Im very confused about Ezzard Charles resume

[QueensburyRules]

I think Sharkey went into the tank for that fight. Earnie Schaaf had just gotten over a serious case of the flu when he fought Carnera and had taken a bad beating in the closing moments of the Baer fight.Carnera put a strangely passive Schaaf down with a jab and the crowd booed Fake!One sports writer said ,"the only way I'll believe this is if he dies".Carnera was not a big puncher and he was absolved of any culpability in the Schaaf tragedy.

- - Blah, blah has no bearing on Primo one punched Sharkey to Bolivia. Watch the fight the fight. Primo impressive enough to create an hysteria of a Dreadnaught division.

[GhostofDempsey]

Your posts are nothing just negative attacks without any verified sources as such they are valueless and not worth the time it takes to read them. Jack Johnson is regularly rated in the top ten by respected boxing writers and trainers Eddie Futch one of the great trainers rated him joint top with Ali and Louis.Of course all these experts are wrong and Johnson's talent is a myth we know this because you now say so.
A few years ago The Ring conducted a poll of 30 experts to rank the heavyweight champions.


Trainers: Teddy Atlas, Pat Burns, Virgil Hunter and Don Turner.

Matchmakers: Eric Bottjer, Don Chargin, Don Elbaum, Bobby Goodman, Ron Katz, Mike Marchionte, Russell Peltz and Bruce Trampler.

Media: Al Bernstein, Ron Borges, Gareth A Davies, Norm Frauenheim, Jerry Izenberg, Harold Lederman, Paulie Malignaggi, Dan Rafael and Michael Rosenthal

Historians: Craig Hamilton, Steve Lott, Don McRae, Bob Mee, Clay Moyle, Adam Pollack and Randy Roberts
. Also taking part were Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis.
Ali came out in the top spot No1
Joe Louis was second No 2.
Jack Johnson was ranked No3.
I guess they all were fooled into believing that myth too?
You boxing knowledge is similar to your manners ,non existent.

My posts are on topic and I'm open to civil discussion. You say they aren't worth the time to read them, yet here you are reading them and quoting them, and acting a like a victim. Typical. Do I need to quote all of your posts where you launch unprovoked attacks and insults when you began posting here recently? No need to talk about my manners just because I proved you wrong and you couldn't answer simple questions. All you guys are cut from the same cloth. You scratch and claw for the last word while insulting others, then cry victim when someone retaliates.

I'm not interested in your defense of Johnson, or your quotes, or any more of your sources. You had your chance to hold a civil discussion here and now you want to attack me once more while name dropping anyone who had a kind word to say about him. I can name several historians and authors who aren't as enamored with Johnson either. Look for sympathy someplace else, you've wasted enough of my time with your attrition tactics and refusal to acknowledge anyone's questions, sources or evidence. You're a rude, ignorant casual who can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

[them_apples]

My posts are on topic and I'm open to civil discussion. You say they aren't worth the to read them, yet here you are reading them and quoting them, and acting a like a victim. Typical. Do I need to quote all of your posts where you launch unprovoked attacks and insults when you began posting here recently? No need to talk about my manners just because I proved you wrong and you couldn't answer simple questions. All you guys are cut from the same cloth. You scratch and claw for the last word while insulting others, then cry victim when someone retaliates.

I'm not interested in your defense of Johnson, or your quotes, or any more of your sources. You had your chance to hold a civil discussion here and now you want to attack me once more while name dropping anyone who had a kind word to say about him. I can name several historians and authors who aren't as enamored with Johnson either. Look for sympathy someplace else, you've wasted enough of my time with your attrition tactics and refusal to acknowledge anyone's questions, sources or evidence. You're a rude, ignorant casual who can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

Hes an emotional poster who doesn’t read. Say a couple trigger words and the neural engine shuts off

[Bundana]

there's no research behind it, but research is a pretty vague term. By research you mean "supporting evidence" because if that's what you want it's easy to find. 99 percent of this forum isn't researched, even with a newspaper clipping in hand - that's not always a reliable source. certainly feels good though...

I will say though I sort of put glass jaw and heart together in the same box. It's a combination of weaker chins (or maybe attracting different people) and fighters that generally give up and quit fast. My supporting evidence is fighters seem to have bigger skulls and hands because they were trained DOWN not up in weight, meaning they were more frame than mass most of the time.

When most of the Welterweight division consists of blown up lightweights trying to make money, they are all smacking eachother and collecting dough

Something I forgot to ask yesterday: Concerning the glass jaw thing, you feel it's a combination of weak chins - and boxers giving up too fast, because they lack the necessary toughness. Though the latter isn't directly associated with chin-strength, I can see your point.

The amount of punishment you will allow yourself to take, of course varies from fighter to fighter. That Briggs, for exampel, was able to soak up flush rights from Vitali round after round, without going down, most likely means, that we today view his chin differently, than if he had given up after 6 or 7 rounds (not that anyone could have blamed him, if he had done that!). So I kind of agree with what you say, and think it's fair to argue, that the will to carry on, even if severely battered, does in some roundabout way influence our grading of a chin.

So I'm wondering, since you say "most new fighters have glass jaws" - do you attribute this as much to lack of heart, as to the actual jaws? And if you do, what evidence do we have, that leads us to think, that today's boxers are more inclined to look for the "exit", than the oldtimers of, say, 100 years ago - you know back in the 1920s, that busy decade in the middle of the ND era, where we have all these boxers with 100-200+ fight careers? Any evidence to suggest, that the average boxer from back then was more willing to "gut it out" in the ring, than the average fighter of today?

[Ivich]

My posts are on topic and I'm open to civil discussion. You say they aren't worth the time to read them, yet here you are reading them and quoting them, and acting a like a victim. Typical. Do I need to quote all of your posts where you launch unprovoked attacks and insults when you began posting here recently? No need to talk about my manners just because I proved you wrong and you couldn't answer simple questions. All you guys are cut from the same cloth. You scratch and claw for the last word while insulting others, then cry victim when someone retaliates.

I'm not interested in your defense of Johnson, or your quotes, or any more of your sources. You had your chance to hold a civil discussion here and now you want to attack me once more while name dropping anyone who had a kind word to say about him. I can name several historians and authors who aren't as enamored with Johnson either. Look for sympathy someplace else, you've wasted enough of my time with your attrition tactics and refusal to acknowledge anyone's questions, sources or evidence. You're a rude, ignorant casual who can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

Yeah 63 years a casual

[Ivich]

- - Blah, blah has no bearing on Primo one punched Sharkey to Bolivia. Watch the fight the fight. Primo impressive enough to create an hysteria of a Dreadnaught division.

You believe the ko was genuine I believe it was faked and Im not alone in that opinion.Name another fighter of any ability Carnera scored a one punch ko over? He couldnt even drop Loughran a man he had 86 lbs on! A man Sharkey, no big puncher ko'd! It was you who mentioned Schaaf nobody else ,when I pointed out Schaaf went down from a jab and the audience booed fake not realising he was a fatal accident waiting to happen. You come back with Blah blah blah because you've no answer to the contemporary reports and reactions of the crowd that actually were there. Here is a report
"Ernie Schaaf suffers an inter-cranial hemorrhage and his left side becomes paralyzed. He underwent an operation to remove a blood clot from his brain and relieve pressure. He died on the 14th at the Polyclinic Hospital.

Governor Lehman ordered an immediate investigation, and there were threats of once again repealing prize-fighting in New York State, as well as threats to disbar Carnera due to his immense size. General John J. Phelan and William Muldoon announced that the "super-dreadnaught" class for oversized heavyweights, first organized in 1931, would be re-established and that Carnera could fight opponents only from this class.

Meanwhile, there remained some discrepancy over the exact cause of death: some medical experts saying it was caused by injuries received during this bout; others that Shaaf already had some tumor, cyst, lesion or old injury of the brain which contributed to his death. In fact, Schaaf had suffered a bout of influenza leading up to the fight and was in a weakened state."


Here is your post.
"Carnera also KOed Sharkey as well as credited for killing a fighter that raised the hue and cry for a Dreadnaught."
I repeat Carnera was no big puncher. Here is a report of his first Stribling fight

"Both fighters down in the third. Carnera down from low blow in 4th. This bout was probably fixed."

[Willie Pep 229]

Something I forgot to ask yesterday: Concerning the glass jaw thing, you feel it's a combination of weak chins - and boxers giving up too fast, because they lack the necessary toughness. Though the latter isn't directly associated with chin-strength, I can see your point.

The amount of punishment you will allow yourself to take, of course varies from fighter to fighter. That Briggs, for exampel, was able to soak up flush rights from Vitali round after round, without going down, most likely means, that we today view his chin differently, than if he had given up after 6 or 7 rounds (not that anyone could have blamed him, if he had done that!). So I kind of agree with what you say, and think it's fair to argue, that the will to carry on, even if severely battered, does in some roundabout way influence our grading of a chin.

So I'm wondering, since you say "most new fighters have glass jaws" - do you attribute this as much to lack of heart, as to the actual jaws? And if you do, what evidence do we have, that leads us to think, that today's boxers are more inclined to look for the "exit", than the oldtimers of, say, 100 years ago - you know back in the 1920s, that busy decade in the middle of the ND era, where we have all these boxers with 100-200+ fight careers? Any evidence to suggest, that the average boxer from back then was more willing to "gut it out" in the ring, than the average fighter of today?

On heart: Maybe livelihood vs opportunity?

The old timers we speak of, lived in a more unforgiving world - if they failed there was no safety net to fall into.

Today's fighters have been raised in a world where the individual is considered more sacred.

To them prize fighting is an opportunity and if they fail they have options. SEE Billy Joe Sanders.

This will sound weird but . . .

Old timers accepted the beatings because they had less self worth. They took the punishment because they viewed it as their lot in life. (SEE Jake LaMotta.)

Today's fighters see thenselves as athletes and when injured they have, taught since childhood, learned to protect yourself, which means you stop (often incorrectly called: quitting).

I don't think it character I think it's cultural and a different self image. Today fighters have higher self esteem.

P.S. Ever notice how the old timers always seemed more humble than today's guys?

Then again maybe not.

[GhostofDempsey]

Yeah 63 years a casual

Age is not an indicator of intelligence or reasonable thought. ***** is 79.

[Willow The Wisp]

Larry Gains whom I met ,said Carnera did not punch his weight.Max Schmeling agreed with him Tunney was also scathing of his power.Hundreds of Boxers of Italian heritage plied their trade during Carnera's era without any negative press . Primo's brief time at the top came and went before WW2.
George Trafton? Whom did he ever beat? He was a football player,How many of them were worth a cup of cold spit in a boxing ring ?
Mark Gastineau was so bad all his fights were fixed. The strongest man the world produced for decades was Paul Anderson ,he was totally useless as a boxer,as was the great wrestler Georges Hackenshmidt.
When told they used to put a rubber band on Primo's **** to prevent him having wet dreams,Angelo Dundee,/ Mirena said ."they coulda put ten rubber bands on him they still wouldn't have made him into a fighter."

Fights of Carnera's that we are pretty certain were fixed were his bouts with.
Peterson
Stribling x2
Rioux
Chevalier
Clark
There are many more and his ex manager said he personally fixed 33 of them
.Carnera has one of the great ko % of the heavies yet absolutely nobody lists him as a big puncher.why do you suppose that is?

A good post, . I note in the course of the thread some anger toned dialog, and remarkably between good posters who seem to enjoy the conflict. No judgment here; do as you please. I don't debate very much. I just don't care allot about who drinks at my trough. I like a good yarn though. I met Jack Sharkey in 1971, at a restaurant called "Fayes" in North Conway, NH while on vacation. Back then you get a large baked, stuffed lobster with all the sides for $4.99 there. Though he was known to be as crusty and inpatient with fans and the media as his pal Ted Williams, I found him to be gracious, sharp and smiling. I was obviously too young to have remembered his career and he seemed amused, even joyful that I could discuss his drubbings of Harry Wills, Max Schmeling, George Godfrey, Tommy Loughran, Jack Renault and local rival in Boston Jimmy Maloney. When I mentioned, in a respectful way, the doubts cast on his 1933 rematch with Carnera, all the lighthearted amusement drained out of his expression. He grabbed my arm (hard) and looked me right in the face and said "Now you listen. I never threw a fight in my life and I sure as hell didn't throw that one. You find a film of that fight and you play it over and again on the peojector and you see for yourself!". Over the years I did just that and plenty, and I believe the guy who risked his life 53 times against trained killers in the ring to forge a reputation that he could be proud of. To me, having been around the block, everything else is bull.

[Ivich]

A good post, . I note in the course of the thread some anger toned dialog, and remarkably between good posters who seem to enjoy the conflict. No judgment here; do as you please. I don't debate very much. I just don't care allot about who drinks at my trough. I like a good yarn though. I met Jack Sharkey in 1971, at a restaurant called "Fayes" in North Conway, NH while on vacation. Back then you get a large baked, stuffed lobster with all the sides for $4.99 there. Though he was known to be as crusty and inpatient with fans and the media as his pal Ted Williams, I found him to be gracious, sharp and smiling. I was obviously too young to have remembered his career and he seemed amused, even joyful that I could discuss his drubbings of Harry Wills, Max Schmeling, George Godfrey, Tommy Loughran, Jack Renault and local rival in Boston Jimmy Maloney. When I mentioned, in a respectful way, the doubts cast on his 1933 rematch with Carnera, all the lighthearted amusement drained out of his expression. He grabbed my arm (hard) and looked me right in the face and said "Now you listen. I never threw a fight in my life and I sure as hell didn't throw that one. You find a film of that fight and you play it over and again on the peojector and you see for yourself!". Over the years I did just that and plenty, and I believe the guy who risked his life 53 times against trained killers in the ring to forge a reputation that he could be proud of. To me, having been around the block, everything else is bull.

Excellent post, we must make our own choices and I respect yours. Sharkey said he saw a vision of Schaaf just before Carnera knocked him out do you believe that? I've watched the knockout many many times in debates, it looks to me like Carnera lands on Sharkey with his forearm but the film, even in slo mo is inconclusive. Sharkey's reaction to the uppercut looks theatrical to me and we do know he interrupted his training to drive home to check on the health of his children at one point.We also know that several mobsters were at his training camp ,members of the Purple Gang.Trying to prove a fight is fake is almost impossible we both know that, but given Carnera's reputation and that of the mobsters that controlled him my gut instinct leads me to believe the fight was a fix. I may be right, or you may be right.we will never be certain either way. Sharkey himself said his own Wife had her doubts as have I.We do know that in their earlier fight Sharkey had handled Carnera with ease,even dropping him for a count. Carnera was tutored by Abe Attell a very close friend of Primo's behind the scenes real manager Owney Madden Public Enemy Number One who was then residing in the Pen Attell's rep as a boxer was second to none ,his rep for honesty was about the lowest of the low.along with Arnold Rothstein he had fixed the Worlds Series.
Perhaps I've been a bit too aggressive in some of my responses,.but having encountered Starship Trooper on I think my first visit here I've had my hands up ever since. I like to treat others as they do me and react in kind. I hope you and I can get along.