Better All-Around Fighter: Primo Carnera or Riddick Bowe?

That doesn't say much

 

After 80 pages of arguing, I'm curious where each side would rank Primo in terms of other eras. That might give me a better idea how deep the divide is.

For example, how high a ranking could he get, and hold for a reasonable amount of time, today? In the 70s? 90s?

 

Look, I'm of the opinion that Bowe is wildly overrated ... but he's still on another level to Carnera.

Carnera didn't suck, but he was no world beater either. Maybe if Futch or Steward or somebody good had trained him from the start he would > Bowe. But in this world, with this actual version of Primo ... Bowe all day long.

 

I think he could win a belt and hold it for a couple of defences.

I mean, the bar isn't exactly high. Could he beat Charr? I think he could.

 

I'm not sure Carnera would beat Coetzer, let alone be considered on the same level as (the overrated) Bowe.

 

Primo's heart was never really in boxing. He didn't have that killer instinct and nor did he have a real commitment to training. You can only overcome such intangibles to a certain degree and he did so via size and imo some sort of natural ability however it may be judged. I would say he got to a world class level in his own era for sure. Futch and Steward however would never be able to instill desire and love for the game.

 

Fair post

 

In the 70's? He doesnt even get past the B level guys like Bugner, Lyle, Shavers, ellis, quarry, etc. Theyd either win a wide ud or ko him in the mid rounds. Hed have a punchers chance and with the right trainer to exploit his size advantage, he might be able to pull off a few "ok" wins over guys like scott ledoux, henry cooper, ron stander, etc. Best opponents i could see him beating are doug jones, chuvalo, MAYBE a past his prime patterson due to his chin, or bonavena due to his crudeness.

Basically, he doesnt even sniff the top 10 rankings. Even if by some miracle he gets there, he wouldnt stay there long and wouldnt have a prayer at a title shot except due to sympathy/soft defense/cashing in on the publics curiosity on his "freakshow" appearance. He might manage to grab a hold of an NABF belt if Ali or Norton arent holding it...i think chuck wepner had it at some point and that might be Carneras only chance at some sort of respectable title.

90's?

Its arguably worse since so many guys are 6'3+ 220+ and can all move+box with good power and chins. The fact there are now 3 major belts (wba, wbc, ibf) doesnt change much honestly as even in the 90's u still had to beat at least a handful of skilled fighters to get one.

Still, like the 70's, with the right management he might be able to pull off some good wins. Bert cooper, old ass mike weaver, chinny tommy morrison he could conceivably beat if he lands first. I could actually see him winning a belt from bruce seldon when seldon had it, but again, he wouldnt keep it long unless he held the belt ransom and refused to unify with guys like holyfield, lewis, etc.

 

Good post. More or less my take.

To put my perspective on one of your mentions there, I actually think Carnera would struggle to beat Chuck Wepner.

 

Even in the 1970s Leon Spinks beat Muhammad Ali. It just goes to show you can’t rule anything out. I loved the 1970s but can anyone really say Carnera can’t beat Domingo D’elia, Jack Bodel, Leroy Jones, Randy Neuman, Jose Roman, Pierre Coopman, Henry Clark, Jose Urtain, Scott Ledeox all of whom managed to get an end of year ranking during the fabulous 1970s? There is room for absolutely anything to happen. It is foolish to say it couldn’t happen.

 

What does wepner bring to the table that would make carnera struggle? He was a big oaf with poor defense and bled easily. He lacked speed, power, and ring iq. Other than being a tall guy with a big of heart, what could he actually do to pose a threat? His infamous step on foot+right body shot combo?

For the love of all that is holy choklab, can u PLEASE stop using Ali's loss to spinx as evidence any mediocre boxer could have made a name for themselves in the 70's? Its intellectually dishonest.

Frazier and Shavers were Ali's last good performances against world class opponents. The jimmy young fight was an ugly affair and Dundee blasted his own boxer aftereards. Thr Norton fight was a gift decision because they didnt want to see him lose. Ali HIMSELF told a reporter after the fight he lost!

Spinx was in the right place at the right time against a rapidly fading old champion getting by on his fame and weak title defenses where he mostly threw pitter pat flurries, taunted, showboated, and did just enough to get the decision. Ali was lazy and barely trained. Why? Because all the best guys he either beat or retired! Thats why the very end of the 70's looked so weak, he had cleaned out the division!

Frazier, quarry, and lyle were waaay past their prime and gone from boxing as serious contenders. Foreman had a breakdown and dissappeared from boxing. Ali had a trilogy with norton and had no intention of fighting for the 4th damn time. No one would pay a nickel to see another ugly jimmy young rematch. Holmes was a rising stat but had very little publicity aside from his sparring with ali.

Judging the 70's as a decade based on ali losing to spinx is disingenuous.

 

I don't think Wepner poses a threat. I just think he's the type of fighter that, combined with Carnera, could create a bit of fiasco, over the distance. I could see Wepner managing 12-15 rounds with Carnera, in a scrappy affair, and he wouldn't have bring too much to the table to do that.

 

I'm more curious about what you'd expect to happen. Not in what COULD happen if the stars align and Carnera gets lucky. (Or unlucky.)

Barring unusual luck, where do you see Carnera in the 70s, 90s, and modern divisions?

 

Thanks. Would you foresee a similar career trajectory for other 1930s contenders who get dropped into the 1970s / 90s? Or is Carnera uniquely bad even among the contenders of his own era?

 

Of course, u pretty much said it yourself.

Carnera lost to Max Baer in an embarrassingly 1-sided beat down. Max Baer was considered an unskilled clown who relied on his freakish punching power to bail him out. Even in his own era he was criticized for his lack of speed, defense, and the fact he lost his belt almost as soon as he got it to so-so journeyman jim braddock.

Despite his size, Carnera was koed multiple times by multiple fighters. He lacked the finesse to use his size to his advantage and lacked in the jab/outside fighting department which is crucial for a man his height in boxing. Like a tall basketball player who cant shoot or layup and who is easy to steal the ball from.

From the 30's, Joe Louis with modern strength and conditioning would probably be amazing at cruiserweight. Maybe even heavyweight if he was able to add functional weight and could take a punch from the big boys like joshua, who knows. He for damn sure would have done better than carnera or baer or some of the other jokers from the 30's due to his amazing hand speed and high ring iq. In terms of just pure skill at heavyweight. louis is still rated by many as being top 5, maybe even #1.

Walcott and charles would at the very least be great modern light heavies and cruiserweights if they could adjust to modern standards. I dont fancy their chances at modern heavy tho as they were simply too short and lacked the frame to put on the muscle to be effective against athletic 230+ pound giants. In the late 70's i could see walcott pulling off an upset against a fading Muhammad Ali as he struggled with jimmy young and norton.

Galento vs frazier would have been a hilarious entertaining bout while it lasted. I could easily see the crude, trash talking hot dog eating brawler getting under his skin and they have an epic slugfest with frazier winning by brutal stoppage after they exchange knockdowns.