In defence of Jess Willard and Primo Carnera

Since the latter stages of the Lewis reign, as far as smaller heavies achieving anything, we have Chris Byrd. It seems for the past decade at least the modern super heavy has dominated. And in terms of the last two decades, this dominance is only slightly less obvious. Lastly, many of the heavies near the top of the division over last three decades were only a few inches shorter than Willard and Carnera and more well muscled than Willard.

It is obvious to the even the casual observer that the best of the heavies have gotten bigger over the decades.

All that said, I still think there is some room in the upper echelon of the division for a smaller heavy but not a lot, at least so long as skilled big men like Bowe, Lewis and Klits come around every half decade or so. Chambers, for instance, was very skilled and able to handle lesser giants. However, a timid but very skilled and gifted Wlad annihilated Chambers as he did Byrd.

 

Isnt the point though that Willard and Carnera annhilated there share of decent little men to?

And wouldnt nearly everyone expect Dempsey and Louis to do to the current crop of superheavys, the same thing they did to Carnera and Willard?

 

I am not convinced of the latter as I do not buy that Willard and Carnera were as talented or skilled as Bowe, Lewis or either Klit. In particular, I believe Dempsey has a very scant chance to topple any of the four I just named.

 

this is where a lot of the argument lies. i don't see louis butchering wlad the way he did carnera. win yes, knockout yes but not a one sided beating by any stretch. the case for dempsey replicating this feet against vitali is even weaker and i think KO 2 for dempsey is an incredibly unlikely scenario

 

fair point and i agree with pretty much all of that

 

Willard was far better than Carnera ... Willard had more skill, power, at least equal stamina and heart and took a much better punch ... Willard started extremely late and never had time to really become a fighter ... what he accomplished was tremendous all things considered .. that being said he never developed the skills to compete with the best of the super heavyweights .... if he was around today and was trained from the start after an amateur career by a Steward or a Roach he very well might be a champion ...

Carnera was a joke that became a halfway decent fighter predicated upon the match up ... he had an ok jab, he was very strong, he had good stamina , decent speed, good conditioning and an exceptional heart ,, however he was extremely easy to hit, had a shaky chin, little power ... he could jab and muscle decisions over a tiny Loughran and an old Uz but was spanked by Sharkey and embarrassed by a nearly amateurish Baer ...
He would be flattened by any of the top super heavyweights ...

 

I don't think either were great ,but both would do ok in today's heavyweight scene, imo .Carnera compares favourably with Valuev ,and Willard is an early Vitali,jab right hand, good chin,some may scoff but thats how I see it.

 

i've heard vitali compared to willard and fulton. i haven't seen enough footage to comment on the validity but from the sounds of it, vitali is a fair bit more technically sound and mobile than willard

 

Willard was a farmhand and Carnera was a strong man. That doesn't necessarily take away from boxing ability but it is a fact

Willard and Carnera weren't nearly as good as the SHW's that came after them. And no they Willard didn't have athleticism and Carnera was hardly quick, not nearly as athletic as subsequent SHWs. And no they wouldn't 'undoubtedly had success in today's division', especially Willard who started boxing at what age, 30? I'm not sure either are better than Jameel McCline or Mike Grant

 

Carnera and Willard were surely better than Dimitrenko.

 

vitali klitschko kickboxing etc etc