Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

I can assure you that I have no agenda. I have not 'attacked' Carnera. I have made quite clear arguments, based on facts. The result of the first Haynes bout yielded a report, which implied Carnera's failings in defense were a familiar story. That was my original point.

And, the post you have just responded to is no exception. Carnera's loss was more than just coming up short. He was dispatched with little effort and in even less time. This is not a false statement.

The mitigating circumstances do not change this fact.

Perhaps you should re-calibrate your diagnostics.

 

Why don't we go bashing Ali for his loss to Larry Holmes, or Louis for his loss to Rocky Marciano while we are at it?

I can respect your use of the Gains fight as an argument, even if I don't agree with it.

There is nothing respectable about using the Haynes fight against Carnera however!

 

Ali was 38.Louis 37.Carnera 29.

 

You seem to be defining your own idea of an acceptable convention on debating etiquette, in this discussion...

I have just reminded you and, once again, will mention that my initial point about the Haynes fight, was the newspaper report, which highlights a recurring theme about Carnera's poor defense. This also just happens to be a point related to the topic of the thread. And, in any event, this doesn't change the fact that my accompanying statements, in respect to the first Haynes fight, were accurate.

You have accused me of having an agenda, when you and a few others on here quite blatantly look to reinforce Carnera's career record and mitigate any adverse results, in any way you can. But, more importantly, in doing so you digress from the thread's subject matter and ignore evidence presented, relating to Carnera's inability to utilize his size and reach as a means of defense; your latest post being yet another example.

 

I would say that their condition going into the figths is more important then their respective ages.

 

Surely you are not going to use a fight where he was shot to draw inferences about his defence?

That is going to be down to his inability to react as much as anything else.

 

I think that if we produced footage of Carnera walking on water, your first reaction would be to cite it as evidence that he couldn't swim!

 

Producing footage throughout his career that shows him being repeatedly nailed by righthands indicates to me that his defence, far from being" wonderful "was actually woeful!

 

You just want to deliberately overlook the actual point, don't you?

When you're ready to have an proper debate, which involves confronting evidence, let me know.

 

Actually, these guys just wrote dozens and dozens of posts claiming that he was a great super heavyweight and/or greater than Riddick Bowe.

 

I didnt say any of that.

 

Yes they did and that is what the rest of us are disputing.

 

mcvey, Baer quit ,Sharkey was only in there for his pension.

This content is protected

This content is protected

We know why Baer lost, he had a monumental panic attack and was frozen with fear.

This content is protected

How did a prime ,28years old ex heavyweight champion who had been the champion a year earlier get so thoroughly outclassed by a 20 year old?

This content is protected

So comprehensively outclassed in every single department he didn't win a round ,or even half a round!

This content is protected

If Carnera's defence was indeed "marvellous " how could this have happened?

This content is protected

 

There is no point to overlook.

You are using a fight where he was an empty shell, to undermine his defence!

 

I'd settle for any evidence that demonstrates Carnera's defensive prowess, utilizing his size and reach. And, by evidence, I mean something beyond a 5-second video byte from a single bout, in which Carnera got hammered.

I'd try and walk before attempting to run, if I were you, because - so far - evidence for the 'Carnera is a Great' camp has been repetitively thin.