Bigger Puncher , Better Fighter ... Shannon Briggs or Primo Carnera ?

Doesn't make Carnera the better fighter, though.

 

I don't know, they created a lot of new divisions for no reason (other than marketing new fake champions).

Sorry but I see this as double standards.

I suggest you to look at his career again then, almost half of his fights were against top contenders.

I agree, I'm just pointing out that Briggs would be nothing special in 1930s.

Briggs never beat anyone good who he outweighed either. I mean, Carnera wasn't special but his resume is far better than Briggs.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

You can watch this fight, the fight was close before low blow. Godfrey definitely didn't school Carnera.

 

Where's the comparison, for it to be anything like a double-standard?

The period in question covers a shorter timeframe; a more frequent passing of the Championship, among more fighters; is not impacted by a split of the Championship; includes significantly less combined defenses.

Sharkey beat a few rated fighters and lost all but one of his biggest fights - the one he did win was gifted to him (Oh yeah - and he beat Carnera once, too).

And he wouldn't have to be, in order to be better than Carnera. He'd just need bigger backers and better fixers.

I'm not concerned with Carnera's resume.

 

Surely it has to count for something?

 

OK - fairly even - Although, I'd say Godfrey had had the better, up until the DQ.

There was certainly some schooling going on there, though. It was very good of Carnera to demonstrate mistiming of the jab to perfection; zero defense and how to make the taking of overhand rights and short lefts look easy; hitting and holding, too - not to mention, of course, acting.

 

All ledgers count for something but, just how reliable is Carnera's, anyway?

Either way, in a direct comparison between two fighters, from quite distant eras, I'd much rather assess on what I can see. Like some fantasy Head-to-Head match-ups, I suspect, the boxer with an average resume might sometimes be apt for the beating of an opponent, who has accumulated a better record.

Moreover, I can't see Carnera having achieved anything like the success his '20s/'30s resume denotes, in the '90s.

 

It looks pretty even to me but Godfrey is just boring in and smothering his own work.Carnera was hitting and holding the entire fight and he threw a few right hands south of the border,From the way Carnera reacted to that low shot I would not be at all surprised if this wasnt a fake.

 

Leon See did say the Godfrey fight was on the level, and Godfrey had a history of fouling out when the fight wasn't going his way.

 

Briggs and Briggs

 

A few? Here are all fighters (and results) 1924-32 Sharkey fought that were ranked:

Johnson - 1 win
Rojas - ko loss
Maloney 4x - decision loss, 3 wins
Weinert 2x - decision losses
Renault - 1 win
Gorman - 1 win
Godfrey - 1 win
Wills - 1 win
Dempsey - ko loss
Heeney - Draw
Risko 2x - 1 win, decision loss
Delaney - 1 win
Stribling - 1 win
Loughran - 1 win
Scott - 1 win
Schmeling 2x - 1 win, dq
Walker - draw
Carnera - 1 win

That's the record of 15-7-2. It's very good record against top competition. I agree that Schmeling should have won their rematch, but other than that which most important fights did he lose? Disputed KO against Dempsey? What else? I hope you're not judging him by Louis fight...

But you said that Briggs would have looked better in 1930s, which I don't see happening. Carnera won all of his most important wins fair and square.

Well, I'm not concerned with Briggs's lack of resume either.

 

I think that we're watching different fights. Godfrey started better but he seems to be gassed and I don't see any acting here, George went low here.

 

You're the biggest Carnera hater on this forum, so your takes are not surprising for me.

 

Without gift decision over 50 years old Foreman, Briggs wouldn't have any success in his own era.

 

Yes.