Primo Carnera vs. Gerry Cooney

Cooney's opposition wasn't too spectacular,but as far as I know, none had to be paid to lay down.

 

I don't see how you can make a statement like that, when the decision clearly caused much controversy at the time.

 

The two statements that you have made here, require the asumption that the C tier of Cooney's era, were better than the A tier of Carnera's era.

Such an assumption comes with a heavy burden of proof upon the person making it.

 

I can make that statement because the fight was scored in accordance with the rules. Carnera continually fouled - and, where he might have gotten away with it in other states, he didn't in NJ.

The Associated Press scored it for Poreda because, like the Referee, they understood this.

No enigma.

Poreda won it fair and square.

 

If there was significant opposition to the decision at teh time, then regardless of what you personally believe to be the case, you need to keep an open mind on the matter.

 

The question that we are asking is which version of Sharkey would be the nearest equivalent of the version of Young that Cooney built.

Clearly not the version that Carnera lifted the title from.

Not even the version that Loughran beat to establish himself as the #2 contender.

It would be a version of Sharkey that had dropped out of the Ring Magazine top ten, and was possibly contemplating cashing out with one last big fight.

That would be very late in Sharkey's career.

On the issue of Loughran, whatever might have weighed, he was clearly a force to be reckoned with head to head.

 

You might want to try following your own advice. A 'controversy' does not transcend the rules. So you should perhaps look beyond the emotional response and towards the reasons why Carnera lost.

I'd also remind you that you initially stated Carnera was robbed and this is clearly not the case.

Moreover, a key theme of the Primonistas is the extent to which Carnera is supposed to have improved and here we have an example of him clumsily fouling and unable to correct his behavior in the face of Poreda's challenge. This, after 65 pro bouts.

 

You are indexing performance levels with titles and ratings - a fundamentally flawed approach.


On Loughran - his being installed as #2, on the strength of beating a sliding Sharkey who was on his way out, is source of much mystery to me, given that Levinsky, Schmeling and Baer were all ranked ahead of Sharkey in the NBA ratings.

 

I made the observation that Carnera was £robbed by all accounts", based on the political fallout from teh decision, which was unusual by the standards of the era.

I am prepared to consider that the situation might have been more nuanced.

However I don't think that we can sleep soundly in our beds, in the certain knowledge that the decision was a fair and just one.

 

Oh... ...I can

 

After Sharkey loses to Carnera, he loses to Levinsky then Loughran in his next two fights, but Loughran has recently beaten Levinsky.

Loughran's subsequent win over Impelitiere, who was a on a long winning streak, probably pushed him ahead.

I think that you could definitely make the case for Loughran being the best heavyweight who didn't hold the title during this period.

If not him, then who?

 

Then you are not being cautious enough.

 

I never believed Carnera legitimately knocked out Sharkey. We know many of his winning bouts were fixed. We also know that the talented Sharkey was involved in several dubious outcomes. I think he was open to doing business

 

If you think Wlad could KO Sharkey, then Carnera could

 

Anyone for a draw?

Seriously, Cooney by KO, maybe goes 8 to 10 rounds.