 lbs less who came into the fight not in top shape?

4) If Sharkey had been bought off/intimidated, this pround man who held the greatest prize in sports would've never divulged it in his last days? He was still afraid Eddie Mobster in his 80s would go and pull the hit??? The whole idea is laughable.

The notion that Carnera's entire career was a bunch of fixed fights is flat-out wrong and distorts Primo's career. Not an all-time great but he became a pretty solid fighter and beat several very good fighters on the level.

[raylawpc]

From the angle on film of Sharkey-Carnera II, the punch arguably looks legit to me. For two reasons: (1) Carnera throws a good uppercut that has his weight behind it, and (2) Sharkey's right leg buckles as I would expect from somebody who got kayoed from an uppercut.

But I say "arguably" because Carnera's body blocks the view of his fist's actual contact with Sharkey's chin.

Buzz, I think the reason the result is hard to believe is that (1) Sharkey had manhandled Carnera two years before, (2) Sharkey was considered a good fighter, and (3) Carnera was considered such a lousy fighter - and his reputation has continued to diminish over the years.

Some time ago, I looked at the newspaper accounts of the fight. I don't recall a single contemporaneous article saying that Sharkey wasn't legitimately kayoed. The only controversy was Buckley's claim that Carnera benefited from using a loaded glove.

[granberry]

The right uppercut was the best punch of two giant heavyweight champions---Willard and Carnera.

[bjermaine]

From the angle on film of Sharkey-Carnera II, the punch arguably looks legit to me. For two reasons: (1) Carnera throws a good uppercut that has his weight behind it, and (2) Sharkey's right leg buckles as I would expect from somebody who got kayoed from an uppercut.

But I say "arguably" because Carnera's body blocks the view of his fist's actual contact with Sharkey's chin.

Buzz, I think the reason the result is hard to believe is that (1) Sharkey had manhandled Carnera two years before, (2) Sharkey was considered a good fighter, and (3) Carnera was considered such a lousy fighter - and his reputation has continued to diminish over the years.

Some time ago, I looked at the newspaper accounts of the fight. I don't recall a single contemporaneous article saying that Sharkey wasn't legitimately kayoed. The only controversy was Buckley's claim that Carnera benefited from using a loaded glove.

i agree with that. the angle wasn't the greatest but what is more convincing to me that it wasn't a fix was that sharkey landed his best punch of the fight seconds before he got knocked out. that's not a punch you throw if you're going in the tank. also does anyone on here have any proof that the nba and the nysac didn't sanction this fight? boxrec lists both organizations as naming carnera champ but other boxing sites say they didn't.

[HomicideHenry]

The fight might have been in the tank, but I dont think it was in such a way that people have made it out to be; it could have been a circumstance that Sharkey didn't take Carnera seriously, or maybe had it suggested to himself to take it easy on Carnera, considering how he oupointed him easy before; in either way the punch Carnera landed would have knocked out 9 of 10 heavywieghts today.

[Cap]

Another factor to take into consideration is that Sharkey was not a great fighter himself. He could be excellent in one bout and then stink out the joint in the next. His list of major losses looks similar to his list of major wins. You never knew which Jack Sharkey was going to climb through the ropes.

However, no one who has done any research into the sport during the first half of the last century can deny there were plenty of fixed fights and shady dealings. Gangsters owned fighters. Sometimes directly, but usually through front men. Some fighters made their own deals. This is not to say that all fights were arranged, or even a majority. A good number of them were though in the days before mass media. Just one instance. Larry Gains recalled a meeting with Jimmy Johnston in which he was offered lucrative matches with Jack Sharkey and Jimmy Maloney if he would take a dive. Gains refused.

Jack Renault always believed that his fight with Sharkey in Boston in April of 1925 was fixed in Sharkey's favour. But he shrugged it off saying that's the fight game.

Was the Carnera-Sharkey fight fixed? Unless a confession from one of the principals surfaces, we'll never know. But it comes down to this. If you believe that Carnera was a bum who couldn't punch hard enough to break an egg, then you probably believe that Sharkey took a dive. If you believe that maybe Carnera wasn't quite as awful as portrayed by the press and had some legit wins, then you may be in the camp that thinks that Sharkey walked into a knockout punch, almost the way he did with Dempsey.

[raylawpc]

An old saying comes to mind with Sharkey-Carnera II: "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in awhile."

[Jaclem]

c'mon guys...everybody in the boxing world knew sharkey tanked it, except for one guy...carnera himself. he didn't know that so many of his fights were mob-setups. during his late career as a wrestler i was in a newspaper office when he told a reporter, with real sadness, that,,and here held up his hands.."I killed a man with these hands." i knocked out so many but i never felt right after that."

[raylawpc]

c'mon guys...everybody in the boxing world knew sharkey tanked it, except for one guy...carnera himself. he didn't know that so many of his fights were mob-setups. during his late career as a wrestler i was in a newspaper office when he told a reporter, with real sadness, that,,and here held up his hands.."I killed a man with these hands." i knocked out so many but i never felt right after that."

"Everybody" is a big word. Can you please name five "everybodys" from the 1930s who knew Sharkey tanked it?

[Collins2000]

Sharkey did not throw that fight. He hurts Carnera, goes in for the kill and then gets caught and stopped. No controversy IMO.

Klompy, good to see you are still here.

A certain poster staked his "reputation" on his repeated claim that you had left this forum for good as a result of us not being worthy to discuss boxing with...

Now, when are you going to post some stuff from your forthcoming book? Lots of people here are Greb fans and would lap it up.

[Jaclem]

..raylaw...one was jack sharkey....in the next few years i'll research and find four other...well..paul galico...now i'm down to three.

[raylawpc]

..raylaw...one was jack sharkey....in the next few years i'll research and find four other...well..paul galico...now i'm down to three.

Can you tell us where those statements were published? Thanks!

Here's how Sharkey explained it to Peter Heller in June 1971 at Epping, New Hampshire:

“Then in ’33 I lost to Carnera. I had no trouble with him in the second bout but all of a sudden – and I can’t convince anybody of this, even my wife has her doubts, I think – I see [Ernie] Schaaf in front of me, the next thing I know I had lost the championship of the world. During the process of the fight I visualized Schaaf there, I saw him, and I stayed there long enough just to get knocked out. I saw Schaaf, a vision.

. . .

They figured, like most of his bouts had been more or less, well, I won't say what I should say. But skepitcal, in other words, dubious. Like I say, I can convince you, but I can't convince two hundred million people. What could I get doing what I did? The prestige, and the honor there is in the championship of the world. What could I get? Even my own manager accused me! What could I get?! I've got everything I want financially and all that, what good is anymore?”

Peter Heller, In This Corner . . . Forty Champions Tell Their Stories (New York: Simon and Schuster 1973) at pg. 159, 160.