Is there any substance to the rumor of Carnera KO Sharkey being "fixed"?

[kenmore]

Can anyone here tell me if there is any substance to the frequent insinuations by fans and media types that Jack Sharkey took a dive against Primo Carnera in their 1933 title fight?

All my life I've read sarcastic asides about the outcome of this fight -- that it must have been fixed. Not once however have I seen anyone offer any kind of meaningful evidence that Sharkey took a dive.

My hunch all along is that the "fix" rumors were just another nasty slur against Carnera, and that in truth, Sharkey had an off-night and was kayoed by a heavy punch.

[greek1237]

I have the fight. I dont belive it was a fix. That was a pretty powerful uppercut. All of Carnera's body was behind that shot.

[kenmore]

I have the fight. I dont belive it was a fix. That was a pretty powerful uppercut. All of Carnera's body was behind that shot.

Thanks for your input.

My take on Carnera -- and I'm not an expert because I haven't studied him in depth -- is that he was trashed unnecessarily by the press. No doubt Primo's record was padded by easy wins against handpicked, hopelessly overmatched foes in the backwater arenas of the country, and I'm sure some of those fall guys even took deliberate dives. But at the same time, it's probably also true that Carnera's victories over world class foes were legitimate. Carnera doesn't get the credit he deserves for having earned his rightful place at the top of his era.

From the way the press has historically treated Carnera, you'd think that he was a total fraud who never won a legitimate major match on his own. That is slander.

I don't know if it's true, but I've read also that in his later years, Carnera was even in a state of mental anguish regarding his undeserved reputation as a fraud. That is sad, as Primo should have spent his retirement being able to enjoy the public's and media's respect for having been one of the leading heavyweights of his generation.

[raylawpc]

From my "For What It's Worth Department:" Some time ago, I read a quote from Joe Louis, who reportedly said that he considered Primo Carnera one of the better boxers that he met. I don't have the quote, nor do I have the source, but I do recall reading it. I guess Louis of all people would know whether Carnera was a fraud . . .

[kenmore]

From my "For What It's Worth Department:" Some time ago, I read a quote from Joe Louis, who reportedly said that he considered Primo Carnera one of the better boxers that he met. I don't have the quote, nor do I have the source, but I do recall reading it. I guess Louis of all people would know whether Carnera was a fraud . . .

The media's failure, over generations, to acknowledge Carnera's legitimacy is pathetic. Sure, Carnera was a limited fighter in many ways, a flawed fighter. But he was also sufficiently talented and skilled to be able to beat Jack Sharkey, Paulino Uzcudun, Tommy Loughran, and Kingfish Levinksy. These wins alone warranted his rating at the top of the division in the early and mid 1930s.

I find it puzzling also that only rarely do sportswriters acknowledge that Carnera injured his ankle early in his disastrous loss to Max Baer. That's why Carnera was knocked down so often. The sportswriters harp on Primo being down 11 times as if this is evidence of Carnera's mediocrity. If anything, persisting against Baer in spite of a crippling injury is testimony to Carnera's courage.

Somebody needs to write a good book about Carnera...to vindicate him.

[hawk5ins]

It was in Louis's best interests to laud Carnera though.

What does he gain by agreeing with those who trivialized his skills and accomplishents?

I think his praise for Carnera was completely self serving. And I don't blame or criticize Joe for doing so either.

Hawk

[greek1237]

Carnea was a decent fighter, not great. But he give today's divsion a lesson in boxing skills. I have a good number of his fights, vs Sharkey, Schaff, and one or 2 more fights. He look a lot like VK in style. Useing his jab to keep his foe at bay and useing his size to fight as the bigger guy. As long as Carnea does not fight a major puncher like Baer or Louis, Carnera has a shot to win. Highly underated. The Press was pretty hard on Carnera. He had a lot of heart, sure not the best of chins, but he had heart, and a decent punch. And ok skills for a big guy. He was far from the frad the media protray him as. He could be top 30 all time great heavyweights. Of couse the top ten is pack. You cant beat the likes of Sharkey and the others and suck. The media was hard on Marciano during his rein also if one reads back with labels like "The master of no defense". And if you miss a punch, he said I sorry.

[hawk5ins]

There have been 61 heavyweight titeists/champions.

Top 30 for Carnera seems like an awful large stretch, and that list just includes Heavyweight title holders.

The List of Contenders and Non Champions that could be added to say a "Top 100 Heavyweights Ever", would I believe put Carnera SECURELY among the bottom 50.

Sympathetic figure for sure. Beyond that.........

Hawk

[raylawpc]

It was in Louis's best interests to laud Carnera though.

What does he gain by agreeing with those who trivialized his skills and accomplishents?

I think his praise for Carnera was completely self serving. And I don't blame or criticize Joe for doing so either.

Hawk

Before you make that judgment you need to read the interview (and I wish I could find it for you - I don't even remember when or where I read it). He didn't say that Carnera was a great fighter; he said that Carnera was one of the better opponents he fought, in terms of boxing skills. I could be wrong, but I got the impression when I read the quote that Louis was speaking matter of factly.

[raylawpc]

Somebody needs to write a good book about Carnera...to vindicate him.

There is a book on Carnera, and its available on amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Primo-Story-Ma...e=UTF8&s=books

I browsed through this book at the Notre Dame University library when doing some research in their boxing archives some years ago. I thought after a quick perusal that it looked pretty well researched.

[hawk5ins]

I am not disparaging Louis for lauding his opponent, even if he wasn't calling him great.

I think it DOES serve a fighters best interests to praise the fighters they faced on thier own resume.

What would one have Joe say if asked about Carnera? That he was a lumbering unskilled oaf? Or would Joe point out the positives in his opponent?

What is to be gained by dismissing your OWN resume?

You need to be proud of your own accomplishments. ANd play them up as much as it makes sense to.

But that does NOT mean, becuase Joe Louis made plauditory remarks about one of his ring victims, that it should be held as gospel.

That's all I'm saying.

Hawk

[raylawpc]

And all I'm saying is that one shouldn't assume that a fighter's relatively positive statement about an opponent is always self-serving. As I recall, the statement wasn't all that lauditory; he simply said Carnera had good boxing skills or was a better boxer than some of his other opponents - something like that.

[hawk5ins]

Is perfectly acceptable.

At the same time, I think it IS self serving. But agian, I don't mean this to be construed as a negative. To me it is to be expected.

As I previously stated, it IS in one's best interest, to make positive comments about the fighters on one's own resume. I'm sure Joe would have something positive to say about Jack Roper as well. What is to be gained by tearing apart a fighter one has defeated?

And agian, all positive comments about fighters on one's own resume, should not be held as Gospel.

IE: Joe Louis had some good things to say about fighter X. "If JOE says it, it must be true." Not always the case.

Hawk

[raylawpc]

The only Gospel I hold as the Gospel is the Gospel.

[kenmore]

Consider however that Joe Louis defeated so many top flight heavyweights that he had no motive to bolster his own resume by exaggerating Carnera's abilities. I think Louis was merely putting into words what most leading heavyweights took for granted in the 1930s: that Carnera -- even in spite of his flaws -- was a legitimate member of their own elite group.

[raylawpc]

Consider however that Joe Louis defeated so many top flight heavyweights that he had no motive to bolster his own resume by exaggerating Carnera's abilities. I think Louis was merely putting into words what most leading heavyweights took for granted in the 1930s: that Carnera -- even in spite of his flaws -- was a legitimate member of their own elite group.

Very well stated.

[PeteLeo]

The media was hard on Marciano during his rein also if one reads back with labels like "The master of no defense". And if you miss a punch, he said I sorry.

You can say that again. Having grown up hearing of what a human wrecking machine Rocky was, I was only slightly less than stunned (stunned, I tell ya!) when I nerded around in the high school library back in the middle Seventies and found a lot of Fifties' magazines on microfilm. Those contemporary accounts of Marciano were almost uniformly snide and dismissive, often taking the time to laugh at Rocky's fans as they began to mummur that maybe this tough little nut was one of the Greats. Rodney Dangerfield never suffered such disrespect.

Finally, following the beatdown of Moore, Newsweek's sportswriter grudgingly admitted that perhaps he had been a bit hard on the champ. He awaited future title defenses before completely re-evaluating the man's place in history, however. And we know how that worked out. PeteLeo.

[PeteW]

The "iffy " heavyweight title fight in this period may in fact have been not Carnera v Sharkey but Braddock v Baer.

Many ringside writers felt that Baer's performance was strangely lacklustre, even fishy, as if he wasn't trying. And with Braddock such an outsider with the bookmakers, there was the opportunity for a killing by anyone "in the know".

It is conjecture, of course, but given the shock of the result and the nature of boxing at the time, it's a possibility.

[Overhand_Right]

If you read The Brown Bombers bio 'My Life', his commemts regarding Carnera were quite dismissive. He said he had no power and didn't seem impressed with him at all. Not in a disrespectful way, just in that casual off hand Joe Louis way, i.e. 'the fight was easy and he wasn't what i expected' that kind of thing. He definitely didn't compliment Carnera or his 'abilities'.

[hawk5ins]

to comments by Louis re Carnera, which are not lauditory.

Again, Gospel time or no?

Hawk

[10-8]

As I previously stated, it IS in one's best interest, to make positive comments about the fighters on one's own resume. I'm sure Joe would have something positive to say about Jack Roper as well. What is to be gained by tearing apart a fighter one has defeated?

Louis was in fact actually complimentary of Roper and said after the fight that Roper had hurt him. Remember with Joe, a humble respect for his opposition was part and partial to his acceptance and was scripted by management as a planned polar opposite to Jack Johnson's arrogance.

[raylawpc]

Hawk, I was reporting ONE statement from Louis which I thought was interesting, and which seemed to shed some light on the boxing abilities of Primo Carnera. I never said that's all Louis ever said, or wrote, about Primo, nor did I say that my quote was the only quote that should be accepted as the Gospel - as you put it (heck, I can't even remember when or where I read the thing).

[Sharkey]

There is corroborating evidence for a fix, but such is impossible to prove. Carnera's handlers as we all know were more than reputed mob fixtures and there can be almost no dispute that Carnera career path was sprinkled with walk-overs and fights that were foregone conclusions.

In Sharkey we have a champ who made no bones about his first love being money. A man who was so excited about winning the title and hated the fight game at the same time.

The uppercut described which I have seen follows if I recall Sharkey 'slipping' to the canvas a bit earlier while Carnera tosses some leather at him. Not called a KD, Sharkey rises and eventually is cuffed to the ropes. Carnera short arms some shots and lands an uppercut, causing Sharkey, who is near the ropes IF I RECALL, to careen backwards and then fall forwards where he doesn't so much as stir, facing the canvas. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I certainly have my suspicions of an out and out tank for dough (Sharkey throughout his career claimed the dollars were the real title) or borne via threats. Sharkey won 4 of the first 5 rounds, 3 at least.

It is difficult, however, to state a punch doesn't LOOK right, because who knows what scrambling is done in the brain of the hittee..the angle, the placement etc.

Still, I have my suspicions.

[hawk5ins]

My point here is, what ever Joe had to say, whether complimentary or dismissive about an opponent, needs to be carefully interperated.

Now you seem to be jumping on my "gospel" comment. But was it not you who made the following statement: "I guess Louis of all people would know whether Carnera was a fraud . . ."

In essence, you took the one comment that had Louis stating that "Primo was one of the better boxers he'd ever met" and used that as a rebuttle to anyone who ever dismissed Carnera's abilities. "If Louis said this......"

I stated that it was certainly in Joe's best interests to laud his victims. As it would be for ANY fighter to do so re their own resume.

So that is one side of this.

But now conversely, in another source, apparently Louis was LESS then complimentary about Carnera. Do we still attach the same "If Louis said this..." approach?

I think we get into some "sticky" territory when we place value on what a fighter states about an opponent they have faced. One approach a fighter may take is to Over-value an opponent, becuase YES, it is Self serving.

THe opposite of that is to have a bitter fighter COMPLETELY dismiss their opponent. Just exactly how many POSITIVE things has Marvin Hagler said about Sugar Ray Leonard? If you took SOLELY his evaluation of Hearns and Leonard, you would walk away with Hearns being a far superior fighter. Then
agian, which fighter did Marvin beat and whihc one did he lose to?

Taking a fighters evaluation of an opponent they have faced, more often than not does NOT give you an accurate or definitive answer on a fighters value.

"If anyone knew whether Carnera was a fraud or not..." Joe Louis may or may not be the best source for this answer.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Sharkey for his part often explained losing to Carnera as borne from a vision of Schaaf's death. Sharkey was close to Schaaf you see. Other times he explained it by stating Carnera had simply gotten a lot better.. and that he had gotten worse. Sharkey had contempt for his skills calling him a big goon.

Sharkey was a bit of an independent thinker. If we take his word for some of the guys of his time, Max Schmeling's status would take a bit of a hit and Joe Louis was not even close to Dempsey, given Sharkey fought them both and Louis at age 36..and considered Dempsey the superior fighter.

Carnera wasn't totally terrible in the grand scheme of things, but among champs and greats he doesn't rate. Having seen many of his films, and those of his foes, I will go on record and state that for me, John Ruiz beats him every day of the week. Given I actually believe Ruiz to be one tough hombre who morphed into a nightmare to fight whatever one thinks of his skills... maybe that isn't dissing Primo.

[Kid Achilles]

Max Schmeling never fought Carnera himself but in his book he claims that Carnera was extremely underrated. I'll look for the quote, it's in his autobiography.

Here it is:

"Primo Carnera, approximately six feet five inches tall and weighing about 260 lbs, had always been considered by the experts to be only a mediocre boxer. They said he couldn't really punch, that he just sort of clubbed his opponents. In fact his reach was much greater than that of any opponent, and the leverage that that gave him enabled his punches to penetrate almost any defense. In contrast to the experts, I had always considered Carnera to be a technically sound boxer, so I wasn't surprised to hear that he knocked Sharkey out in the sixth round to become the second European to win the world heavyweght title"

(From Max Schmeling, An Autobiography, written by Schmeling himself and translated and edited by George Von Der Lippe)

This coming from a man who's vested historical interest lies in building up Sharkey moreso than Carnera. You would think he would side with the "Sharkey threw the fight and would never lose to Primo on the up and up" theory.

[raylawpc]

My comment "I guess Louis of all people would know whether Carnera was a fraud . . ." was based on the statement from Louis that I recalled reading. I did not recall reading or hearing of Louis making any other kind of statement out Carnera, pro or con. You were willing to dismiss the comment out of hand, without any factual basis for doing so, until Overhand's research showed a contradictory statement by Joe.

I, on the other hand, am willing to state that Louis made contradictory statements about Primo Carnera's boxing abilities. How's that?

[greek1237]

The "iffy " heavyweight title fight in this period may in fact have been not Carnera v Sharkey but Braddock v Baer.

Many ringside writers felt that Baer's performance was strangely lacklustre, even fishy, as if he wasn't trying. And with Braddock such an outsider with the bookmakers, there was the opportunity for a killing by anyone "in the know".

It is conjecture, of course, but given the shock of the result and the nature of boxing at the time, it's a possibility.

Baer had a bad habit in clowning around in fights. Even fights he was winning like the Schmling fight. And even Carnea. I have the Braddock Baer fight, and Baer once again clown around in the early to mid rounds, making poses for the crowd, and having a good laugh along the way. I belive in round 8 or so, Braddock hits Baer, and Baer nearly goes down in a clownful type of way before fireing back. Because of the clowning, Braddock was able to pull ahead in by a wide lead. in the first ten rounds or so. After this, Baer decideds to get to busy and finshing Braddock, but all though he hit Braddock with some hard combos and shots in the later rounds, Braddock would not go down. Baer went all out for a ko in round 15. But Jimmy took the punchings pretty well. Baer could have won that fight, but the reason imo, is Baer had lack of respect for Braddock's ring skill, and did not think it would go pass maybe 4 rounds, and because of this clown around a lot more. Giving Braddock the first ten or so rounds.

[hawk5ins]

I think you are making more out of this than there really is.

I no more jumped on Overhand's comment as something that should be held as gospel, any more than I endorsed the quote you brought up.

In fact, I outright asked the question if the Dismissive comment by Louis about Carnera, should be held in any more reliable standing than what you had read.

I even went so far as to break this down showing how BOTH Plauditory and Dismissive comments made by a fighter about another that they faced, should be taken with a grain of salt And NOT held as gospel.

REGARDLESS of the position Fighter A has on Fighter B (if they had previously faced each other), We need to be cautious and guarded on how much weight or stock we place on thier word.

I think I've repeated this stance enough now and don't need to again.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Max Schmeling never fought Carnera himself but in his book he claims that Carnera was extremely underrated. I'll look for the quote, it's in his autobiography.

Here it is:

"Primo Carnera, approximately six feet five inches tall and weighing about 260 lbs, had always been considered by the experts to be only a mediocre boxer. They said he couldn't really punch, that he just sort of clubbed his opponents. In fact his reach was much greater than that of any opponent, and the leverage that that gave him enabled his punches to penetrate almost any defense. In contrast to the experts, I had always considered Carnera to be a technically sound boxer, so I wasn't surprised to hear that he knocked Sharkey out in the sixth round to become the second European to win the world heavyweght title"

(From Max Schmeling, An Autobiography, written by Schmeling himself and translated and edited by George Von Der Lippe)

This coming from a man who's vested historical interest lies in building up Sharkey moreso than Carnera. You would think he would side with the "Sharkey threw the fight and would never lose to Primo on the up and up" theory.

Building up Carnera builds up Sharkey. If Sharkey is built up by Max, and Jack is clobbered by a guy Max says indeed truly stinks... wouldn't that reflect poorly on Sharkey and most importantly MAX himself?

I think the whole concept of accounts by fighters, and the associated 'building them up to build themselves up or are they being honest' can be summed up: who knows.