Why people hate Carnera...

"no direct correlation between height and/or weight and hand size."

This is the key point, and one subject to observation.

I admit that my extrapolation on Shavers was glib and I got what I deserved in a rebuttal.

However, my being wrong doesn't make you right. You are dealing in total abstractions--how much a 12' Shavers would weigh. Or an 8' 2" Hearns. I think what you are maintaining is a theory with no possibility of providing proof one way or another as we will never get an 8' Tommy Hearns or 7' Joe Frazier to test it.

I want to point out there is there is a difference between being a giant and acromegaly. There are natural giants, such as the big basketball players like Wilt Chamberlain. Some sufferers from acromegaly are not large. There was an actor of normal stature, named Rondo Hatton, back in the 1940's. You can possibly find clips of him on you tube. He was never large, but his face was badly distorted by adult onset acromegaly.

It is at least possible that Carnera suffered from some sort of acromegaly, although apparently not severe. But he definitely did not meet the medical criteria for being a giant. For that one has to be about 7' tall, not less than 6' 6".

 

I'm not talking about acromegaly, or the criteria for being a giant. I'm just pointing out, that if you enlarge something (a cube, a car, an animal - anything!) to twice the original height - then it will weigh 8 times as much. It's not a theory or an opinion, or about being right or wrong - it's simply how things work!

 

You seem to want to argue this point, so I think you are simply wrong when you apply this to "an animal" including humans.

The square cube law is correct if applied to something like a pizza.

But what of men? Is it true that if you double your height then (if the proportions stay the same) your weight gains 8 times.

Frank Hollis-mass spectoscopist for over 30 years:

"Using the mathematically obvious factor of the cube doesn't fit with observations."

(This is the bottom line as all we have is observation to judge the validity of applying the cube law to humans. No 5' man ever becomes a 10' man to test the theory.)

Hollis goes on to elaborate:

"With a given build, 6' people weigh more than 1.44 times as much as 5' people. The cube law would yield a 1.73 weight gain."

(This is a very significant gap. Plugging in weights, if a 5' man of a given build weighs 120 lbs, a 6' man of the same build should weigh 208 lbs. following the cube law, but Hollis, whose life has been spent studying people, says the actual weight will be 172 lbs., quite a difference.) Why?

Nickolas Trefethon, a professor at Oxford University, gives an explanation:

"Any biomass formula will deliver just one number. No single number can be right, for human beings are complicated."

So is any biological entity. All kinds of factors enter in when talking biology. A swallow the weight of a condor would probably not even be able to fly. It wouldn't be able to flap wings designed for a smaller bird fast enough. An ornithologist can make a decently accurate estimate of the size of a bird just on the speed of its wingbeat.

The tallest human being ever, Robert Wadlow, peaked out at 491 lbs. He was almost 9' tall, at 8' 11". If he were half as tall, your division by 8 leaves him at 61 lbs. The shortest height I could find for which a normal weight is given is 4' 10" with the weight up to 115 lbs. So Wadlow was very light for his height. Why? His body had a problem supporting even that much weight.

Hollis again:

"It gets complicated when you factor in what sort of anatomy would be necessary to support a 12' person."

So this is a theory which is not supported by the only evidence we have--human beings we can observe and study. But as it is such an abstract issue, how much a 6' man grown to 12' would weigh, I guess you are welcome to believe it. I side with the skeptics.

 

Of course there's the question of what kind of physique it would take to support a 12' body. Needless to say, these calculations only work, if the the big man is an exact copy of the original man (which I belive i have stated numerous times) - only twice as tall.

However, enlarging Shavers from 6', 210 to 6'5½", 260 is not enough to necessitate a completely different physique to support his new body - which means, that his fist size is linerally related to his height, and not a lineal function of his weight, as was your originally contention. Correcting this mistake has been my only point all along.

 

Okay, I conceded my error to you, but as Hollis pointed out, the cube theory doesn't work on observation of human beings, so how much a 6' 6" Shavers would actually weigh is impossible to know.

 

I find it quite telling that people who have a low opinion of Carnera, almost invariably have a low opinion of Willard as well.

 

Its hard work revising Primo into a credible heavyweight, let alone a.champion. 80 plus years later not many are buying it.

 

One or two directions here. Put Primo Carnera in the Hall of Fame and clear his name or award Jack Sharkey with a posthumous Oscar.

 

Its also possible the punch did land with some force because Sharkey allowed it to.

 

Carnera should have been in the Hall a long time ago.

 

Their's a reason he's not. I suggest you look into it.

 

Damn man those chicks are hot.

 

You know my position on that, but even if I am wrong, he should probably still be in.

It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Merit, so the controversy surrounding his career, would itself be enough to justify his induction.

Also if other champions have been given the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't he get it too?

 

Maybe they should create an International Boxing Hall Of Infamy.