Bigger Puncher , Better Fighter ... Shannon Briggs or Primo Carnera ?

In what way is it a myth? You've mentioned only two, who just happen to be the more dominant heavyweights for the period to which I was referring.

Never?

Even if that were true, it took Carnera himself two attempts to get the win over Sharkey, who is no beast in the head-to-head stakes, and Carnera didn't face Schmeling at all.

Who are all these "non-champion top contenders" that Briggs would never beat?

You are entitled to your opinion, but it does seem to be quite generalized.

 

I mean, this was quite deep era for HWs with plenty of international contenders. Boxing peaked in terms of popularity then too. What is the reason to call it a weak era?

At least not during their primes.

Sharkey was all-timer, he was definitely dangerous H2H. Much better than anyone Briggs ever beat, including the version of Foreman that Briggs "beat".

He wouldn't beat Tunney or Wills, he wouldn't beat Loughran, he wouldn't beat Uzcudun, Stribling. Delaney, Godfrey, Renault, Hamas, Gains and some others are also names I'd pick over him. He wouldn't beat Risko in title or elimination fight either, although he could beat him in off night.

 

The following fighters were ranked in the 20's and30's
Rojas
Maloney
Spalla
Persson
Solomon
Keeley
Barlund
Neuman
Adamek
Smith
Ettore
Walker
Lenglet
Hankinson
Impelletierre
Brown
Hansen
Seifert
Scott
Von Porat
Campolo
Perroni
Winston
Johnson
Poreda
How many of them would you make favourite over Briggs?
ps These names also demonstrate why these decades were known as weak era's.

 

Most od these names aren't bad at all. How about this list:
Phil Jackson
Mike Hunter
Alexander Zolkin
Derrick Jefferson
Kirk Johnson
Jameel McCline
Fres Oquendo
Roy Jones Jr
Monte Barrett
etc.

Am I supposed to believe that this list is much better than your?

 

I'd say Briggs hit harder. Is he better fighter?

Briggs has the thiniest resume of all Lineal HW champions, by far.

His 3 best wins are robbery against 49 y.o. Foreman (have yet to see anyone who scored it for Briggs), 'KO' over 45 y.o. Mercer (who faked KO to get DQ win when Briggs hit him behind the head few times). That leaves the only one truly good win - last second KO over Lyakhovich (who was winning the fight).

His 4th best win was who exactly? Probably jorneyman Marion Wilson.
Another Wilson, Darroll, KTFO'd Briggs brutally in 3 rounds.

McCline had no problems winning almost every round vs Briggs.

Botha clearly beat Briggs but got only a draw. Briggs admitted that Botha beat him.

Briggs could hit, that's why he shook Lennox, knocked down Botha, and KO'd Lyakhovich

He was very average in any other department though.

Went the distance with Vitali Klitschko (both were the same age, Briggs ain't older than Vitali). True. Lost literally every second of that fight. True also.

 

Briggs is one of the least impressive "champs" I've ever seen, and I kind of feel sorry for him when he runs around challenging people. He just doesn't have much to boast, besides the fact that he did show heart against both Foreman and Lewis.

The day Briggs even dreams he won that fight against Foreman, he needs to wake up, slap himself hard in the face, and call Foreman to apologize.

I remain astounded he's considered a "two time" champion, to me that really cheapens that hallowed credential.

I don't mean any offense or disrespect to Shannon or his fans on here. I'm just being honest. The guy never really did much, so when he got up on Wilder all I could think was "how are you any better than him?". He was less credible, without question imo.

 

I am not sure that the number of "international contenders" necessarily makes for a strong era. Neither does the sport’s popularity.

To my my mind, an era is shown to be weak by a combination of factors, although I wouldn’t say there is any kind of strict formula, from which to draw a conclusion. But, I’d suggest that uncertainty and erraticism in the quality and results of bouts, across what are, at the time, considered top-drawer competitors, is one indicator.

Another, is when the division’s top-10 is being overrun by competitors from the lower division/s.

I find that a two-year vacuum created by Tunney's retirement, during which the Light Heavyweight, Young Stribling, was effectively installed as the Heavyweight division's Number-1 contender, for the vacant crown (’28, going into '29) and later became Schmeling’s first and only successful defense of the Championship, certainly qualifies.

As well as Stribling, the headway made into the Heavyweight ratings by Loughran and Walker, makes we wonder where all the actual Heavyweights were.

I also find that the number of Champions and their collective, successful title defenses, covering the period from 1930 to 1937, is quite telling. In this case, five Champions with three successful defenses between them.

I still lean towards the idiom, "Never say never."

Both Sharkey and Schmeling were beatable in their respective primes.

Sharkey was skilled and maybe a Top-40 ATG Heavyweight, but he was a long way from being "dangerous".

Head-to-Head with a 16st+, half-decent boxer-puncher and my stake is going on the value-for-money bet, i.e. the 16st+ half-decent boxer-puncher.

In any event, Briggs doesn't need to be better than Sharkey to be better than Carnera.

Tunney and Wills fall outside of the period I have referred to.

Of the remainder named, how many did Carnera beat legitimately and were rated at the time he beat them?

 

Jack Delaney was a fine lightheavy, but he lost to Risko,MaLoney,Heeney at heavyweight and weighing178lbs was ko'd in1 round by Sharkey.He isn't beating prime Briggs that is just not happening!
Who did Stribling and Gains defeat for you to say they beat Briggs?
Hamas has one good win ,over Schmeling and was promptly kod in the return.

 

I mean, if sport is popular and has large talent pool, then it has to be strong era for it.

I don't agree with this point, fighters from lower divisions were always important for HW division until they changed the limit and created CW division.

I also don't agree that a lot of champions in short period tells much about the era. In that case, 1970s and 1990s are weak too and I'm sure you won't agree with that.

Sure, everything is possible. I don't find it likely though.

Sharkey was closer to top 20 than top 40.

Jack thrived against bigger opponents. He dominated Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, Scott and a few others. He'd make Briggs look like a fool.

He certainly beat better competition than Briggs, whose entire resume is based on "win" against 50 years old Foreman.

 

All of these fighters (except Heeney) were better than him, so I don't see that as compiling argument. I can see Briggs beating him, but it's far from given.

Stribling:
Jack Renault
Tutty Griffiths
Phil Scott
Primo Carnera
Johnny Risko
Tommy Loughran

Gains:
Max Schmeling
George Godfrey
Primo Carnera
Phil Scott

Who did Briggs beat to be compared to them?

So that's one good win more than Briggs, right?

 

Nope you're supposed to answer my question.

 

Scott was crap.The Carnera fights were fixes,Schmeling was a youngster when Gains beat him.The Godfrey win was a dsq.

 

You previously made no mention of the size of the "talent pool". Just that boxing had plenty of international contenders and was a popular sport.

Why do you think they created the Cruiserweight division?

It's not the same thing, really. Nearing the end of the seventies (1978) we see the WBA and WBC Titles split, after Ali loses to Spinks and Spinks rematches Ali instead of fighting Norton. Other than that and for the best part of the decade, we essentially had three Champions - Frazier, Foreman and Ali - sharing those unified belts, with a combined 16 successful title defenses between them, during that period.

This doesn't compare to the period I gave in my example ('30 to '37) - 5 Champs - Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, Braddock, with only 3 successful defenses between them.

Fair enough.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Sharkey is nowhere near a Top-20 All Time Great Heavyweight, in my opinion.

Maybe. This doesn't make Briggs a lesser fighter than Carnera, though.

On paper and for his time, he might have, but he was regularly outweighing his opponents by more than 60lbs and was also beaten by lesser fighters than Briggs, who were spotting Carnera over 60lbs.

Carnera really wasn't that good.

 

Still much better than anything Briggs did in his career.

 

Godfrey had been giving Carnera a schooling, as well, if I recall correctly.