It's common wisdom on this forum that Carnera, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, and Willard were all inferior fighters to modern superheavyweights. My question: Why? Not "Why do you believe this?" but "Why can we train good giants today, unlike the world of 80-100 years ago?" Thoughts are welcome.
IMHO, they weren't Tyson Fury, Lennox Lewis, or the Klitschko brothers good, but they weren't as bad as many today think either. To answer your question, there are more big guys in boxing in modern times, so it stands to reason, there would be more good ones around.
Cause many lacked coordination and cause they didn't knew how to use their height and reach to their advantage.
Why? Why did big people lack coordination back then? Why didn't boxing coaches know how to teach boxers how to fight smaller opponents?
That's actually an interesting question. I'd like to hear the explaination from people who usually are low on oldschool fighters period. Think about it - if fighters were less skilled back then, shouldn't it be easier for people with physical advantage to dominate the sport?
I think that it probably comes down to the simple fact that there were less of them. Less big men means less chance of getting as good as a Lewis or a Wlad. Willard, Fulton, Tate, Carnera, Impelletieri, Baer, and Simon were not in any respect bad fighters, they just weren't as good as the giants of more recent eras.
Man give Carnera some slack, from what I remember he had a career defining injury to his land or leg in some way and was considered pretty fleet footed, and had exceptional footwork at one point. But as he got older, the injury didn't heal and he more jaded to the sport I honestly felt like he typecast himself and the literal big bad of the division and fell in love with his punch. Which while it could put people to sleep, his archtype became his fighting style when Primo was capable of more. He spent several years rated a top 10 contender by the ring. Carnera would give modern Super heavyweights a problem, he would imo certainly be a top 10 contender at the least, and likely top 5 contender of the division in the current climate.
Probably not, but he might well have beaten Michael Moorer for example. He would have stuffed the big men from that era, who were not all that.
Theres really no proof for acromegaly medically. Primo just looks weird. But he didn't have acromegaly for certain.
It's true that they were never diagnosed with anything, as far as I know. But I think they -- especially Primo -- had something, since that combination of size, musculature, and facial structure was very unusual. Especially at the time. Same with somebody like Valuev. Is he diagnosed with anything? I don't know. Does he have something out of the ordinary about him, medically? Probably. That said, the people who try to use diagnoses to discredit them are barking up the wrong tree. Every good fighter has something unusual about them.
Willard started deep into his later 20’s w zero amateur background. He was actually very good considering his very late start. Fulton was very good but lacked the chin.