Primo Carnera

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 26 May 2005, 19:27

Recently I read the story of Primo Carnera and it was a very sad one.

All of Primo Carnera's fights at the beginning of his career had been set ups that he had known nothing about. The mob had simply been using him to bring in money and he had gotten none of it. When he finaly faced a real opponent that was not paid off, it was not untill he fought a man by the name of Tommy Loughran that people began to discover he wasn't much. The man that weighed about 180 pounds staggerd Carnera a numerous amount of times. Carnera did not find out untill later in his career that he could not actually box and the 2 things that he thought he had (good defense and a very hard punch) he found out he didn't really have. He thought he had good defense because the fighters he faced were told not to hit him in the head, he thought he could hit hard because people would simply fall when he hit them. It was said that to be hit by him was little more than a push.

Carnera left America paralyzed in his right leg from to many head shots and he left broke as hell.

Has anyone else heard of the stories of him being paid off?

jab · Post by **jab** » 26 May 2005, 20:00

He wasnt that bad. There were soem fixes, but he wasnt really as weak as you made him sound. He also took some dives, also because he was made to do it. (like Liston, Golota and so many other fighters).
Also many Black fighters of the early 20th century were made to take dives, just so they could get future fights, or title shots.

Until a Federal Boxing Commission with real enforcing powers is made, this sort of things will keep happening.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 26 May 2005, 20:58

jab wrote:He wasnt that bad. There were soem fixes, but he wasnt really as weak as you made him sound. He also took some dives, also because he was made to do it. (like Liston, Golota and so many other fighters).
Also many Black fighters of the early 20th century were made to take dives, just so they could get future fights, or title shots.

Until a Federal Boxing Commission with real enforcing powers is made, this sort of things will keep happening.

I didn't make him sound bad this was directly off of an article.
I just typed what it said.

THE DANCING MASTER · Post by **THE DANCING MASTER** » 27 May 2005, 11:14

I always thought that he was just a bit better than he has ever been given credit for. If nothing else he had heart. He kept getting up everytime Max Baer knocked him down.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Sep 2005, 19:21

Folks I have to tell you. You can be nostalgic for the old days, you can think there is something "romantic" in the mob involvement. You can argue he really knocked out a little too self confident Sharkey who felt sure he had nothing at all to fear from this guy. But I am still able to say HE REALLY WAS THAT BAD. He would not dominate in todays field. Does that tell you something? It should.

There are some films of the guy they are sparse but they are out there. You can put together some pretty nice highlights if you try.

But it would be much much easier to put together lowlights that would tell a much more entertaining if not downright 3 stooges comical story.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Sep 2005, 23:26

But I am still able to say HE REALLY WAS THAT BAD. He would not dominate in todays field. Does that tell you something? It should.

Wow. I would have thought you were a Canera fan, being you like Braddock so much. you know, a soft spot in your heart for mediocre fighters.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:03

theone wrote:But I am still able to say HE REALLY WAS THAT BAD. He would not dominate in todays field. Does that tell you something? It should.

Wow. I would have thought you were a Canera fan, being you like Braddock so much. you know, a soft spot in your heart for mediocre fighters.

i think theres a difference in character and in story.. its hard not to have a spot in your heart for braddock... many of carnera's fights were fixed and ill be a monkeys uncle if carnera was totaly oblivious to what was going on... braddock fought the game fair and is a great story....

on the other hand.. carnera is probly exaggerated in terms of being a bad fighter..sure his fights were sketchy but he was such a big guy that he certainly could hold his own in some fights.. i no way shape or form is he a heavyweight title holder, and i am convinced that the sharkey fight was fixed.... before the title fight with max baer, carneras people that had relations to the mob, gained entrance into his room and tried to bully around ancil hoffman and get him to agree to take a dive... carnera would have probly succeeded as fighting on a C plus B level... never really deserved a title shot if he fought the fair way he wouldnt have been anythign special n we probly never would mention his name on this board unless you look back at who is the tallest boxer ever thread.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:08

Carnera is definately better than hes given credit for today. Hes on the level of a James J. Braddock (I would favor him over Braddock) and that sort.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:13

rory wrote

and i am convinced that the sharkey fight was fixed....

i used to think that, but not anymore. i have watched the fight over and over again, sharkey simply got caught. did u see the knockout??? i replayed it in slow motion, it was a very legit powerful uppercut that caught sharkey. it was a real blow and sharkey defintely did not take a dive.

primo carnera gets credit for beating jack sharkey whos a legit heavyweight. also, despite size advantge, he was able to outpoint loughran over 15 rounds which is hard to do. carnera also outpointed paulino uzcuden. carnera was responsible for killing ernie shaff.

carnera size and intimidation was his best weapon, but he did use his size well and could fight a little after seeing a lot of his fights on tape. i thought he had decent power. he pawed with his jab mostly and used his 86 " reach as an advantage.

i think carnera would beat braddock

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:16

well i think it would be hard to lose to a guy (carnera) if your braddock..after you beat max baer who knocked down carnera 11 times and simply made a mockery out of himself...i think max baer and james j braddock had similar styles.. max baer did it a little better, btu they were similar... i see no reason as to why jimmy couldnt take out carnera?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 19 Sep 2005, 01:48

Rory McCloskey wrote:well i think it would be hard to lose to a guy (carnera) if your braddock..after you beat max baer who knocked down carnera 11 times and simply made a mockery out of himself...i think max baer and james j braddock had similar styles.. max baer did it a little better, btu they were similar... i see no reason as to why jimmy couldnt take out carnera?

Huh???

Braddock and Baer were similar?

I thought you were a Braddock scribe?

Their fight against each other itself shows how different they were.

Braddock was a boxer-puncher who basically relied on the left jab and a sneaky right hand.

Baer was a brawler-slugger who often neglected the jab and came in with body shots and wild right hands. He also had a much bigger punch then the puffed up light HW Braddock.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 19 Sep 2005, 06:41

klompton wrote:Carnera is definately better than hes given credit for today. Hes on the level of a James J. Braddock (I would favor him over Braddock) and that sort.

Definetely agree with Klompton here, Carnera was not as bad as he is made out to be today. Yes, early on he was very untalented but after a while he gained decent skills and won.

And against Baer he showed tremendous heart. He could have quit anytime after getting knocked down but kept getting up, and even won a few rounds along the way. He even protested the stoppage. He was a decent fighter with heart, not a great fighter or all time great heavyweight or hall of famer, but he was and deserved to be heavyweight champion. He knocked Sharkey out, who cares if Sharkey was too self confident. What's Carnera supposed to do, stand there and get beat to make Sharkey not look bad.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 19 Sep 2005, 08:41

when i said baer and braddock have similar styles, i was talking about how they put power over speed, and had powerful right hands.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Sep 2005, 11:30

except baers right hand was 100 times more powerful than braddocks.
but then again, baer had one of the hardest right hands in history of heavyweight division

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Sep 2005, 16:32

Hey "theone" I think your posts seem to be pretty sensible but don't let that shake your confidence.

Don't miss my point that skill+talent is not everything. For the most part I look for all three skill talent and heart. But a lot of people have put pretty good careers together with just 2 out of 3. But they will never make the top 20. Carnera or Braddock do not make the top 20 or even 25 in my estimation.

I think too many "champions" make the top 20 as it is. People who competed in the more talent rich years should probably be raised above many of the reigning champions who reigned during talent lean times.

How many people even show Joe Jeanette in the top 20? is there any reall excuse for that? Other than no one knows who he is?

Just some thoughts.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 19 Sep 2005, 18:04

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:except baers right hand was 100 times more powerful than braddocks.
but then again, baer had one of the hardest right hands in history of heavyweight division

i totally agree... he was way more powerful.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2005, 20:57

[quote]Hey "theone" I think your posts seem to be pretty sensible but don't let that shake your confidence.

Dont quite get what you me boxbuzz. dont let what exactly shake my confidence?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Sep 2005, 21:32

....the fact that I might say you have valuable things to contribute.....
this might shake your confidence in yourself. Since I know you find my reasoning suspect.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2005, 21:48

There is nothing you can possible do to shake my confidence. I have found some of your reasoning more than suspect at times, but I have read several of your opinions on this forum that were actually insightful and not given in to sentimentallity or the deification of icons to unreasonable degrees.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 Sep 2005, 21:51

Reasoning is not all that it's cracked up to be anyway.

theone · Post by **theone** » 19 Sep 2005, 21:55

Reasoning is not all that it's cracked up to be anyway.

that is exactly what religious fanatics say.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Sep 2005, 13:20

Fanatics....such as fundamentalists of any kind and atheists? I would agree.