Benny Leonard calls Primo Carnera's defense "Marvelous"

You chose to use the Baer fight as evidence not me.

I would have chosen the second Sharkey fight if I had been asked to pick.

I never used the word great.

 

I'm sorry to have to put this to you then, because you seem on the surface to have a bit about you - but, you must be as stupid as the day is long, if you cannot see the point being made in the quotation from the relevant report.

 

I shouldn't worry about minor semantics - you've got far bigger issues.

 

I'm not overwhelmed by Larry overwhelming Carnera on the film I have seen. It looks closer to me.

 

I don't see much point in pursuing this further, as I have no interest in exchanging insults.

 

In case you haven't noticed such things before, being either deliberately obtuse or genuinely ignorant tends to run a debate aground, whether one chooses to continue or not.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge the point being made in the relevant news report's quotation, because you're so fixated on the stage at which the Haynes bout took place in Primo's career, just tells me how far your self-conditioning has gone.

It beggars belief.

 

To be a great super heavyweight Primo does not have to be Muhammad Ali. He only has to be Tyson Fury. There are not that much to chose from. Lewis, Bowe, mrs Klitchskos boys, Willard, bone crusher smith, Joshua, Fury and john Tate. That's it.

 

Carnera wouldn't beat McCline or Grant.

 

You said,
"Bowe was the better fighter head to head, but Carnera was the better all-round technician.

Bowe was a very good infighter.

Carnera was good on the inside, good on the outside, and good anywhere between."


We dispute this.
And this byChoklab
"Carnera's reputation has been wrongly hurt by the imagination of writers who were never ringside for any of Carnera's fights. Those that actually covered the great fighter never questioned any legitimacy of his wins. His career should be re-evaluated fairly and his recognition as a great heavyweight should be restored,"


ps Paul Gallico saw lots of his fights and he certainly questioned the legitimacy of them!

 

To the point of being non-existant!

 

I d

I don't believe for a second you don't like exchanging insults. Your posts serve no point other than to agitate and extend this silly thread.

 

You are clutching at straws on two levels.

Firstly you are using a fight where Carnera was shot to demonstrate a shortcoming in his defence.

Secondly you are using a verbal description to make a point about a fighter that we have multiply high quality films of.

Forgive me if I find this argument very underwhelming.

 

Whereas you have offered up a myriad of well-argued and insightful analysis?

Whether you agree with the position argued by the pro Carnera crowd or not, we have put up a lot of evidence between us over three threads, and given a very detailed explanation of our position.

The problem seems to be that our opinion offends some people!

 

Strangely enough I'm not at all surprised by your reaction.