Legitimate champion or Oaf?

When a politician is accused of something specific, the public is often polled about that characterization.
I.e. "84% of Americans think that Trump is a misogynistic liar."

If there are a number of people echoing this ponderous oaf accusation, than polling the site to see how many share that view is extremely acceptable.

Machine has a bad sour grapes problem.
See my thread on stabilized footage from the Sharkey fight to see the overzealous bias in action. If the thread doesn't jive with his agenda, he will attack the poster with subterfuge.

 

Your two options are opposite ends of the same scale, no? The two extremes?

You mean one poster in another thread and a minority of posts, amongst the many that have been written.

No. It's about assigning legitimacy to Carnera, in favor of the only other option, which would indicate one thinking him a "fraudulent oaf". Those are the two options; the two extremes you propose.

It says that I question your definition of "legitimacy", in a Poll where the only other option means indicating a belief that Carnera was a "fraudulent oaf" and where you have seen fit to entwine "legitimacy" with other terms, such as "hoax" and "paid his dues at world level".

So what?

This is a self-fulfilling Poll, for you. Congratulations and good luck with it.

 

And having huge feet he used effectively to mash the best technical boxers feet.

 

You think that's bad watch Greb's shadow boxing clip. In true shadow boxing the fighter is supposed to visualize a fight and act accordingly.

 

mcvey,You described Carnera as," a great fighter"
Therefore if you were honest you would have made the title of this thread .
" Was Carnera A Great Fighter Yes Or No?".

This content is protected

Instead of which you posed a loaded exaggerated question that ensures you get the result you want.

This content is protected

 

Nobody with an 88-14 record is just some bum. Even if he'd beaten a string of losers, that would be a pretty good record, well above the average of your common boxer.

But he's got wins over guys like Sharkey, Loughran, Uzcudun, Schaaf and Neusel.

He's legit.

 

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken. Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".

 

mcvey, One of the finest technical boxers who was a lightheavyweight without a punch,conceding over 80lbs.Loughran's weapon was a left jab, at 73" he was conceding12 inches of reach to Carnera .
Shock result Carnera won!

This content is protected

T

This content is protected

The only surprise in this fight was that Carnera not only couldn't stop Loughran ,he couldn't even floor him or wobble him!

This content is protected

The other defence was against a man who had not been a ranked contender for 5 years! Let's give him 3 cheers !

This content is protected

One from each member of his fan club here!

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

mcvey If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken. Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".

This content is protected

 

The alternative was to create a good honest thread and poll. The results would have been perceived as legitimate and insight into exactly where Carnera stands would have prevailed.

 

I know you're not very bright but I should have thought even you could detect that the words," shock result ,"were sarcasm ,obviously I overestimated even your limited intellect!
You just reiterated what I said do you even realize that?

Loughran was not faster than Conn and film of them both will confirm it.
Louis did not have over 80lbs on Conn, and they were the same height with only3.5inches reach difference.
Conn had won his last 19 fights, 7 by stoppage he was bang in his prime.
Loughran had lost 5 of his last 12 fights and would lose his next 3.
How many people were in the audience for the two Carnera v Uzcudun fights is totally irrelevant to Uzcudun's standing as an unranked boxer challenging for a world title.
Uzcudun's prime ,such as it was, was in the 1920's, not the middle of the 1930's when he was 34,he would have 3 more fights after his title challenge win none of them and retire.
Jack Johnson has no relevance to this discussion , rather like yourself really.

 

You know what you did and so do we , so savour your pyrrhic victory.