Here's the bottom line on Primo ... with all his "KO" wins absolutely no significant historian rates him as a puncher of any consequence ... this is because he was a modestly talented giant that was fed set ups, second raters and hand cuffed fighters ... it is funny and sad that many here actually claim he was a championship caliber fighter when he was barely ever top ten material even in a very weak era ... Fitz would have chopped him to pieces and administered a horrible beating in route to a KO victory ..
The common theme in this thread, is that everybody is missing something important. It just differs from person to person as to what they are missing.
I don't me think primo was ever anything more than a paper champion but he'll have a hundred pounds on fitz. Can fitz really be expected to knock primo out.
True, but so did Ed Dunkhorst. Yet Fitz knocked him out with body blows http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:496334
I never doubted his claim to lineage. I said he was a paper champion. My trouble with fitz is the contradictions regarding his style. Sometimes he comes across as a sharpshooter moving in straight lines utilising backward's head feints. That style seems to be a nightmare against a bigger man to me. But then on film against corbett it's on of the best showcases of a lateral movement counter shot that exists (up there with floyd v hatton for technical brilliance) if he could fight more consistently like that it's easy to envision him potshotting his way to victory (plus the punchers chance of taking him out) I'm not sure primo was as lowly regarded as you make out thought, there was a time when they nearly ejected him from the hw division for being too big and deadly in the ring. Honestly, on film, seeing him throw uppercuts in the pocket, he doesn't look to be a skill level below vitali.
I didn't say it was good did I? hence "decent" but at least he wasn't decked by possibly the lightest hitting heavyweight champ of all time Corbett. He took massive bombs from Max Baer and kept getting up. So i'd rate it above Fitzies. I think Carnera would KO Fitz.
Carnera was a bit better than you think. At the time he was actually credited with having shown considerable improvement from the time of his first US barnstorming tour to the time of being champion. He was one of the better fighters of the era. Sure, he was fed set ups and second raters. He's not the only champion to have had that build up. Sure, he was a weak puncher, but he could wear guys down with sheer strength and volume. And I'll even add that he had a weak chin. But he was praised for his bravery and gameness and some decent agility and boxing ability for a man of his size. The top men would beat him, but he legitimately overwhelmed his fair share of solid second-tier fighters. It's an exaggeration to say he was barely top ten in his era.
He was still a very big heavyweight of some ability, just like Carnera. A demi-god build is irrelevant. It isn't going to win you fights. Especially not against the likes of a Bob Fitzsimmons.
I'm just pointing out that Dunkhorst wasn't a big fighter in the same way that Carnera was. A 250 or 300 pounds badly-conditioned fat man could be a middleweight if he got in shape, for all we know. Whereas Carnera would have to starve himself to get down to Frank Bruno's weight. Ie. he's a legitimately huge athlete. Fitzsimmons was great, I agree.