Deontay Wilder vs Primo Carnera

You didn't respond to my points, you just kept accusing me of thinking that Carnera would beat Wilder, which I denied multiple times.

 

1-Fury retired and went on a cocaine and beer binge. He did not fight for 3 years. How can he be regarded as the #1 HW? Until he fought Wilder he did absolutely nothing between 2015-2018. Coming back and fighting 2 D level opponents doesn't automatically bring back his credentials. He lost all his belts due to inactivity. And even after fighting wilder the 1st time the bout ended in a draw. How can you do nothing for 3 years, face a belt holder and get a draw, and be considered the #1 HW during this time period? That doesn't even make logical sense.

2-Joshua beat Klitscho in 2017. Wilder became the end champion in 2015 and fury was nowhere to be seen from 2015-2017. Before Joshua fought Klitschko his best win was a green Dillian Whyte who honestly isn't that good to begin with, and Charles Martin who wad a manufactured paper champ that only won a vacant belt due to his opponents knee rupturing.

So again i ask how on earth is Joshua the #1 HW between 2015-2017 before he beat Klitschko? It certainly isn't for beating Martin and you'd have to think very highly of Dillian Whyte. Even if you think Joshua was better than Wilder, it wouldn't be by a whole lot in terms of resume.

3-Povetkin failed 2, maybe even 3 drug tests. That's why the fight with wilder never happened and cannot be used to criticize wilder.

4-ruiz definitely wasn't #1 because that was his only elite win. He was a flash in the pan champion similar to buster Douglas, james Smith, etc who lost his belt almost immediately. Wilder had wins over stiverne, Ortiz, brezeale, Arreola, etc he had quantity over quality. Unless you think ONE elite win trumps multiple ok to good wins, Ruiz was not #1.

5-dillian Whyte is an idiot. He was offered an elimiantor against Luiz Ortiz and refused. When the dispute over the #1 spot with brezeale emerged, brezeale actually offered to fight him and the winner would get a title shot. Whyte refused that too, so brezeale fought his eliminate and got the shot. You cannot ignore the sanctioning bodies orders and then expect them to bend over backwards for you. Beezeale earned his shot.

6-Joshua paid Ortiz step aside money. Therefore he should have been the next opponent. Pulev was terrified of Joshua and kept making weird comments and acting like he didn't want the fight. Yet team Joshua, like sharks smelling blood, went after the weaker link and guess what happened? Pulev pulled out like a chump and then they had the perfect excuse to not fight Ortiz because they needed a last minute replacement.

Joshua did not "have" to go after Parker right away. He could have fought Ortiz next and CHOSE not to. They even went to court over all this. Ortiz eventually got frustrated and fought Wilder. He didn't "ruin" his chances with Joshua, team Joshua simply did not want to fight him and Ortiz took an opportunity with the wbc when it was offered. The only thing ortiz did wrong was take peds and of course joshua breathed a sigh of relief.

As for Joshua weaseling his way around the division, that's exactly what he did. Ortiz is not the only example. As mentioned he only became champ after beating martin who won a paper vacant IBF belt over an injured opponent. The Klitschko fight was against a 41 year old man who was coming off a loss yet SOMEHOW that became a WBA title fight. That had never happened in the history of boxing! When fury came back he made zero serious attempts to fight him. He flexed his A side status against wilder and Eddie Hearn said wilder doesn't "deserve" a percentage in the contract yet gave the fairly unknown and mediocre Parker a percentage (which is blatant hypocrisy). As for the parker fight for the WBO, well that was a bit of a farce itself with the ref refusing to let Parker work on the inside in a dull affair with the action being broken up every 20 seconds.

 

That's not what happened at all. You claimed wilder was not a fast starter and then refused to admit you were wrong.

You then ripped into wilder's resume and i explained how you were way off.

At no point was i trying to claim you said carnera would win.

And i literally asked you what main points you made that i may have missed and you refused to even answer this basic question.

 

Yeah, I claimed that and I won't admit that I'm wrong because being fast starter against bums he faced for 3/4 of career isn't a proof of anything. In his last 16 fights, he has only 4 KOs before 4th round - do you wonder why? Because he finally started to face legit competition which still wasn't anything special in historical sense.

No, you showed your opinion about his competition. We can disagree on that part and that's fine, but don't act like you proved me wrong or something. It's not like I'm the only one who is low on Wilder's competition - plenty of highly knowledgeable posters agree with me on that part.

But you did:
"So you're serious. You think Carnera beats Wilder? "
"By YOUR OWN WORDS, Baer is not particularly skilled or graceful and yet hit Carnera at will, so what exactly are you even arguing for...?"

My point was that your argumentation is flawed, even if you come with right conclusion:

1. You keep saying that Carnera faced fighters much lighter than himself, but Wilder is also much lighter than Carnera.
2. You basically say that Wilder is rangier and taller Baer, which is not true because they fight differently and Baer was more durable.
3. You say that number of lost fights among opponents equals to the level of competition, but it's silly to compare raw records from 1930s to 2010s given how fighters are managed now compared to then.
4. You say that someone like Schaff isn't worth mentioning because he's too small (when he's only 10 lbs smaller than Wilder) and because he lost to Carnera which is circular logic.
5. You say that 1930s is terrible decade because... you think so, because it can't be proven. It suits your narrative though, so why not use it?
6. When the other poster said that Carnera wasn't protected because he faced higher quality competition than Wilder, you said that it doesn't matter because he lost to some of them. It doesn't disprove anything though, because he talked about protection, not ability. Carnera faced better competition and had worse results, but he wasn't protected.

 

Much of this argument boils down to the "equivalency assumption". You either believe that heavyweight boxing is an extreme outlier in all sports, that there is no progression in skill or the quality of athlete over the decades or that there has been a progression in either skill or athlete or both and that the eras can not be compared in a "apples to apples" manner.

If you believe that the quality of fighter (skills+athleticism) that Carnera faced were equal to those that Wilder faced, then you have bought in to the basic agreement that leads down Janitor's merry path. If not, then you can never reconcile what he is saying with what your eyes tell you.

It is almost pointless to argue.

 

Do you think that every single professional sport got significantly better during last 50 years?

 

This content is protected

Yeah, pretty much.

 

That's one sport.

 

A big reason being that the olympics went from being amateur to being professional, boxing hasn't.

 

Don’t see anywhere in the video where modern is better, but just different. Apples and oranges. In the past there was more focus on grace and finesse while nowadays there is greater emphasis on raw strength and power. Also, the mounts in the old days were different than they are today, so it’s hard to compare.

 

Two things.

A) Note that I am speaking of the heavyweight division, not boxing at large. The heavyweight division, much as the other sports that reward the combination of size and athleticism, has recruited and developed a better quality of athlete over the decades.

B) I find Liston to be something of a watershed heavyweight in this regard. Big, strong, quick (yes, he was), preternaturally powerful but agile enough to make these attributes work together. So, if you want to 1971 was the peak, or plateau, I am not in total disagreement. Certainly, by the 80's and 90's the division was almost exclusively different than half a century before. Occasionally, a one-off like Byrd will come around who can rely defensively or offensively on elite speed.

And yes, elite fighters must always be tough first, have fighting heart and be durable. There is no substitute for that.

 

So you don't see any improvement in athletic ability in this video from the 1950s to the 2010s?

 

Don't you think that someone like Joe Louis fits this description as well?