The Redemption of Primo Carnera (Video)

I appreciate your even-handedness but even your reasonable challenge greatly understates the huge gap between Primo and guys like Lewis. It's possible to find unrepresentative, one-off examples of great boxers boxing poorly (or crude, unskilled boxers looking respectable). But with Primo, these flaws were actually representative of his tendencies and abilities. They were core traits of his. So much so that his biggest boosters even include evidence of them in their highlight montages.

 

So if Carnera had totally failed to use his reach advantage to any benefit, you would say:

At least his right cross reached over quite far!!!!!

Any super heavyweight, who does not back up against a 200lb fighter who can hit, is frankly an idiot!

Why would you not make a guy walk towards you if you could??????????????

 

I am not sure what you were saying here? I for one am not seeking to make anyone look a particular way. I am giving my opinion based on what I have heard and seen. However, I am open and seeking to learning more and have any misperceptions corrected . I have no inherent need to voice my opinion or pushed some agenda. I enjoy boxing in history more than crrentboxing news for a number reasons that others here may also appreciate.

 

Don't worry, you just got in the middle of an argument between two fools!

 

https://gfycat.com/LawfulEachAsianpiedstarling
https://streamable.com/zr18w
https://streamable.com/3pzgg

 

You see, this is where your criticism of Carnera's detractors (along the same lines as with the other 'believers') begins to unravel and look like demented drivel.

The points I made, quite clearly, are that Bowe DID NOT TOTALLY FAIL to use his reach advantage and DID NOT always get involved in up-close brawls. Moreover, Carnera spent most of his time wrestling his little foes all over the ring because he couldn't keep his sub-200lb opponents off of him.

Do you mean to imply Carnera kept his opponents on the end of a jab?

Given that Carnera was hit frequently and consistently by his little opponents, and - for clarity - SUB 200 POUND GUYS (in case you missed it again, "sub" is used to mean "less than" or "under"), I am not sure what you're trying to say here, other than you perhaps consider that Carnera was an idiot.

There's a difference between being backed up and backing up. Carnera got backed up and if he wasn't getting backed up, he was wrestling his man to the ropes. He did not masterfully judge distance and box off the back foot - nothing like it. And how many sub-200lb'ers hit hard enough to hurt a 260lb opponent.

In addition, are you suggesting that backing up is the one and only option for a 260lb heavyweight, when faced with a SUB 200lb opponent? If so, please explain.

Are you and choklab drinking the same brand of sherry (perhaps a Moscatel), these days?

 

As I suggested, to the best of my knowledge, Vitali was never backed up by a sub-200lb opponent.

 

Byrd was only over 200Ibs because of eating junk food to intentionally pile on fat and fight as a heavyweight. Even years later, after doing a lot of weight training to increase his muscle mass, he could still cut down to Light Heavyweight. He was also a nonpuncher.

The idea he was backed up by Byrd, but wouldn't by Baer is laughable.

 

OK, that sounds even better. Take their criticisms, and then show Carnera doing it right, and Dimitrenko/Lennox doing it wrong.

And that might become the next battleground, but one thing at a time. At least this would ground the debate in specifics, instead of going in circles.

 

As I suggested, to the best of my knowledge, Vitali was never backed up by a sub-200lb opponent.

 

Oh, by all means, as much as you have available, since I assume the next point of contention will be which guys have the greater frequency of bad technique.

Ideally, the way we'd do this would be to have clips that loop between Carnera doing something, and a modern superheavyweight doing the same thing. But that would probably take more work than anybody is willing to invest.

 

This point has already been contested, in one form or another (and I suspect on more than one occasion). No amount of handpicked footage will be enough to resolve that point.

A handful of instances, in which one appears expert, does not make one an expert. Likewise, a bad day at the office does not mean all days at the office were or will be bad.

At the same time, it seems an assessment of relative effectiveness, amongst Super Heavyweights across the eras, is too subjective a measure; leaving people to form individual opinions they can be happy with.

If a few of those people want to consider Carnera being taken the distance, outpointed or stopped by opponents, who were significantly outreached and outweighed by around 4 to 6 stones, as a sign of Super Heavyweight effectiveness, then so be it.

I cannot and doubt I ever will reconcile the results and dimensions of Carnera, with those of the modern-day Super Heavyweight.

 

And I figured it would end up here, but preferred to at least see Team Carnera address your technique points that had explicit film backing.

I'm sure you know what my next question is going to be, but I'll ask it anyway:

How can the Carnera people prove their case if no reasonable volume of film analysis will do it?

On your other point, I don't think we're stuck in a total morass of subjectivity (yet), since the boxing public *are* consistently pretty accurate at picking who will win most fights. Only a small percentage are pick-em matches, and the gulf between each side's assessments of Carnera should be enough to come to some conclusions.

(Indeed, if Team Anti-Carnera thought that the question was totally subjective, I don't think they'd emphasize forum consensus or bother digging up the numerous facts they've thrown at Team Carnera.)