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

I forgot, bigger is always better. Byrd did well only because he was all-timer beyond 1930s boxers imagination.

 

Stribling did well against Schmeling, he got stopped in last round. He didn't do badly against Sharkey, even if got clearly outboxed.
Holmes was never in danger of losing to Smith either.

Stribling wasn't all-time great and he has a lot of weak names on his record, but he also had very solid record against contenders. My point is that fighters Tubbs beat weren't anything special either. You just view them as better because they fought in 1980s and not in 1930s.

 

You're wrong as usual, I'm no fan of the 80's.You do tend to jump to some unsupported conclusions. Smith did better against Holmes than Stribling did against either Schmeling or Sharkey,neither of whom were in Holmes class.

 

Some shots at me, nice one

I never said you are, but I know from your own words that you are very low on 1930s. Are you denying that?
Who makes unsupported conclusions now?

Cool, that doesn't make him better fighter though. Smith also lost to Marvin Frazier, I don't doubt that Stribling would beat Frazier.
Holmes was certainly more accomplished and overall greater fighter than Schmeling and Sharkey, but I think that Max would fare very well against him and Sharkey wouldn't be swept easily either.

 

I think you miss the point. Holyfield was needing to train down to 190.
Sharkey, without a limit, would actually put weight on as he approached a fight to weigh-in somewhere in the 190s.

I'm assuming you don't consider Sharkey as in his prime when he is reported as having weighed in for Godfrey; Wills; Smith and McTigue at, respectively, 187, 188, 188.5 and 189.5. (I know boxrec is not always accurate, but four fights on the bounce?)

One newspaper report I recall reading about Sharkey once, went along the lines of 'Sharkey is Overweight'. The story goes on to discuss Sharkey being too heavy at 201lbs. Other reports criticize his training and call him flat-footed.

Seriously? You defend him to the hilt on any thread his name appears in.

He failed to win every big fight he had, apart from the one, which involved his opponent being robbed - and he is also suspected of having taken a dive against Carnera.

And, because I don't think he'd fare too well in the modern era of Heavyweights, I'm somehow downgrading him?

From where I'm reading, it looks to me as though you're being too sensitive about Sharkey. A talent of his time and perhaps a great cruiserweight in this one.

Do we see sub-200lb men winning the World Heavyweight Championship title, these days? Or, was this something only Sharkey could have achieved, had he been born at the right time and peaked in the '90s?

Moorer, overall, proved he could beat bigger men in competitive match-ups - fighting Heavweights, who regularly weighed in between 210 to 250. He beat an all-time great in Holyfield, losing it in his first defense to a living legend.

Sharkey rarely fought people, who weighed in above 210lbs and the majority came in under 200. He was gifted the Championship, losing it in his first defense to possibly the weakest World Heavyweight Title Holder, of all time.

Both Holyfield and Morrison were bigger and more powerful than Sharkey. Both spent time in Foreman's wheelhouse, shipping leather and both were up to the task.

For Sharkey, shipping leather from Foreman, spells his doom.

 

I'm done here, you can believe in whatever you want.

 

Believe in? Only mildly petty, LOL.

I rely on hard facts and verifiable evidence, chap. You're one of the dreamy-eyed ones here, methinks.

Sharkey was without doubt a great talent, for his time, but not even the best of that period. Carnera certainly wasn't - a guy, who was pushed to the limit by what would be very small cruiserweights, today; beaten by others, who were still spotting him between 50 to 80 pounds.

All of this should speak for itself and, if you prefer to think a 6' 6", 270lb leviathan was being matched aggressively against, for example, a 186lb Tommy Loughran, when he carried that kind of physical advantage, there's not a lot else to say.

 

Bob you’re a legit guy I like you.

 

I'm an honest strait shooter my man
And thanku I do my bestt

 

I actually think that Sharkey and Schmeling are simply underrated compared to later era boxers. People view Tunney-Louis break as some kind of dark ages, but these two fighters were certainly elite. I'm not Sharkey fan, because I don't love his style but I got quite impressed when I watched his best filmed fights.

 

I'm a fan of Schmeling; less so of Sharkey.

To me Schmeling was better; more substance and less flash.

I think Sharkey gets overrated, based on appearances, rather than on achievement. I also think his gift against Schmeling gets glossed over a little and, at the same time, he gets a let-off for Carnera - - - because Carnera was a force in boxing - apparently.

 

None of which has much to do with Bowe and Carnera.To bolster Carnera some say well he went into the 6th with Louis obviously unaware that Louis was fighting to orders and not told to open up until the 6th rd when he floored Primo 3 times. There's an article
about it in the Feb 1961 issue of The Boxing Illustrated one of 5 I bought on E Bay last week,its called," The Night They Sacrificed Poor Primo".Carnera didn't win a round, being brutalised in 6 rounds.

 

I know that, I'm just responding to the post.

 

Then we agree, I just think that you underrate inconsistent, but elite at his best Sharkey.