Jess Willard vs Primo Carnera

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Guyfawkes, Oct 14, 2011.


  1. Guyfawkes

    Guyfawkes Than who was phone?! Full Member

    1,446
    8
    Jul 18, 2011
    Both in their primes. Which Goliath takes it?
     
  2. Hydraulix

    Hydraulix Left Hook From Hell.. Full Member

    1,767
    23
    Oct 4, 2008
    Jess Willard wins this.
     
  3. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,898
    5,255
    Aug 19, 2010
    Carnera was more mobile....he out boxes Jess...
     
  4. Vince Voltage

    Vince Voltage Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,077
    1,301
    Jan 1, 2011
    I pick Carnera, as I feel he fought within the modern style, or at least his attempt at that style. In the footage of Willard I've seen, he is fighting old school, hands down, lots of lunging, mauling, etc.. To me that old-fashioned stuff wouldn't hold up well, even against a Carnera.
     
  5. 1899sharkey

    1899sharkey Boxings golden age Full Member

    198
    0
    Mar 1, 2011
    I'll take Jess. Imo he had better power, stamina, and was at least as strong as Primo. Da' Preem was more agile and mobile but I think Jess wins a good fight.
     
  6. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    Carnera in a modern match-up, Jess Willard in a 20+ round or fight to the finish bout. In his own time, Willard was only willing to fight the big Fred Fulton in a 20+ round bout or a 10 round no decision match, acknowledging that among his strengths was not outpointing a foe over a short distance.
     
  7. 1899sharkey

    1899sharkey Boxings golden age Full Member

    198
    0
    Mar 1, 2011
    Do you think both men are generally underated?
     
  8. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    By those who think they were mere circus acts with no ability whatsoever.

    They were still the best two big men until the likes of Lewis, Bowe and the Klitschko brothers came along, even if it doesn't count for much. Willard and Carnera laid down the blueprint on how to fight effectively as a super heavyweight which was to control fights with the jab, use their greater strength and size to tie up and tire out smaller opponents and use their height and reach for defensive purposes.

    As for rating them with Lewis, Bowe or the Klitschko brothers, I would not necessarily do that. Willard and Carnera did have their short-comings which prevented them from being truly dominant.
     
  9. HandsomeMan

    HandsomeMan Guest

    Yeah old school guys held their hands down...because they sucked so much that they didn't know how to hold their hands up.
     
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    I have always found that argument a little silly.

    Some people genuinely seem to think that fighters just held their hands low and got hit in the face for decades, then one day somebody had a brainwave and held their hands a bit higher and people have been doing it ever since.

    I find this profoundly implausible.
     
  11. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    I dont know though Janitor. I cant find the link right now, but i read a very interesting article written by Larry Foley (oor it might have been quoting Larry) where he said exactly that.

    He was lamenting the fact that modern fighters seem to have no answer to the left jab and their only answer is to stop it with their face. He was considering modern (ie early 1900s) defences as being absolutely non existant amongst most of the top fighters. So, to be fair, it was being said about the old timers having guards too low, and being too easy to hit, even back them. Only it wasnt that they didnt know how to, more that they forgot or neglected to.
     
  12. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    Hard to say.

    There are some boxing manuals written around 1900, that are actualy still in widespread use. The only respect in which I can see that they differ from amodern manual, is in that they recommend a lower guard to protect against body punches.

    It is also striking that many old time fighters who use a lower guard, adopt a higher guard when theyt go into a crouch.

    Folley was indeed critical of the technique of many of the fighters who came after him, including Jack Johnson.
     
  13. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    Yeah, it is also amazing how many succesful modern boxers actually use a low guard. Vitali is the latest but certainly not the only one. In fact, i only just a minute a go finished watching Mayweather Gatti, and Gatte refused to keep his left hand high, despite Mayweather landing regularly and with power. Presumably the thinking is that the low guard makes it easy to throw a stronger left hand.

    That is the only reasoning i can think of (other than laziness or tiredness) because a high guard to me seems to protect the body as well as the low guard.
     
  14. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    157
    Mar 4, 2009
    Gatti was a prime example of a boxer who should have kept his hands up at all times. You can get away with a low guard if you have the defensive instincts. Gatti certainly did not.
     
  15. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    Bravo J- if an "oldtime" fighter had a fly on his nose,wouldn't he figure out a way to raise his hand and swat it off his nose ? Of course. Same with some of the fighters of yesterday who figured that holding their hands lower was more comfortable for them,after trying out raising there hands higher by their face. And yes there were fighters who DID hold their hands higher...We after all do what's BEST for us...:good