Bob Fitzsimmons vs George Carpentier

[gambler49]

..................

[Robinson]

I like Carpentier. He is an interesting character. And what I have
seen in the limited film ive watched, he is entertaining.

I would love to see more of Fitz before I would make a call on
this one.

Its a good match up though.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Fitzsimmons pretty brutally.

[klompton]

fitz every day of the week and twice on sunday...

[Ambling Alp]

I would lean toward Fitz but I would not count out Carpentier. He was a very hard puncher and had good boxing skills. He did seem to usually come up short in big fights though.

[klompton]

I dont know if Id call totally relying on landing one big right hand "good boxing skills" Carpentier is one of the most predictable fighters Ive ever seen. Jab, jab, literally leap in with a right hand, clinch until the ref breaks you apart and start all over. He was chinny too which is bad news against someone who hits as hard as Fitz. Unless Fitz accepts Descamps characteristic bribe to lay down (which I doubt he would) then Carpentier either gets brutally knocked out, or tries to claim a foul after seeing he has no chance of winning. When this doesnt work Descamps climbs into the ring getting Carp DQd in order to prevent a KO.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't think you are being fair to Carpentier.

Regarding his boxing skills, he usually regarded as a good boxer. He has good hand speed and could move well on his feet. I have only seen a lot of him on film, but from what I have seen he looks like he has some talent. He did not fight a smart fight against Dempsey, but even then you could tell he had some ability.

I would not call him "chinny". Yes he got knocked out 9 times in his career, but that is very decieving. He started his career at the age 14 and was fighting some opponents that were far more experienced. Only three of those knockout losses were were after he was 18 years old. One was to Dempsey, one was in 15 rounds to Tunney and the other was the Siki fight.


This is a guy who gave Jennette trouble over 15 rounds as a skinny 20 year old. Just going toe to toe with Dempsey for four rounds shows he had a decent chin. There is a vert good chance that he would do against Fitz.
Sure Fitz may have knocked him out early. However, it is more likley that Carpentier would have gave him a lot of trouble and concievably have either knocked Fitz out or decisioned him.

[klompton]

I think Im being more than fair considering Ive probably seen more film on Carpentier than anyone alive barring possibly a couple of people. He was definately chinny regardless of his age or size. He was knocked down several times in fights he wasnt stopped in. He had several wins that fixed and several losses that they tried to fix in his favor. If you can watch film on him and tell me that his jab jab right hand grab style is good boxing then we can agree to disagree.

[Darling]

I think Im being more than fair considering Ive probably seen more film on Carpentier than anyone alive barring possibly a couple of people.

[dempseyfire]

Carpentier definitely had an awkward, ugly style. He came forward in a crouch, both hands down, and literally spran at opponents with wild counters and lead uppercuts. There is a reason in almost every fight in which he stepped up to the elite level he got bludgeoned.

That said, any guy who can give Jeannette a tough go at 167 lbs and who knocks out the iron-jawed Levinsky can't be all bad. Looking at him on film, he often made up his poor technique with excellent timing and counter-punching ability. He also had big-time power, very good stamina and while not having a great chin, was fairly durable and very very tough.

That all said, Fitz takes him out within 6 rounds.

[klompton]

The Levinsky fight was a fix to set up the Dempsey fight. I wouldnt doubt that Jeannette was told to go easy on Carp either. Descamps tried to pay Frank Klaus to take a dive against Carp but Klaus refused. Willie Lewis who was an old overweight welterweight dropped Carpentier several times and totally outboxed him over the first half of their fight losing what is in my opinion a robbery. The shinnanigans sorrounding the Siki fight are well. The Townely fight was an obvious fix. I could go on and on but I think Carp was completely overprotected, and is completely overrated today as a fighter.

[dempseyfire]

Klomp: Is there any evidence the Levinsky fight was fixed?

[Ambling Alp]

I guess I would be interested in what fights klompton has seen of Carpentier and which fights he was knocked down it. His manager aside, Carpentier was a great fighter. Yes he came up short against a prime Dempsey and Tunney, but he still did enough to be considered great.
I don't see how he was overportected; He was thrown to the wolves as a teenager. He also routinely fought heavyweights when he was not and beat them. Besides Dempsey and Tunney, he fought Hall of Famers Levinsky, Jeannette, Ted Kid Lewis, Papke.

[klompton]

He wasnt protected in that he was kept out of the ring with good fighters. He was protected because when he was in the ring with them the deck was stacked in his favor:

Against Gunboat Smith he won on a DQ that most except the ref considered an outrage while he was on the verge of being stopped.

The bout against Battling Levinsky was fixed to set up the mega match with Dempsey.

The bout against Townely was fixed.

They tried to fix the bout against Klaus and when they couldnt they saved Carp from a KO by getting him DQd.

They tried to fix the Siki fight.

His fight with Willie Lewis was fixed in his favor.

They tried to win the Tunney fight on a foul when it was obvious he was well behind and couldnt win.

He trained in seclusion for the Dempsey fight because they didnt want the press reporting how weak of an opponent he was.

He won his bout with Ted Kid Lewis by fouling with a punch on the break but was never called for it.

His decision win over Jeff Smith was heavily disputed as being a bad decision (I dont agree, but ringsiders felt Smith did enough)

Those are just off the top of my head. Its easy to face stiff competition when you know the deck is stacked in your favor. I dont think Carp was great at all, not as a fighter. His influence in popularizing the sport in europe was great and for that he should be remembered, and be in the hall, but as a fighter he was one dimensional and protected and lost to the best names he faced when things werent fixed, sometimes when things were fixed...

[Ambling Alp]

Well, you have said a mouthful.
There was controversy regarding the Gunboat Smith fight. Gunboat himself naturally said he thought Carpentier was up when he hit him. He also said that he had a high regard for Carpentier as a fighter. after being knocked down by Carpentier, he admitted that he was hurt for a couple of rounds.

The Levinsky fight was fixed? I have never heard a word about that before. I am very skeptical that it was fixed.
Klaus? Well he did go 18 rounds against the middleweight champion when he was only 18 years old.
Siki fight? a lot of controversy. His manager did try to have it ruled a DQ but eventually it was ruled a ko win for Siki.

Tunney? Well he held his own for a while for quite a while against one of the greatest fighters of all-time.

Ted Kid Kewis was hit on the break? I don't know. I have never seen it, but again I have never heard a word about it before.

I really don't know anything about the Jeff Smith fight. Again never heard that it was a bad decision; however you yourself don't seem to think it was.

Just watching the four rounds of the Demspey fight showed me that Carpentier had some ability. Yes he did not fight the smartest fight going to to toe. However, how many other guys could have even lasted 4 rounds going toe to toe with Dempsey? Dempsey himself had a lot of respect for Carpentier.

As for fights being fixed. that is a loose term. In boxing there is often talk of fixes that really aren't. I am always skeptical of fights that were supposedly fixed. Yes his manager tried (and occasionally was successful) to get his opponent DQ'd a few times. However, that was not uncommon in fights with Europeans years ago. Phantin Phil Scott made a career out of it. Max Schmeling won the heavyweight title that way.

Not saying that I disagree with everything that you say. However, I don't think you are being fair to Carpentier.

[klompton]

If you see the complete film of Carp-Tunney (which is extremely rare) you will see Carp was not all that competetive. The edited version was done to make the fight look more exciting and thus more marketable.

Why would you be skeptical that Levinsky was fixed? A guy who had been champion for years but had made very little money at it, was getting long in the tooth and getting beaten regularly in ND matches, BUT who was well known for being a defensive master and extremely durable, comes into the biggest fight of his life completely out of shape (with a big gut of all things) and then gets knocked out after four rounds of the biggest non effort of his career. This is a guy who was only stopped four times in almost 300 bouts. Once against Dempsey when he was out of shape and only had a couple of weeks at most to train for that fight against a larger guy who was a big puncher, twice at the very end of his career when he was about 40 years old and trying a comeback, and then the carpentier fight. For several weeks before the fight it was rumored to be fixed, after the knockout a majority of people echoed that it was fixed and an investigation was launched into it before state officials close to Rickard squashed it. Rickard wanted to promote a bonanza between Dempsey and Carpentier but Carpentier had never fought in this country and other than his glamorous reputation had little credibility here. They tried to get him credibility by staging a tour of exhibitions for him but it met with only lukewarm reception. They had to do something in order to set up a match with Dempsey that would sell and that was to make him a champion. Levinsky cashed in on what was the biggest purse of his career (and probably some under the table money to find a soft spot to lay down) and Carpentier got his title shot.


In regards to fixing, Im not talking about just trying to get someone DQd. I mean they outright fixed fights to have Carpentier win because he was the money man and keeping him winning meant keeping the gravy train rolling.

As for Klaus, yeah he went 18 rounds and got so badly punished that he was vomiting and spitting up blood from the internal injuries suffered from the beating he took. Descamps was literally in tears ringside and some feared he would lose his mind that the kid he considered a son was possibly going to die. He took a similar beating against Papke. The bottom line is that Carpentier either lost to the best fighters he fought, or when he won some controversy was attached to the win.

Carpentier fought the way he always fought against Dempsey. Thats my point, he was very predictable, he had no plan b. He just jabbed, jabbed, leap in with a right hand and clinch. Every single fight that exists of his from 1912 to 1925 follows that pattern. he just wasnt that great of a fighter.

Watch his fight with Kid Lewis (who was tiny compared to Carp anyway. They wouldnt even allow that match today. He gets hit on the break and knocked cold.

[Ambling Alp]

No I have not seen the Tunney fight. The basic description that I got was that it was competitive for a while, but Tunney took over and had Carpnetier in trouble in the last few rounds. Still we are talking about Gene Tunney. Getting knocked out by him in the 15th round is no embarrassment.

I am skeptical that the Levinsky fight was fixed because I never one word about it being fixed. Ever. I aslo doubt that Levinsky would do it. you mention that he was getting long in the tooth which would perhaps make it logical that he would want a big payday before retiring. Well he was 29 and fought for several years after that. If he would have beat Carpentier, he might position himself into a title shot against Dempsey for much bigger money. I find it difficult to beleive that Levinsky throw a way his title under those circumstances.

As for setting up Carpnetier for the big fight against Dempsey, I don't know about that either. To me that seems like speculation. In fact after the Carpnetier-Levinsky fight, Dempsey fought Brennan before he fought Carpentier. Yes Carpentier took a beating against Klaus and Papke. However you have to remember he was just a teenager when he is fighting those guys. It's amazing that he did as well as he did. He was nowhere near the fighter that he would become.

As for the Dempsey fight being the normal way that he fought, I don't know. I have not seen him fight enough myself. I have always read that was not his usual style. If it was, well he must have been pretty good at it. He showed against Demspey that he had some ability.

As for Ted Kid Lewis, I agree that Lewis was overmatched. He was way too small for Carpetnier. I had just never heard that the ko punch was on the break.

[klompton]

No I have not seen the Tunney fight. The basic description that I got was that it was competitive for a while, but Tunney took over and had Carpnetier in trouble in the last few rounds. Still we are talking about Gene Tunney. Getting knocked out by him in the 15th round is no embarrassment.

I am skeptical that the Levinsky fight was fixed because I never one word about it being fixed. Ever. I aslo doubt that Levinsky would do it. you mention that he was getting long in the tooth which would perhaps make it logical that he would want a big payday before retiring. Well he was 29 and fought for several years after that. If he would have beat Carpentier, he might position himself into a title shot against Dempsey for much bigger money. I find it difficult to beleive that Levinsky throw a way his title under those circumstances.

As for setting up Carpnetier for the big fight against Dempsey, I don't know about that either. To me that seems like speculation. In fact after the Carpnetier-Levinsky fight, Dempsey fought Brennan before he fought Carpentier. Yes Carpentier took a beating against Klaus and Papke. However you have to remember he was just a teenager when he is fighting those guys. It's amazing that he did as well as he did. He was nowhere near the fighter that he would become.

As for the Dempsey fight being the normal way that he fought, I don't know. I have not seen him fight enough myself. I have always read that was not his usual style. If it was, well he must have been pretty good at it. He showed against Demspey that he had some ability.

As for Ted Kid Lewis, I agree that Lewis was overmatched. He was way too small for Carpetnier. I had just never heard that the ko punch was on the break.

Levinsky fought on for one year with mixed results before retiring for five years. He cashed out. Plain and simple. Simply because it doesnt conform to your notions of Carpentier doesnt mean it didnt happen. Everything you are saying here states over and over you hold these notions because it is "what you read" and its obvious you read this not from contemporary sources because if you had you would have read that Levinsky-Carp was believed to be a fix, Carp got his as kicked by Tunney, Klaus, and Pakpke, and hit Lewis on the break. You would have also read that it was not speculation that Carpentier fought Levinsky to promote a battle between he and Carpentier. Thats a simple fact. No speculation there at all. That is the exact reason why that match was held, otherwise they would have jumped straight into Dempsey but they couldnt because they need get Carp some publicity and ceedibility here. You say you dont believe it because Dempsey fought Bill Brennan first but Dempsey had already planned to fight Bill Brennan before the Carp-Levinsky fight. Furthermore Dempsey needed money after having had only one fight in over a year and having gone through a trial that bled him dry. He could not wait for the entire, less lucrative, indoor season to get over with (because they had always planned to fight Carpentier outdooors in a custom built stadium), they had to fight someone and Brennan, having already been knocked out by Dempsey, was considered a safe proposition. After Carpentier fought Levinsky and agreed to face Dempsey he agreed as per Tex Rickards request (and possibly signed a contract to the effect) that he would not fight anyone else until he faced Dempsey. This was unheard of in this era. Does that sound like they had a lot of faith in Carpentier. That combined with the fact that Carp trained in a closed training camp so the press couldnt see how bad he was, using his fat cook, euro stiff paul journee, and balding retired Joe Jeannette as sparring partners shows how serious Carpentier was. When Greb visited the camp on an open media day (and a staged knockdown of Jeannette was enacted to impress the press) Greb offered to spar with Carpentier and was turned down flat.

I guess your idea of doing well against Papke, Klaus, and Tunney is far different from idea. Its kind of like saying youre impressed with how well Tex Cobb did against Holmes. Yeah, he lasted longer than he should have but if he was punished, beaten severly, and bloodied before ultimately being stopped is that really even a moral victory? Winning a gold medal in the special olympics is great but at the end of the day you are still retarded....

[dempseyfire]

Klomp you still haven't provided any evidence the Levinsky fight was fixed. There might of been gossip regarding a possible fixed fight in the papers, but so what . . that occured all the time regardless of merit.

[klompton]

If thats your signature win, and its done in a way thats uncharacteristic of your previous or future performances against that class of athlete, and you have a history of being involved in fixed fights, and an investigation was conducted and quashed by your interested parties, and it went down exactly as the fix was rumored to happen both before and after, in order to set up what was at that time the largest money making venture in the history of the sport... I think whether its circumstantial evidence or not its pretty powerful evidence. You dont have to believe it, I do. But regardless, he beat an aging, fat, disinterested LHW who was losing almost as often as he was winning but protected against the loss of his title by fighting in ND bouts. Does that suddenly make Georges more than he actually was? Does it erase all of the losses to actual great fighters he suffered at every stage of his career when he stepped up? Does it erase all of the controversial and fixed fights he participated in? It does it erase that from the time he was 18 to his retirement 15 years later he never, ever showed a change in his style, an ability to adapt, a plan b, or any variation beyond jab jab right hand clinch? Does it change that he made his name fighting against no hope european stiffs, some of which beat him (siki) but couldnt compete at the highest level? So explain to me how does that equal a great fighter? Carpentier is noteworthy because he helped to popularize boxing in Europe. His influence in that respect cannot be understated. As a fighter he was a "B" level opponent at best who at every stage of his career and at every weight he fought at was never the best and could have been beaten by at least a handful of people in the each division he fought in.

[Darling]

Great. That's another boxing legend dealt with. Not just a bum but a cheating bum, eh?

Who shall we debase next?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Great. That's another boxing legend dealt with. Not just a bum but a cheating bum, eh?

Who shall we debase next?

I see you are venturing into word-based posts for the first time since your embarrassing exit from the forums. Good for you.

As for who we should debase next, how about Kid Azteca? Here are your, "sword & shield" of choice for the impending discussion...

http://www.wikipedia.org

http://www.google.com

[Darling]

Irene, I'd like to hear some more stories about your "extensive experience working the doors".

I love a good chuckle.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Irene, I'd like to hear some more stories about your "extensive experience working the doors".

I love a good chuckle.

Is that right? Last I heard, you wanted to know specifically which door I worked, so as to, "sort out our difference regarding Ali"

Fandom gone wild! LMAO. As I recall, after laughing you off, I eventually accepted, after which, you declined

Know what gives me a good chuckle? It's knowing my opinions regarding Ali, though far more reasonable than you would have us believe, were so offensive, so outrageous, that you sat at your computer in such a state of sizzling rage, you attempted to meet & bash me

[Ambling Alp]

Anyway, I guess the main reasons that I (and I suppose others) have a vastly different view of Carpentier comes down to a few things:

1. The Levinsky fight. I still no hard evidence at all that the fight was fixed. Until I do I have to consider it a legitimate win for Carpentier over a great fighter who may have been slightly past it but was still very good.
Aging? Levinsky was only 29 when he fought Carpentier. Carpentier himself was 30 when he fought Tunney, yet you have no problem ripping Carpentier for losing to Tunney.
Levinsky was fat? I don't know how fat he could have been. He was within the 175 pound weight limit.

More importantly, Levinsky was not losing almost as much as he was winning. In his last 13 fights (counting no-decisions) before fighting Carpentier, Levinsky had 11 wins, zero losses and two draws. He had not lost an official fight since Dempsey knocked him out three years previously.

2. The losses early in his career , particularly to Papke and Klaus. I don't see how you can possibly hold that against Carpentier. This is not all like like Tex Cobb and Larry Holmes. Carpentier was an 18 year old kid fighting the best middleweights in the world. And he got to the 17th and 18th round. Tex Cobb was at his best. Carpentier clearly had not reached his best.
Do you really do that with everybody? Dempsey for example had losses early in his career that barely ever get mentioned.

3.He did lose to Tunney and Dempsey. However while that indicates that he was not in their class, that does not mean that he was not a great fighter. Again I don't think a lightheavyweight getting knocked out in 4 rounds to a prime Dempsey is really that embarrasing. There are probably only a handful of lightheavyweights in history who would have done much better.

I do hold the loss to Siki against him when considering whether he should be classified as a great fighter. Thats it. None of the losses when he was fighting a far more experienced fighter and in way over his head should be considered against him. (Nor should Klaus, Papke, Jeannette etc. get much credit for beating him at that stage of his career.)

Add his several victories over not great but decent opponents and I come to the conclusion that he was a great fighter. Not in the Tunney/Dempsey category. However, he was certainly more than "B" level fighter. He fought some "B" level opponents and beat all of them, most of them badly.

I feel that we are pretty much going around in circles. I will let Klompton have the last word if he wants to.