Poll: How good was Primo Carnera?

Seems as though we need another Carnera poll

 

Primo beat a Schaaf that should not have been in the ring a Schaaf who went down and out from a left jab!
I've told you this before but it obviously did not sink in,.It's when you beat them that matters!

 

Primo beat a Schaaf that should not have been in the ring a Schaaf who went down and out from a left jab!

 

Primo beat a Schaaf that should not have been in the ring a Schaaf who went down and out from a left jab!

 

Schaaf fought very well in the film of that fight right up until that tragic moment. Any viewing of that film confirms it.

 

I have a lot of sympathy with this view, but we still have to deal with what happened.

Schaff did not win the eliminator against Carnera, and he did not go on to win the title.

The best you can say for him is that he might have had the potential to be as good as Carnera.

 

Yeah getting kod by a left jab shows he was on top form and in great shape.

 

How much sympathy have you got for my view that Johnny Risko has a better resume that Carnera? Surpassing him in terms of depth of opposition? Risko won 13 fights against ranked top ten contenders!
Including
Sharkey no4
Baer no 10
Loughran x2 no2
Levinsky x3 nos,3,7,4
Delaney no 7
Godfrey no 2
Campolo no 10
Uzcudun no 6
Von Porat no6
He also beat men either ranked before or after.
Galento
Walker
Heeney
Schaaf
Scott
Rojas
Griffiths
Berlenbach Champ at LHVY
Maloneyx3
And he beat better versions of them than Carnera did .
Tell me that isn't a better resume in terms of depth of opposition.

 

This is quite funny really. Schaaf had wins over:
Loughran x2
Risko
Campolo
Braddock
Renault
Baer
Uzcudun
Stribling
Griffiths
Maloneyx2
There's a solid case for saying his resume is better than Carneras !

 

but Risko lost far too many fights between all of these solid wins.

 

Risko's resume has some underrated traits, but he seems to have got the key wins by racking up the losses with equal abandon.

He was the betting favourite to succeed Tunney as champion, until Schmeling battered him in the opening round of the scramble for the crown.

He seems to have been in contention for a relatively short window.

Close, but no cigar.

 

More a case for saying that it was equal or better going into their fateful fight.

Perhaps there is a parallel universe where Schaff was not ill, beat Carnera, went on to beat Sharkey, and later lost the title to Baer.

This is all Ibeabuchi theory though!

 

That has nothing to do with his depth of wins over quality opposition ,which was Janitor's criteria. I say Risko has better wins and his resume supports my view.

 

No it isn't, Ibeabuchi does not have the resume Schaaf had.

 

Now you are changing the gaol posts.
You laid out 3 reasons why Carnera was the standout.
A. He won the lineal title which none of them did.
B. He established himself as the outstanding contender which none of them did.
C. He surpasses all of them in terms of depth of opposition.
I blew a hole in each of them.
A. Risko never got a chance at the title though he beat both Baer and Sharkey, who beat Carnera, and he ko'd Maloney twice who split a pair with Carnera, beat a better version of Loughran twice,beat a better version ,[a rated version] of Uzcudun twice,beat a healthy Schaaf.
B.Carnerawas never the standout challenger, in fact he was never better than number 4!..
C.He clearly does not have the resume in terms of depth of opposition that Risko had ie 13 wins over ranked opposition!
There is no way of avoiding this fact.