Primo Carnera vs. Gerry Cooney

Hardly. Loughran barely got by a diminished Sharkey and saw the year out ('33) with Impelitiere - an unrated novice.

Levinksy beat Sharkey far more convincingly and saw the same year out beating rated McCorkindale.


Baer, unbeaten in 13 fights and having stopped Schmeling (who most felt had well beaten Sharkey in '32 and had since KO'd Walker) was clearly the best heavyweight in the world at this point. Both of those guys were some distance ahead of the rest.

The NBA Ratings were more reflective of this. Loughran at #2 made no sense unless he'd beaten Max Baer.

 

I find sleeping soundly is something best achieved without caution at the forefront of my mind.

 

Sorry Charlie:
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings (1980) had former WBC Heavyweight Champion Ken Norton ranked #10 and Gerry Cooney ranked #2. Cooney entered the fight ranked #1 by the WBA and WBC. Norton was ranked #6 by the WBC. Norton retired from boxing after this fight with a record of 42-7-1.

 

Of course it was not Carnera's job to second guess the rankings, and he had already beaten Levinsky.

We are not narrowing the issues here.

I think that you are placing far too much weight on Cooney's losing effort against Holmes, and far too quick to dismiss the tangible real world accomplishments of Carnera and Loughran.

One man who might have some sympathy with your position is Larry Holmes.

He said that he never understood how Cooney didn't go on to become a huge success.

 

Carnera had already beaten Uzcudun, as well, but he fought him again in his first defense. But I'm not really arguing a case for Levinsky; more highlighting that Loughran was probably not the most deserving challenger and, overall, had quite the spotty record at Heavyweight.

Fantasy head-to-head matchups are traditionally speculated on, using the best version of each boxer in question.

Cooney's best performance was against Holmes. Moreover, I find that the Holmes/Cooney bout was fought at a level markedly superior to anything that can be seen or read about, in relation to Carnera's fights.

The thread does not call for aspects of legacy and achievement.

That's another story and does not take anything away from the level of performance that Cooney was able to demonstrate against Holmes.

 

Here are the end of year rankings while Carnera was champion.

In fairness to him he didn't miss many fighters of consequence.


Primo Carnera, Champion

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. Max Schmeling
5. This content is protected
6. Patsy Perroni
7. This content is protected
8. Charley Massare
9. Steve Hamas
10. Lee Ramage

 

I would say that is a very dangerous line of reasoning, in a man who only has one good performance.

Sort of like arguing that James Douglas woudl beat all the greats because on his showing against Tyson.

 

Wlad was a terrific puncher, Carnera was not.

 

He wasn't champ long enough to miss many,but he missed plenty as a ranked contender

 

He petty much fought a whose who of the era, and met the other men who were around the top of the division when he was.

We could always get into the contenders that Cooney missed, which woudl be basically all of them.

 

Carnera knocked out more men than any other lineal heavyweight champion in the divisions history.

I get it that his record was padded, but so was Rocky Marciano's and so was George Foreman's.

I think we must conclude, that he was at least an effective puncher.

 

Marciano and Foreman's name regularly appear on lists of all time heavyweight punchers.

Ever seen Carnera's name on such a list?
Marciano and Foreman's managers ever have to pay guys to take a dive?

 

But nobody is claiming Cooney fought loads contenders.as you are claiming Carnera did.

 

I am not sure why you keep posting along these lines. What is it about the basic tenets of fantasy head-to-head matchups you don't get?

It's nothing of the sort.

Cooney was viewed as a rising star; was Ring-rated #2 in '80, '81 and '82; was undefeated going into the Holmes bout; was only a slight underdog (though some reports had Cooney a slight favorite on the night); was not an outlier.

Moreover, to all intents and purposes, Cooney had never put in a bad performance, prior to Holmes.