Poll: How good was Primo Carnera?

He was a top ten heavy for the 30's which was a p*ss poor decade. I can't call him a fraud because I believe he was not in on the scam.An unwitting dupe? Risko's inconsistency may have been because his fights were fought on their merits.Several reporters thought he won both Schaaf fights.

 

It depends what you mean by best.

I do not think that Carnera was the best heavyweight head to head at any given time, but I think that his position as the top heavyweight in the world was a fair reflection of events in the ring.

In order to rank a fighter who never challenged for the lineal title, over a one who won it, you would need a pretty blinding argument based on depth.

Schaff did not fight for the title because he died in the eliminator, but we are still left with the fact that his career was cut off at that point.

Risko as far as I can tell, never fought for the title because he dropped the ball at the crucial moment.

 

If you really think that Risko was the fourth best heavyweight of that era, then you are effectively arguing that he is the forgotten man of that era, and you should be fighting his corner proactively.

If I held that belief, I would compose a detailed argument of my case, and post it as a thread in its own rigth1

 

I do not consider myself to be a revisionist for the record.

I represent a viewpoint that was widely held while Carnera was active, and how represent another that is more enduring.

The people that you have found common cause with in this thread are revisionists, whose beliefs happen to align with the Galico view of Carnera.

Ironically we would not find much common ground between you and them on any other subject.

 

Film does not bare this out. Having not seen any other fights from Schaaf I have nothing to compare it with. Unless you do? If not, let's judge the film. It looks competitive right up until the end.

 

My argument is that Risko has better wins on his resume than Carnera and that Schaaf has ones at least as good.This in rebuttal to your original point.

 

I disagree and the end is pitiful. Hype Igoe seated ringside said," the only way I'm going to beleive this is if he dies!"

 

How you consider yourself is up to you, just as how others see you is up to them.
I think I'm an objective and reasonable debater, others may see me as an opinionated and conceited c*nt, I couldn't care less!
Your stance that Carnera was considered a good and respected champion in his own time is total cr*p.
I'm happy not to have my opinions esteemed by you, as yours and Choklab's have taken fatal hits from me since these threads began!

 

I don't care how Risko is perceived by anybody ,in fact I dont care how many Carnera apologists come out of the woodwork. I just take umbrage when they presume to insult my intelligence with clap trap.I'm not smart but I am bullsh*t proof!

I won't make any more threads on this forum,there's absolutely no point in my doing so..

 

No! Was Braddock really more than a journeyman? Was he a fraud? You are loading the bases right from the start ,can't you see that?
Any negative evaluation on Carnera's boxing abilities or lack of same, is not a personal attack on him as a human being. I really think you invest your own emotion into this.

 

OK so I am a revisionist because I agree with Benny Leonard, even rein him in a bit, but don't discount him entirely?

 

And in turn I'm a revisionist because I posted GeneTunney and Joe Louis's opinions of Carnera?
You need to drastically raise your game!

 

He was arguably the GOAT and probably in other universes as well THATS HOW GREAT he was..PROVE he wasnt...go ahead PROVE it???lmao