Deontay Wilder vs Primo Carnera

A couple points.... I don't think Usyk is going to get too far in the division. Besides that, he is 6 foot 3 with a 78" reach and will likely settle around 225 when he gets into full heavyweight form. That ain't small. That is big for the 80's, big for the 70's and giant for 30's. Also, he is blessed with insane, outlier reflexes and balance, so he is an anomaly.

 

I understand that Carnera's chin was not the best, but it should also be noted that he was never down for the count.

That then brings us to the question of Wilder's chin, which I have always regarded with suspicion.

 

I don't think that number of losses of Carner's opponents is such a big issue, because that was just normal for the time. Fighters fought more often, had shorter amateur careers, were generally thrown to the wolves early, and often had to fight on well past the ideal time to bow out.

I accept your point about the average heavyweight being smaller back then, but there have always been smaller men penetrating the heavyweight division. The fact that a heavyweight is small, does not automatically tarnish the quality of the win, and an era where the average heavyweight is bigger, is not necessarily a stronger era. A small heavyweight ranked in the top ten, is a better win than a large heavyweight ranked outside the top ten, now as ever.

Yes but it is not like Carnera was avoiding the most dangerous contenders, then one day he ran into Baer and Louis.

He was always fighting the best contenders, it is just that their quality improved a bit.

He would most likely have fought anybody that you put in front t of him to be honest.

 

The criterion on how the athletes are judged is different and the mounts aren’t even the same, so it’s impossible to compare. The modern athletes wouldn’t be able to use such large swings if the bars were moved closer together like they were before, which is why it’s impossible to say one is more athletic than the other.

Here are two competitors over 50 years apart, but you notice the equipment and distance between the bars aren’t the same, but both are amazing athletes, but while once focuses more on flexibility and grace the other focuses more on power.

1964

This content is protected

2015

This content is protected

 

Carnera would not be winning the fight. His style is just as atrocious as wilders. But Wilder is quicker and his jabs are straighter. They would be swapping jabs and Wilders will be landing more due to his speed advantage. But lets say Carneras reach gives Wilder trouble and he is winning the fight. Hypothetically speaking even if Carnera outjabbed him he's getting clipped in the first round anyway.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IncompletePastHammerheadshark-size_restricted.gif

This is exactly how round 1 will end. Carnera was extremely easy to hit going against Smaller opponents and they put him down. Wilder's supersonic missle will find him without any trouble. DOWN GOES CARNERA

 

I don't think Usyk will replicate what Fury, Joshua or Wilder have done. I think someone is going to walk thru him.

Usyk is not a small man. He was a big man melting down to the cruiser class. He has similar measurables to Ali and 70's Foreman. So, I don't qualify him as an anomaly. I see a Byrd or Jones, Jr (as a heavy) as anomalies. You could even argue Tyson but having seen him in the 90's, he looked like it was two guys stuffed into his sweats. He carried 220 well.

 

You are back peddling. You didn't say anything about the ranking of his opponents until after i pointed out how many 1st round KOs he has.

4 early KO's is still 4 more than a lot of fighters. Wladmir Klitschko, lennox Lewis, foreman, etc didn't have as many early KO's when they stepped up in class. You aren't saying anything phenomenal.

1-wilder isn't 60-80 lbs lighter and wad never under 200 lbs like so many of carneras opponents. Idk where you are getting these stats from. In many fights wilder is over 210 and even over 220. Not to mention wilder is actually taller than Carnera--who fought several guys under 6'2.

2-wilder is definitely taller than baer. I once again have to ask if you're high or drunk?

3-it isn't silly at all. 20 losses is a lot even for back then.

4-i didn't say schaaf wasn't good because he's a few lbs lighter than Wilder or because he lost to carnera. You made that argument up. I said he was 40 lbs lighter than carnera and had a huge disadvantage as a result. Schaaf also had 12 losses so if this is an example of a quality top notch opponent things aren't looking good.

5-go ahead and create a poll asking people if that decade is even in the top 5 best HW eras lol.

6-he was mob controlled and protected on the way up, then he was thrown to the sharks until they could squeeze out every nickel.

My overall point was that it doesn't serve you much good pointing out how many top contenders he faced if he kept losing to so many of them or barely squeaked by with dubious wins or robberies.

 

I think we are close to agreement. Again, I see Liston as the watershed heavy. He introduced a new level of athlete/skill into the ring. Thus, the 70's were a continuation of this development. Ali was a big dude. Met him in '92 and was surprised by his size, even in his nearing dotage.

One aspect of size that also must be considered is the wear and tear on fighters over a career of facing these monsters in fights and sparring. It's a debilitating arena for an undersized fighter. They must have great assets of speed, skill, balance... you name it. They are walking a tightrope. One slip and you have the ending of Byrd-Ibeabuchi.

 

What conclusions would you draw if it turned out that you were wrong here?

 

So he's 40 lbs lighter instead of 60 lbs. That's still an enormous difference. That's my point - you keep talking how small Carnera opponents were compared to him but Wilder would be also small next to Primo.

Carnera faced quite a few taller opponents by the way.

In my first reply it was a typo, but this time I didn't say that he's not. I said that Wilder isn't taller and rangier version of Baer because they have much different styles. Is it that hard to understand? Of course Wilder is taller, but it doesn't make him taller version of Baer.

Do you understand now?

It depends, some fighters don't even reach 20 fights nowadays at professional level. These 1930s fighters had 80-150 fights on their records.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I said that you said Schaff was at disadvantage because of weight, which also applies to Wilder. It's not like Schaff was small either. He was 6'2 and legit 210 lbs.
You also mentioned him losing to Carnera as an insult.

Which would be true for Wilder as well... are you dense or what?

Yeah, he also had 67 fights in 5 years. Find me a HW who has 67 fights in his entire career now...

Again, one decade being less popular doesn't make it bad. Everyone is fallen in love with 1970s but it was 50 years ago - does it mean that boxing got worse since then?

There is no reason to believe that he was mob controlled at world level.

What robberies? I don't remember a single one in his biggest fights, certainly not in filmed ones.

 

Usyk moved up better than I thought his limited power would allow.

Again, Usyk is not small. Don't try to make that case.

 

As others have said, he clearly would not have been against in the 70s, or even the 30s.

So to answer my question?

 

Usyk wouldn't be a giant in the 1930s or 1970s. He's a big man, but not that big. That's a huge misconception - Max Baer wasn't a giant in the 1930s, he was often the smaller man. Usyk was around the same size, so why would it be any different?