Langford vs Carnera

It makes sense, and its a realistic supposition I just dont see that Langford as being this huge favorite over a guy who while moderately skilled was still more skilled than some of the fighters who beat Langford (even in his prime) and also had an 11 inch height advantage, and 11 inch reach advantage, and a 70 to 80 pound pull in weight. I think sometimes Langford's achievements get a bit magnified. Like I said, the vast majority of HWs he had success against were not that big and outside of weight didnt have significant advantages over him. Those that did have significant advantages over were able to find some success against him, even moderately skilled fighters like Tate who somehow found a way to a lose to light heavyweight Kid Norfolk who in a one sided decision and Norfolk was never more than a poor mans Langford. Tate certainly looks a lot worse than Carnera on film, timidly stalling, holding back, and clinching to avoid punishment from Norfolk. I dont know, I guess it comes down to how highly you rate Langford;s achievements at HW and how low you rate Carnera.

 

I hear your points. It might be quite the achievement to hang with and even have some successes against much larger opposition - which shouldn’t be confused with actually dominating them on a consistent basis. Spot on to say it boils down to how highly you rate each guy and their achievements. No pun intended but just on sheer size alone Primo would be quite the tall order for Sam and from that substantial, advantage platform, Carnera doesn’t have to be a world beater to be too much for Sam when all attributes (physical and skill) are factored in

 

More fixed fights.