BoxRec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf67JevtNcc

The neutral corner rule had been in effect prior to Dempsey/Tunney II, so how the heck Max Baer got away with being able to keep beating on Carnera after 'knockdowns' (which were more like slams, shoves, pushes) is a mystery to me. Wasn't the standing eight count implemented at this time too? I mean come the eff on. Baer ought to of been disqualified for what he did in there. Then again, I think the cards were stacked against Carnera from the get go when you have a ring announcer saying "All of America's hope is on Max Baer to bring the title home" while Carnera was standing there disrespected as the heavyweight champion of the world.

I commend Carnera considering the first knockdown resulted in Carnera's ankle being broken. He continued to fight on until the 11th round where he was slammed, pushed, fouled, etc. I think had it been a square deal with Baer not being able to get away with so much crap, I think Carnera could have out boxed Baer. Jesus bless.

Carnera was a foreigner and as sad as it is to say being an American the powers that be wanted the heavyweight championship to stay in America. Its one of the reason's everyone basically looked the other way when Braddock blatantly ducked his #1 contender, leaving him to weigh in by himself like a bride left at the alter, so he could fight Joe Louis instead. That and the $$$.

Carnera revisionism. Many of us recognize that he was truly a great.........

big bum. Too bad he never faced Galento.

Ok Unlike Galento, Carnera was a truly good spirit. But as a HW champion? Really...not one of the best, no matter how much we are all wanting to be kind to the gentle giant.

Where is the revisionism or anyone calling Carnera great?

He wasnt great but for years people called him a bum and acted like he couldnt fight and that all of his fights were fixed. In reality his later fights, the ones that mattered, werent and by the time he became champion he had learned to fight. That, combined with his size, made him a formidable opponent for the heavyweights of his era. Between Tunney and Louis he was the only HW champ to successfully defend his title more than once and did so against respectable opposition. He won his title from a good champion (and I dont believe that fight was fixed as some do) and lost it to a good fighter, showing a lot of heart in that fight.

To pretend that he wasnt savaged by the American press is more revisionism that stating the above. Carnera was picked on by folks here in the USA and not just for his suspect earlier career but even down to his personal appearance, accent, and teeth. The treatment he received then, had it been heaped on a black person and not an Italian, would be tantamount to racism at worst and jingoism at best.

Lets not pretend the American press, particularly those in New York, werent actively trying waging a campaign to consolidate control of boxing in the United States and especially in New York. During the same time period Marcel Thil, who was a great fighter and worthy champion, was receiving the same kind of treatment in New York and his reputation here in the States has suffered to this day due to the misinformation printed about him there.

No, whats revisionism is that Carnera went down to an ignoble defeat at the hands of Baer while suffering nearly a dozen knockdowns. In truth Carnera took Baer on in his country in front of a hostile crowd and hostile press. He was repeatedly fouled and half of those "knockdowns" were trips or him being wrestled to the canvas, one of which broke his ankle. Yet despite this injury the supposedly dim witted, light punching, gentle hearted, hapless fake fighter lasted into the 11th round with one of the most lethal punchers in history.

Was he great? No. But Carnera deserves/deserved better from the sport than he got and in my opinion the tapestry of boxing is richer for his participation.

Klompton, I consider myself an advocate for those who carry more baggage in life than what might typically be deemd as "fair" (such a subjective state eh?)

However with that said, and with my full recognition that all people deserve respect & reverence, I think it's ok for us/me to say that we are not all "equal in all ways" without being unkind, or ill willed.

And yes I will grant that many of the charges you level about the unfair state of boxing, the nationalism, and man's inclination to demonstrate "man's inhumanity to man" are accurate.

Carnera's life tugs the heartstrings of any fair minded person in fact if he was not in on the "fix" I would (and do) consider him a rather heroic figure. None of this makes him a great champion. AND his skills were pretty limited.

I am under the belief that he attained the championship in much the same way many people feel that Ali beat Liston (at least in the second bout). To my way of thinking Sharkey had to work at placing his jaw in a convenient location for Carnera. Did he show courage with Baer? No doubt, he was nothing if not courageous. I mean the man NO degradation. But I do question his skills when compared with the lot of HW champions as a whole. Though people here whom I respect want to tell us he could be quite remarkable at times and will use the Klitschko's as a benchmark as to why he was a "real deal".

I believe the Sharkey fight was fixed, I don't think the Baer fight was much more sloppily refereed than many fights of that era, I think that Two Ton Toney Galento would likely have beaten the man. I hold these opinions honestly. Even if in your mind erroneously. He's a Bruce Seldon sort of figure to me. Not so good, rather lucky, and definately part of a few documented fixes along the way. He deserves critical reflection regarding his skills, without prejudice..(in either direction). I will yield and listen carefully to those who hold him in high regard as a boxer, and for now I will continue to stand by my opinion that he deserves our respect, but not our credit or validation as to his skillset. His size made him interestingly formidable, and his heart is beyond question.

BoxBuzz wrote:Klompton, I consider myself an advocate for those who carry more baggage in life than what might typically be deemd as "fair" (such a subjective state eh?)

However with that said, and with my full recognition that all people deserve respect & reverence, I think it's ok for us/me to say that we are not all "equal in all ways" without being unkind, or ill willed.

And yes I will grant that many of the charges you level about the unfair state of boxing, the nationalism, and man's inclination to demonstrate "man's inhumanity to man" are accurate.

Carnera's life tugs the heartstrings of any fair minded person in fact if he was not in on the "fix" I would (and do) consider him a rather heroic figure. None of this makes him a great champion. AND his skills were pretty limited.
I am under the belief that he attained the championship in much the same way many people feel that Ali beat Liston (at least in the second bout). To my way of thinking Sharkey had to work at placing his jaw in a convenient location for Carnera. Did he show courage with Baer? No doubt, he was nothing if not courageous. I mean the man NO degradation. But I do question his skills when compared with the lot of HW champions as a whole. Though people here whom I respect want to tell us he could be quite remarkable at times and will use the Klitschko's as a benchmark as to why he was a "real deal".

I believe the Sharkey fight was fixed, I don't think the Baer fight was much more sloppily refereed than many fights of that era, I think that Two Ton Toney Galento would likely have beaten the man. I hold these opinions honestly. Even if in your mind erroneously. He's a Bruce Seldon sort of figure to me. Not so good, rather lucky, and definately part of a few documented fixes along the way. He deserves critical reflection regarding his skills, without prejudice..(in either direction). I will yield and listen carefully to those who hold him in high regard as a boxer, and for now I will continue to stand by my opinion that he deserves our respect, but not our credit or validation as to his skillset. His size made him interestingly formidable, and his heart is beyond question.

Carnera wasn't as half bad as people think. If he was anywhere near as bad as what people wanted to assume, he wouldn't have beaten Uzcudun let alone Loughran when he defended the title twice. In his fight with Baer, he actually won some rounds despite the blatant impartiality of the referee letting Baer get away with all the fouls (the same way they let Baer get away with it against Schmeling).

A man who was completely manufactured wouldn't have been able to withstand the kind of punishment that Carnera took against Baer. Case in point, look at the career of Billy Fox. The moment Fox was put in a legit fight, he was blasted out in one round despite having 'wins' over men who were superior in quality than the man he lost to. Carnera was very dedicated to training, and he learned essentially on the job. I believe most of his wins were legit, though they were against men who were so much smaller than him or so much more limited than him, or light feather punchers that you could criticise his way towards the title---- HOWEVER, Carnera wasn't the first man who took the 'soft touch, hard sell' approach and he certainly isn't going to be the last. Most the top heavyweights today haven't fought more than one or two 'capable' heavyweights on their way up. To blackball Carnera when 99% of this business is built on the blueprint that his managers took, is remarkable in hypocrisy.

It certianly wasn't his size that won his match against Loughran, or his matches with fellow giants Jose Santa and Ray impelltiere, or even againt Sharkey. It was everything else that he had learned in the business. Carnera had a very good jab (though not an all time great one) and for being nearly 6'6" and weighing as much as 280 pounds he was quite nimble and quick on his feet and had good hand speed. His overly muscular frame robbed him of fluidity in his punches, which by proxy also robbed him of punching power, however when he put his body weight into his hooks and uppercuts he did indeed punch like a super heavyweight as evident in his fight with Sharkey. Personally, I think in the Sharkey fight it was a win, just like the Tyson Fury Steve Cunningham fight was a win---- Carnera pushed Sharkey into the ropes, Sharkey tried to gain his balance and get away from Carnera and fell right into a perfectly timed uppercut. Whether Sharkey could have gotten up or not in time is anyone's guess, I think part of him was hurt to the point where he said eff this and he stayed down, just like it was for Cunningham. Or, one can look at an example like Marciano/Walcott the rematch where Walcott got up exactly at the count of ten. Could he of gotten up earlier? Sure. But why risk the punishment? And until Sharkey's dying day he maintained he never took a dive. And in truth, rumors of a fix or a dive came many years later. Everyone at ringside seen and heard the punch land and nobody questioned it.

Because of that knockout win, for a short time in this business, it was discussed seriously whether there ought to of been a 'Drednaught/Super Heavyweight' division because many thought that maybe it was unfair that a giant man like Carnera should fight guys like Sharkey, who in today's time would have been a small cruiserweight. Carnera at the end of the day, though, I would rank among alot of the alphabet champions and have him in the top twenty-twenty five heavyweights of all time. He could take a punch, was superbly conditioned, had good speed for a man of his size, had average skills, and was all heart. Probably the last factor is what would have made him a top 25-30 heavyweight alone. To say he wasn't arguably the best of the 'cheese champions' following Tunney and until Louis came along would be an insult. He and Schmeling are not too far apart in terms of overall worth and stature in this business. Were there fixed fights in his career? Early on in Europe there was, but somewhere along the line Carnera developed into a capable pro able to defend himself against third and second tier opponents. His determination, size, and conditioning pulled him into the next level.

I feel bad for him, because many talk about the racism and bigotry and unfair treatment of Schmeling because of WW2 but many fail to realise that Carnera was also austrosized because of it, after all Mussilini was the lap dog of Stalin and Hitler. Baer already made a 'statement' against Schmeling as a Jew (or claimed to be one is more accurate) and was allowed to do dirty tactics against him. In turn he was allowed to do dirty tactics to Carnera, who in people's minds was billed as an Italian giant who was also a fascist sympathiser. But in Baer's first defense, he fought a fellow American who happened to be very popular with the common man in James Braddock, and Baer was penalised once or twice for fouls (after all Americans cant foul other Americans right, we are all on the same team) and actually tried to have a fair contest, and of course he got out pointed by a man whose career was considered officially over and done with just a few years before.

Had Carnera gotten the same courtesy, I can almost garuntee that Baer could have lost a decision to Carnera. Jesus bless.