Poll: How good was Primo Carnera?

And no one voting against you on any Carnera thread has used the word oaf ,only your side!
I'd say Braddock was a good fighter and I would say I've seen a couple,of thousand journeymen that were good fighters too!
Prime for prime Id pick Braddock to outpoint Carnera, the crucial difference is no one has claimed greatness for Braddock!

 

I think I'm Primoe'd out. He was a decent fighter, fast for his size, had decent footwork for a giant,a big heart and could go 15rds .He didn't punch his weight, absorb big shots well ,and was not hard to tag especially with right hands but there have been, and are at the moment ,many others of similar ilk.
He was better than Wach , Pianetta, Leapai,Arreola ,and Martin, all of whom have featured in the rankings in the last decade.

 

Neither of us are revisionists, we just represnt two opinions that were contemporary!

 

I think that's a good summation; capping off what has been a considerable amount of solid evidence covered, to back it up. The perspective you have put Primo in, amongst his contemporaries is well balanced and, in terms of some of his modern-day equivalents, here, is fair.

Whilst opinions will continue to differ, a good deal of the evidence you have put forward is hard to argue against, within the realms of sound reasoning. This, to the extent that, if I'd had any doubts about the 'middle ground' before, I certainly have none, now.

 

Well there is nothing wrong with saying Carnera is better than a long list of modern Charles Martin types. I certainly go along with that. And I go along with the idea that against 190lb guys Primo had difficulty hitting with his full weight, but there is less evidence of this when meeting men above 220lb who Primo usually stopped. And even among the 190lb breed of heavyweights I cannot erase what Larry gains said about this "he was a damaging puncher just the same".

Over all, I feel it is best left to Max Schmeling.


"Primo carnera was six feet five and weighing around 260lb, had always been considered by experts to be only a mediocre boxer. The said he could not really punch, that he just sort of clubbed his opponents. In fact, his reach was much greater than any opponent, and the leverage that gave him enabled his punches to penetrate almost any defence. In contrast to the experts, I had always considered Carnera to be a technically sound boxer, so I was not in the least suprised to hear he had knocked Sharkey out in the sixth round to become the second European to win the world heavyweight title. Within the year he successfully defended the his title against Paulino. He did this in Italy in front of Mussolini." - Max Schmeling. Autobiography.

 

Worse than Michael Grant. Better than Lou Savarese.

 

Neither savarese nor Grant managed to win a belt. Would you bet on Grant beating Sharkey? I'm not sure they could beat Uzcudun.

 

Grant beat a prime Golota, among others. He was good for a short time.

 

Uzcudun drew with a prime Max Schmeling. I think that tops Grant beating Golota.

 

Well, ultimately, Schmeling's kind words, published some decades later, aren't describing Carnera as an elite, all-time great, are they?

So, the middle ground would appear to be the consensus, even when referring to your much relied upon source.

 

Schmeling Carnera almost happened.

They were scheduled to meet after the Stribling bout, but Schmeling pulled out.

Schmeling was very much looking at Carnera as somebody who he might have to deal with some day, and who might present him with problems.

 

I prefer Joe Louis's opinion, since he actually fought him."He had nothing he pushed his right hand,he had a fair jab ".

 

This is entirely a personal interpretation ,and as such has no credibility or relevance here.

 

They would beat the 35 years old, unranked for the last 5, Uzcudun that Carnera did.