Lol right, I can't take anything you type as being serious after that statement so I just won't bother with you anymore.
And your opinion is suppose to mean something now? Lol If you honestly can't grasp that boxing has chance and evolved in the 90 years since Carnera turned pro then I will just dismiss anything you have to type. You can stick to your fantasy world where every boxer from the past was better than any modern fighter and I will live in reality where sports evolve and get better. Joe Joyce is slow. I can't envision him beating any legit heavyweight champion from the 1970's up until Lennox Lewis retired. But there is no boxer from Primo Carnera's era could beat Joyce on his worst day. Bye bye now.
In what respect do you see Joe Joyce representing a technical advance over the best boxers from Carnera's era? I would be genuinely interested to hear it.
So was Braddock... does this mean, that we should pick him to beat Parker? Or how about Joyce, who so far hasn't won anything... would you make him an underdog against Braddock?
The death of the inside game should be a stern reminder that the evolution of a sport past certain point is by no means linear. It is inevitably intertwined by the tendencies and ups and lows of boxing. There are several factors that would counteract arguments for modern superiority (tapes, better training methods etc.) with an equally strong position of old-school boxers actually growing in an environment favorable for peak achievements (deadly competition born of single belt per one of the eight divisions, poverty, vast popularity of the sport, more fights and activity, less protected records.) Primo Carnera's era had plenty of educated, cerebral boxers, who embodied the highest boxing standards. The likes of Loughran, Sharkey, or Schmeling. Not to mention Carnera fought when the likes of Walcott, Louis, or Maxim were slowly up and coming. That, and the excellence of the lower division at the time.
Lol cute story. Sharkey, Loughran and Schmeling were skilled for their era. Based off modern boxing they would be considered extremely unskilled. Joe Louis looked good because he fought slow unskilled no talent guys. Walcott didn't even look good then which is why he has almost 20 loses in his career. Maxim had 83 wins and 29 loses. He wasn't really skilled for his era never mind compared to any modern fighter but you are another one of those guys who can't grasp logic. Being considered skilled for your era doesn't equate to being modernly skilled. It is like saying because George Mikan was considered skilled for the 1940's standards it means he could make it today. Mikan couldn't even make a high school today. If you can't understand this then you aren't worth of talking boxing with me. Primo was slow and unskilled even by his pathetic era. He was considered to be nothing more than a being slow lumbering oaf.
No, but Braddock has accomplished more than Parker. He has accomplished more than Joyce, at least to date. A win over Parker probably isn't better that Braddock's best win. As for Joyce, why be in a hurry? His next few fights should make the picture much clearer.
Why would you put Parker in Sharkey class? You act like it's something very controversial, but I don't find it controversial at all. At least relative to his competition, Sharkey had much better resume and accomplished significantly more.
I will give you Dubois, with the obvious caveat that we need to see him in with more elite fighters. I see no reason to think that Parker's power was anything special.