'Carnera had no pedigree', would have been the correct answer. We're talking boxing here; not body-building, strongman or wrestling competitions. He was known as an "Italian circus performer", who traded off his being exploited against receiving a good lifestyle, as long as it lasted. Sharkey had already beaten him and shown him up. I doubt Carnera won more than a round against him, in their first encounter. And, how much of an outstanding Heavyweight was Sharkey, at that point, anyway? By the time he faced Carnera a second time, there's enough evidence to support a significant drop in form, after he wins the American Heavyweight Title. His win over Schmelling is dubious and his amateur dramatics, cast a horrible doubt over the legitimacy of Carnera's eventual win over Sharkey. Loughran's rating depended much on his close defeat of Sharkey in '33. He was 188lbs going in to fight Carnera. Schaaf's story is a tragic one, and I fail to see why you bring him up as a viable opponent, in support of Carnera's level. He was, by no definition, at his best when he faced Carnera. Uzcudun is another one I fail to see as meeting any type of satisfactory benchmark for establishing Carnera's level. His only win of note is against a green Max Baer; a scrappy 20-rounder, the result of which was decided by the winner of the last round. You seem, as always, entirely content with ignoring the "skills" component of the slightly bigger heavyweights that beat Carnera. Carnera had a modicum more ability than that of Campolo and Impellletiere - but who were they? Utter novices that made no impact. LOL - "[Carnera] beat smaller skilled guys" and he could "beat up big guys", but he couldn't beat the slightly bigger AND skilled guys though, could he? The things that favor the big guys today are that they have markedly more talent than Carnera did and they learn how to box.
There were parts of Carneras Career where he had no pedigree, was fighting terrible opponents but he learned on the job. Between the first and second Sharkey fights Primo had as many fights as Joe Frazier had in his entire career. Chances are he got better. You cannot dismiss old times. It was much harder for big guys to maintain enough speed and strength without losing too much weight training under the conditions of the times. He still had to win those fights. Are you saying guys like Charles Martin, Lucas Brown, Manuel Charr who can win belts today were far and away better than Carnera? aside from world champions, who was better than Neusel, Uzcudun and Sharkey who beat Carnera? Like I said before he improved. The Poreda fight was actually a robbery against Primo. The referee had his license taken away. You will have to remind me of these skilled big guys that found him out I am sure they don’t stand up since it was either side of his prime. The things that favour the big guys today is the longer rounds, the bigger gloves, the leniency with illegal holding and of course the PEDs a totally relevant claim in light of all the failed drug tests with Fury, Povetkin, Ortiz, Tompson, Pulev, Whyte, Lucas Brown etc etc.
“Primo carnera was six feet five and weighing around 260lb, had always been considered by experts to be only a mediocre boxer. They 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.
I am not convinced at all that Carnera improved greatly between Sharkey (I) and (II), and the circumstances around the result of the second bout remain a mystery. And, no matter what the scale of the improvement there was or was not, I am hard pushed to find any analysis from anywhere, which can tell me in what way he improved at all, save the left-hand (jab). I'm not dismissing old times. I'm not using them as an excuse, either. The underlined is just total nonsense. I'd have to watch those guys with a bit more interest to comment but, I'd take a confident blind bet on them right now, and I'd definitely be confident in backing them against Campolo and Impelletiere. LOL - You might want to read up on the Poreda bout. The guy who needed his license taken away was the commissioner. Yet another potentially bent official, who didn't get his own way. Poreda won the bout. Of that, I am very confident. Sharkey, Baer (neither were world champions when Carnera lost to them), Gains and Haynes made it look easy. Levinsky was unlucky not to get the nod. Little Loughran was taking it to Carnera. Can you imagine a sub-190lb Heavyweight taking it to any modern Super Heavyweight, over 15 rounds, like Loughran did to Carnera? Laughable. Since when did any of those items you list have anything to do with raw ability?
save the left hand jab? A great jab is the best punch in boxing! It can gage distance and set up moves and deter what the other guy wants to do. It was a punch Carnera relied upon. If that’s where his improvement was that a great place to have it. Personally sheer seasoning was the main improvement. You can’t have that many fights against good opposition and not improve. He was very busy. Very successful. it’s total nonsense that the one size fits all boxing training of the 1930s would not take more weight off bigger men, effectively reducing their ability to maintain speed, size, endurance and strength in the way PEDs have proved among fighters of the modern age? Here is a quote from John Ruiz. “That's what sad about boxing. Basically, PEDs make a boxer last longer. They are not going to get tired when it comes to the late rounds. Boxers want their opponents to get tired so they can take advantage of it. If the other guy is on steroids and doesn't get tired, you're screwed.“ Boxers used to have to train for endurance. Cardio. It was a lot tougher for men naturally built for strength to become endurance athletes. They could sacrifice a lot of strength in a way they no longer have to. Strength and conditioning experts have developed interval training where a guy can fight in short explosive bursts. And illegal enhancement can take this to a whole new level. you could lose a lot of money if you put those guys into the 1930s. If you lived back then you would be a Carnera fan. He stands for a lot of everything you believe in today. Oh so they were never world champions? I thought I said apart from world champions, which includes guys who held the title. either side of Primos prime. Oh raw ability? You don’t think Carnera being able to do 15 rounds at his pace isn’t a raw ability attribute? The guy could fight and world champions said so. It is a fact fighters are more effective on PEDs. So far as I understand They were not available in the 1930s, long before the Superheavyweight era. On a study on fighters who tested positive The average win percentage before the ban was 78% and after it dropped to a staggering 45%. Just by glancing at the amount of losses after their ban and the drastic decrease in win percentages, surely proves that doping gives you a significant advantage. What must be taken into account of course, is the difference in sample sizes, as there have been far more fights in the ‘pre-ban’ category compare to ‘post-ban’, potentially skewing the results somewhat
This. Primo was actually a very good boxer and he had crushing power. However, he also fought very experienced and very active fighters regularly, who excelled at neutralizing both power and size. Primo wrecked many guys with his uppercut, but he had a hard time with the smaller faster fighters. I think he was a much better fighter than Vitali and easily had a much better resume. Wlad had a slightly better right hand than Carnera, but Carnera had a better uppercut, inside game, and better footwork. Also, I find it laughable that people are saying Carnera lacked punching mechanics when Carnera was very efficient in the ring with both his punch output and footwork. Guys like Joshua, Parker, and Whyte could learn a lot from watching Carnera, since he was around the same size as Joshua, but didn't have Joshua's stamina problems, which is a result of Joshua not being very efficient in the ring. Parker and Whyte also aren't very efficient have gassed out many times in their fights. Carnera 6'5" 262 lbs #9 vs. George Godfrey 6'3" 250 lbs #3 This content is protected Carnera shows he can put combinations together and has good timing. Godfrey was very experienced with 84 fights at the time and was getting inside on Carnera and neutralized Carnera's jab. Carnera adapted and starting beating Godfrey on the inside. He'd fire an uppercut, left hook, right hook combination to break through Godfrey's defense and then back him up with a right hand. Primo was getting the better of Godfrey and then Godfrey got pissed and hit Carnera with a blatant lowblow right in front of the referee and got disqualified. Carnera 6'5" 261 lbs #4 vs. Jack Sharkey 6'0" 202 lbs #1 This content is protected Carnera was giving Sharkey problems with his jab and straight right, but Sharkey had been in with the best of the best and quickly adapted. He started going to Carnera's body and punching out the crouch and even dropped Carnera with a sneaky leaping left hook that he fired out a crouch. Carnera struggled the rest of the fight and lost. But, in the rematch he neutralized Sharkey's crouch by time him with hooks whenever Sharkey tried to go low and when Sharkey came up Carnera would time him with an uppercut. The uppercuts that Sharkey kept getting hit with took their toll and Carnera avenged his loss. Primo Carnera 6'5" 250 lbs #4 vs. Earnie Schaaf 6'2" 207 lbs #5 This content is protected Carnera came into this fight around 10lbs lighter than usual and showed good timing and footwork against Schaaf, who was very experienced with 74 fights and with wins over top competition. Carnera's uppercuts to the body over 13 rounds wore Schaaf down and Carnera timed him with a flush jab that he managed to put his weight into, which ended the fight.. Unfortunately Schaaf ended up dying a few days after the fight.
So then... Please explain the following to me: 1. Why was his defense lacking that it allowed him to be hit so much, by guys much smaller than him. For somebody with supposed good technique and good jab and distance control.. explain why he was hit so much by guys lacking his dimensions in every way? 2. You say he had crushing power... who did he display this crushing power against? Primo was never able to replicate a KO like Sharkey against any meaningful foe, and foes vastly inferior to Sharkey in every way. Being that the Sharkey result was considered dubious at the time, and still today, so if we throw that out... where are all these crushing KO's against quality foes? 3. You don't see any technical/ability issues with Primo? You think his punching technique, movement in the ring, handspeed are all above average... or does he have some issues there? 4. If he was as good as you make out, why was he involved in so many fixed fights? Surely it seems that if a fighter was as good as you made him out to be, he would need fights fixed with a who's who of tomato cans right? Yet he was, or needed to be... why was that if he was as good as you make out?
Schaaf was a dead man walking when he entered the ring. How can you not know this? Carnera had "crushing power" yet he isn't in the Ring's top 100 punchers list? Strange that?
Wow, you guys are still doing this several months later despite pleas to turn a new leaf and give the classic forum an actual chance to thrive. What a bunch of ****.
And then there was four! Good post. Excellent breakdowns. I just don’t understand how fans of the best Superheavyweight champions exclude Primo Carnera from inclusion?
Oh - the descent has commenced, full swan-dive... " This content is protected " - Carnera did not possess one. The fact he developed one from not having one at all is an obvious improvement. No one in their right mind calls it "great". Other than this, " This content is protected " does not identify where else Carnera is supposed to have improved. It's mere speculation that he improved in any other area and, given that in any footage you can find of him, Carnera seems unable to consistently pull together anything that looks like world class boxing, I'm inclined to think he didn't improve very much. That's a lot of ground you've covered, with the sweeping statements and implications above, as they relate to your assertion of there having been some sort of circumstantial super heavyweight training challenges, suffered by Carnera, greater than those experienced by today's super heavyweight. I trust you have the reams of evidence, required for you to support such a claim, as it relates to Carnera, who appears to have experienced very little weight variance, from the age of 21, throughout his career, to the age of 39; no more and potentially even less than a modern super heavyweight. If the best you can do is come up with a quote from John Ruiz, who is only reiterating a common, generalized perception of PEDs, then it shows how airy your line of argument has become. (No surprises there, mind). I'd like to see you make an attempt at explaining exactly how a specific Performance Enhancing Drug would have assisted Primo Carnera. There are hundreds to choose from, so I suggest you start researching the relevant medical studies and showing the demonstrable evidence of enhanced performance, under the influence of the drug you elect to consider for your illustration. I look forward to reading your extensive breakdown of how your PED of choice would behave metabolically; describing the regimen and including any additionally required supplements, their interactions, contraindications, as well as supporting activities in order to achieve the desired enhancements and reduce any debilitating side-effects. I can't wait. By the way, PEDs have not been proven to add skills to a boxer's repertoire. I doubt it - on all counts. Carnera couldn't cope with a certain level of fighter; whether or not said fighter would become a World Champion is irrelevant. And, you seem to be ignoring that we're talking about one of the shallowest talent pools in heavyweight history. Carnera's prime is a mystery. You deciding on what it should be, again, highlights the weakness in your argument. I was referring to raw boxing ability; stamina is a physical characteristic and does not alter Carnera's basic skill set. Citation(s)? Could you please provide the source of the study(ies)?. I wonder what failures, along with any other confounding variables, I could find and introduce to such a study; not to mention, any counter-studies that turn your so-called 'fact' back into a question mark. A reminder, by the way... ...PEDs have not been proven to add skills to a boxer's repertoire.
because he was fighting faster guys with smaller gloves. It’s easier to shield off blows with the pillow gloves. Campolo. Being able to time a guy his own size was much easier. Primo blew that guy away. Check out Campolo record. He was no stiff. Every champion fought a run of tomato cans. Every last one of them. Eventually they move into a better level. And once Primo moved into the better level he was not fighting only tomato cans anymore. Same as everyone else. They kept him busy with a lot of phoney fights just like they did with a lot of other top fighters. The main fights all stand up. These guys were all good fighters. Headliners. Schaaf Loughran Levinsky Campolo Uzcudun Lasky Neusel Godfrey Santa Are you saying these were all fixed? The whole lot?