I pick Hank. In fantasy matchups against Carter, I usually take the opponent. I think Carter is over-rated, and undersized for a MW.
Carter is probably the most underrated fighter on internet forums these days, moreso than even Jack Dempsey. These were guys who at one point or another (particularly Carter) were overrated and now the pendulum has swung so far the other way because of this that they've become underrated, at least to the boxing knowledgable. Anyone who's knocking Floro Fernandez stiff in one round (as well as Griffith, obviously) and boxing Joey Giardello to a stand-still is no hack, regardless of what happened in their personal life. He held his own in the boxing department with George Benton, Joey Archer and Jimmy Ellis, and duked it out with Holly Mims. It's plain as day for all to see on film that he was a very talented fighter in his pomp, and despite his record which tailed off the end, he was already quite proven in my eyes. That said, this matchup is basically 50/50 in my eyes.
Giardello was already well past his best when he faced Carter and still beat him. It has long been rumored that both Benton and Mims threw their fights and the Benton fight was razor thin anyway. Mims took his fight on short notice and still almost knocked Carter out before letting him off the hook. Mims could be a mean SOB so this was out of character for him. Its a travesty that he got a title shot over Archer who beat him in the title eliminator. As a middleweight Ellis wasnt that good to begin with but for Carter he made an insanely low weight, his lowest ever, and was weak as a result. By the time Carter was only three years into his career he was basically shot. This is an era when some fighters had been fighting ten years before ever getting a title shot. Yeah, I think hes overrated.
Only Bob Foster was able to stop Hank, needing nine rounds to drop him and convince the referee to call it off. Bob failed to repeat this unique achievement in a 12 round return. This is very close. Rubin has to beat him over the distance. At their bests, I see Hank taking the decision. He had more experience when in his prime, and was the bigger man.
Giardello may've been past his best, but he was still an excellent fighter. Either way, the fight was very close and Carter showed he had the technical skills to compete at the highest level to go along with his bruising power. As for the Benton fight, I've heard the rumor many a time. Who knows? Again, regardless of what you believe, I think Carter more than showed that he had the technical skills to cope at the highest level, even if Benton was cuffed. I'm talking only of Carter's prime here, considering this is a fantasy matchup. I think he'd fair well vs a lot of fighters, all but the very best, really. The length of his prime due to a number of factors doesn't detract from my opinion on his abilities at his peak. He was an excellent fighter for a short time. Of that I've no doubt.
Agree totally...Ive said the exact same thing several times on here. Carter was a very good fighter, I hardly see anyone blowing him up to be anymore than he was...There seems a backlash against him as a fighter because of that movie and his personal life. Ive got Hank for this one but it is pretty close to 50-50 for me. I just cant see who overrates Carter around here, I cant see why people believe that..Id really like to see the evidence of this because either Ive missed it or its just not happening...He is an undersized middleweight and by no means a great one but he was one of the best fighters of the best era that division has seen and I think he gets unfairly scrutinized. The whole overrating/underrating "pendulum" thing (I like that Im going to use that from now on) happens all the time on the intranet. McCallum for me is a good example, he was underrated for a time but now his name is so synonymous with the word the consensus on him is starting the swing the other way.
I dont know. I just dont see it. Yes Joey Giardello was a good fighter when Carter fought him but nowhere near his best. It was great that Giardello FINALLY won a title but dont forget that heis first title shot had come in 1960 when he was already considered a little past his best and that was four years before he ever faced Carter. At that point Giardello was beginning to fight like an old Bernard Hopkins where he minimized the action to preserve his stamina. More of a spoiler. Im just not that impressed that Carter lost to him because I think there were a lot of other middleweights/welterweights who could have turned in a similar performance or better. I mean you mention Carter's prime as if he had some golden era when in reality he basically lost at least twice a year every year he was a pro. He was shot by the time he was 28 and only fought for five years. So when exactly was his prime? The night he lost to an old faded Giardello? Again, I think this loss is being blown up to more impressive preportions than it should be. However, we are talking about Henry Hank, who I also think gets a bit overrated. He is another underachiever. That being said: He was bigger, hit as hard or harder, was usually in as good a condition as Carter, and has better wins on his resume (not many) and better showings even in his losing performances than Carter did. I just think physically and mentally he was a much tougher proposition than Carter.
Joey was just a better class of fighter than Rubin thats why he was able to edge him out even with him physically diminishing, no one is really disputing that. Carter's patchy record is just an indication of how strong the era was, because really most guys around that time were having similar runs to Carter. Between 62 and 65 where he was essentially at his peak. He avenged the earlier defeats he had, lost once on cuts, lost twice to LMR (hardly any shame there), lost an allegedly highly disputed decision to Scott, lost a close and debatable decision to Joey Archer and of course lost to Giardello...itself a very close bout. Lost decisively to Tiger but again no one is putting him on that level. His wins have already been covered, he beat some very good and even great fighters...knocking some out brutally. I wouldnt call that a resume of an overrated fighter..there is just really no fighter in history that is coming out of that era unscathed. To me Carter's ability is pretty clear to see on film...He was a fine boxer-puncher with very decent chin and physical ability. I really truly feel people let their feelings get in the way when discussing him.
Never seen this fight before...Carter vs Brennan. Only watched a few little bits...Ill have to sit down and watch in full later. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbf4DTszgyU&feature=related[/ame]
Carter got "old manned" by the aging Giardello, but i thought he still did enough to win the fight by a couple of points.Seems to be a minority viewpoint though. Middleweights from that era to present day who are overrated(or most in favour/rarely criticised/made out to be something they aren't) currently by consensus opinion(and trying any strong personal opinions on the fighters styles, effectiveness etc to the side)imo Griffith Hamsho Benn(maybe only in Britain though) Hearns Hopkins Monzon and Toney are now too divisive to be really overrated now and Hagler has the embarassing homoerotic blue collar hero thing going on more than anything else.
I had Giardello the pretty clear winner against Carter. Carter was game the whole fight but Giardello outboxed him and deserved the decision. If it had gone to Carter I think it would have been unjust.
