I am inerested in what you say about Carpentier on this particular issue. Not so much as to whether or not he is overated because that answer is clear. But when was he at his best. Was it when he was younger before the war, or was it later on such as when he fought Dempsey. Also do you expect that his layoff because of the war had much of an effect on his ability (relative to what he actually was)
Both Rocky and K know more about this topic than I but I can say that the man you are referring to is a true boxing scholar.
Billy Papke wins a tough fight when George Carpentier is unable to answer the bell for round 18. The action stats around 3:04 I believe Carpentier's weakness was forward moving / aggressive fighters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BCGto6fjc
" dempsey hit me with the hardest punches any human ever threw. nobody could hit like dempsey that day and he shaking off my best punches as if i was patting him with an open hand " quote of carpentier on dempsey around the mid sixties i believe
Klomton is just plain old anti European. Always has been. One sided. Can't think of a vintage European fighter he has anything nice to say about.
Yes, I'm aware who Klompton is. He probably knows more about Carpentier, and just about every other boxer from that era, than all the rest of us put together. Can't help but admire him for that. But what a pity it is, that he uses all this knowledge to come on a forum like this, and behave the way he does.
Not true. Ive defended Thil numerous times, think hes Frances best fighter, and have no doubt he would have stopped Carpentier. Jimmy Wilde is one of my favorites. Hes considered one of the greatest of all time and I STILL think hes underrated. I like guys like Gustav Scholz, Max Schmeling, Benvenuti (at 154), Mazzinghi and Loi (although both have become overrated today). Freddie Welsh, Jim Driscoll, I could go on and on about European fighters I like/respect. Ive also given Carpentier loads of credit for his enormous contributions to the sport in Europe. He is the seminal figure in the sport and without him it likely wouldnt have developed on the continent as it did, certainly not for years to come. BUT, I think hes overrated and that much of his prestige is attributable to hype and fame, not to ability.
Anything nice to say about Eastern Europeans? Most of the guys you mentioned have been dead for decades. Slightly off tangent, I wonder what the K man thinks of GGG, and Sergey Kovalev.
I like both of those guys. I think its still too early to be showering them with the plaudits that some are. I dont think either one has really been tested or even been in against someone that good. But they certainly look like the goods so far. I dont really understand the point about those guys being dead. They were great and I still enjoy watching them and appreciate them, and in my defense Im far more interested in historical boxing than modern boxing so to me those guys are still alive and well. As for eastern European fighters thats tough because theyve only really started to come to the forefront (here) since the 1990s. The cold war had a lot to do with this and as such I have to plead ignorance on the further back you go in time and the further east you go beyond what was once west Germany. But sure, in modern times, in the last twenty years or so there have been some really good fighters like I like. Tszyu made a believer out of me. I wasnt really big on him until the end of his career and never really liked his attitude but he was a warrior. Nazarov was awesome. I was a big fan of Michalczewski. So yeah, I totally reject the idea that Im anti European. I was as mad as anyone when Foreman won that criminal decision over Axel Schulz and generally when discussing it with others I find that I had the fight much wider in favor of Schulz than most. Indeed, I go out of my way to collect footage on guys like Mildenberger, Benvenuti, Mazzinghi, Boggs, Carpentier, Thil, Tonna, Cohen, Bouttier, Scholz, etc so that I can know them, their style, and careers better. If I was just rejecting those guys out of hand based on jingoism would I even care to watch them? Not likely. Its just that my opinions of those guys arent based on myth and articles written by people who havent seen much of them but on actual experience watching their fights and reading a lot about them. In regards to Carpentier every once in a while someone rediscovers the Jeanette fight and tries to use that as proof that Carpentier was great by saying that he was robbed. My point has always been: A. Jeanette was never the best HW to begin with and he was faded when he fought Carpentier. B. He was fighting the most popular and beloved man in Europe at the time (certainly France) in Paris so he was already fighting a deficit when competing for the hearts and minds of the crowd. and C. Its clear from the reports that it was a close fight with contrasting styles and the style Jeanette used was not appreciated in Europe at the time. Therefore its not out of the realm of possibility to suggest that Jeanette actually won a deserved decision and the pro Carpentier crowd was just unhappy to see their hero lose. As an example Leon See, who was an extremely biased observer being a huge supporter of Carpentier all of his life, stated that he thought Carpentier won without question but admitted that the fight was close, that many disagreed with him, and that most felt Carpentier (who was bleeding heavily and weak) couldnt go another round (telling when one considers that the fight was made over 15 rounds, not the usual 20 for France). He also describes the knockdown of Jeanette in the first round as a flash knockdown saying Jeanette was up in an instant. He stated that Jeanette fought an inside, mauling fight, using his strength to punish Carpentier and wear him down and at this he was unquestionably Carpentier's master. He stated that only when Carpentier boxed at a distance was he able to match Jeanette. He also made note that Jeanette looked sickly when he entered the ring and had a greenish skin pallor. So you see, when you cut through the hyperbole I can easily see how Jeanette could rightly win the decision but not the popular vote.
I agree almost 100% with the above but draw a different conclusion-if Carp was that competitive with Jeannette and outboxed Smith then he was a decent heavyweight, i'm not interested in how overrated or underrated he was/is by other observers, I just want to educate myself to make an informed decision.
Which Smith did he outbox? He used his great size advantage to beat Jeff Smith and the Gunboat Smith was about as unsatisfactory and inconclusive a result as you can get from a boxing match. Cyclone Smith maybe? My point isnt that Carpentier didnt have SOME ability. Its always been that he has historically been ranked ridiculously high both in his weight class and P4P and there simply isnt anything to merit that. Taking a loss to Jeanette and trying to twist as a win in his favor to qualify his ranking is a joke IMO. My point has always been that not only is Carpentier not a top ten fighter, or even top ten in his weight class, but Id bet it wouldnt be hard to find 10 fighters at any point in his career at whatever weight he chose to fight at that could beat him in a fight that was on neutral turf and that wasnt fixed in his favor. I certainly dont think he was ever the best fighter at ANY weight he ever fought at while he was fighting. If you cant even make that claim then dont pretend the guy is top ten fighter in any respect. How many top ten fighters either at their weight or P4P can honestly say they were never the best fighter in their weight class. Im guessing goose egg.
You really dont read what the people who are on a thread with you are saying. Forget it, l cant be bothered.