PRIME CARNERA V PRIME BRUNO?

If Carnera was anything special they would not have steered him to Loughran a 32 years old light heavy who couldn't punch and a 35 years old mauler who hadn't been ranked for 5 years!

 

Hang on a minute.

Loughran was the #2 heavyweight contender, so not much to criticise there.

Let’s say that Uzcdun was a stay busy fight, against a name fighter.

Then he gives his most dangerous available challenger Max Baer a title shot.

This is not a champion who is afraid to take on the best challengers!

The next time we have an active lineal heavyweight champion, you had better hope that they have a similar ethic!

 

Lets just say Uzcudun was a flat out duck of Max Baer and be done with it.Just as Frazier fighting Stander and Daniels were.

 

He fought Max Baer.

I don't think that we can tar and feather him, for taking an easy fight (if you can call it that) between the #2 contender, and the #1 contender.

I wish to god that most modern champions had a similar ethic!

 

No. You are using the terms "world level" and "world class", as if they describe a quantifiable constant. The "known variable" as you refer to it, is not, by definition, a constant. As you suggest, it only indicates performance relative to their respective eras.

This makes for no more a reliable basis of comparison than assessments based on reviewing film and historical literature (books/reports/interviews etc) on individual performances. The challenge remains, in that the strength of the given eras must be considered.

Additionally, whilst the '80s have been referred to as being a weak era for Heavyweights, you should not forget that the very era in which Primo operated, is classed as perhaps even weaker. So, yes, I would feel most confident in speculating that the '80s was stronger than the post-Tunney/Pre-Louis timeframe.

Just for example sake, let's take a look at the Ring's Annual Ratings, for the years just prior to when both Carnera and Witherspoon picked up their respective Championship wins.

1932 Annual Ring Ratings:

Champ: Jack Sharkey
1. Max Schmeling
2. Max Baer
3. Stanley Poreda
4. Primo Carnera
5. Ernie Schaaf
6. Johnny Risko
7. King Levinsky
8. Walter Neusel
9. Larry Gains
10. Unknown Winston


1985 Annual Ring Ratings:

Champ: Michael Spinks
1. Pinklon Thomas
2. Larry Holmes
3. Tim Witherspoon
4. Tony Tubbs
5. Greg Page
6. Gerrie Coetzee
7. Trevor Berbick
8. Carl Williams
9. Mike Weaver
10. Michael Dokes

When I look at the prospective head-to-head matches between the '32 and '86 top-rated Heavyweights, I don't see it ending too well for the former group. I'd only give a few of the '32 listing, if that, a chance at competing successfully against the '86 guys.

Incidentally, the Heavyweights of '32, to whom I'd give a small chance, are those that either beat Carnera or were never matched with him.

This is an immaterial matter of semantics. It is the furthest thing from "absolutely crucial" I can imagine and something on which I have nothing else left to comment, save that both 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' can later turn out to be incorrect. Move on...

This is utter nonsense on several fronts. You may have not watched the Witherspoon/Bruno bout in a while, if at all. I would urge you to watch/re-watch the fight, since your description of it is not what actually happened.

As has been pointed out in prior posts, when you look at his recorded weigh-ins, across his career, Witherspoon was not comparatively overweight. He did not look fat or bloated on fight night. The fight was not lackluster.

Despite Witherspoon's own account, you're effectively calling him a liar with mental issues. You're also implying that in 1986, at 28 years old, Witherspoon was past peak and in "decline'.

You originally stated:

This content is protected

This makes no sense, given that Witherspoon had won the title, earlier on in the same year he matched Bruno. Based on your remark, above, you must have considered Witherspoon as having gone into decline, quite some time before meeting Bruno.

When, in your opinion, do you think Witherspoon was on the slide?

Was it around the time of the Holmes bout, three years earlier? Or, perhaps you felt his close decision loss to Thomas marked the moment?

Or, was it indeed perfectly timed for your argument - just after he lifted the title from Tubbs, in 1986; the bout before the Bruno fight?


I think you very obviously have little to no clue about the history of Witherspoon; his fight with Bruno, the Smith fight and his issues with King.

Witherspoon, in terms of his ability and skillset, was on a very much higher level than Carnera. That Bruno was able to take it to Spoon, in such a hard fight, gives me confidence in speculating that Bruno would knock seven shades out of Carnera.

 

He fought him after two gimmes.

 

Bruno was outjabbing Lennox Lewis until he got caught with a big left.Carnera did not have that power, therefore I don't see what he brings to the table to win this fight.

 

Another thing is that Primo would not be able to maul Bruno, as he mauled little Loughran. Bruno was as strong as an ox and would have probably been the best 224lb+ fighter that Carnera had ever fought.

 

I agree, the 1930's was the weakest decade for heavyweight talent. However one of the reasons the 30's crew does not match up well with the 80's crew is they lack size, which was never a problem for Carrera.

I'm picking Bruno, but think an upset can happen. Frank was a little stiff, nervous, and did not have the best chin or stamina. If the Max Baer fight with Carrera showed us anything, its he gets up from hard shots and does not quit.

Such a man is hard to beat.

 

Loughran was the #2 contender, so it is a bit of a stretch to say that he was steered.

How many heavyweight title fights have we seen involving a top two contender in the past decade?

A #2 contender is not a gimme.

 

Performance relative to era is the only known variable.

If you say that Bruno accomplished more than Carnera relative to his era, then I can call you out on it pretty conclusively.

If you say that Bruno would beat Carnera, then I can never definitely prove you wrong.

The fact that we have both come to the opposite conclusion, and neither of us can ever be proven wrong, underlines the weakness of head to head ranking.

When you are matching fighters head to head, you can basically make up any drivel your ego desires, but when you compare accomplishments there are checks and balances.

I am going to be brutally honest here.

The 30s come out of this comparison better.

Having spinks as the champion is not a great start.

The 80s never produced a standout contender like Schmeling or Baer, the only person coming close is Witherspoon.

Even guys like Risko and Schaff arguably had a better body of work than most of the 80s belt swappers.

 

It was actually the first fight that I ever watched.

Your interpretation of the fight is not how it was seen at the time.

That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it has to be acknowledged.

You are actually doing a lot of the things that you accuse me of doing with Carnera with Bruno here.

You are building him into something that he was not seen as at the time, and you are interpreting his fight with Witherspoon differently from how it was perceived at the time.

Again these are not necessarily bad things, but they have to be acknowledged.

 

You make a good point about the overall size of the 80s Heavyweights in comparison to those of the 30s - and then there being Carnera's super-size.

And, while a man of Carnera's size might seem hard to beat because he keeps getting up, it doesn't change the fact that he was relatively easy to shift to the canvas anyway and was indeed beaten by guys weighing as little as 195lbs and none greater than 210lbs. Max Baer was probably the largest of those victors and let's not forget that Max didn't really go for the kill against Primo. Taking breaks, only to have Carnera in trouble, at will.

All those, from the 1986 Ring ratings, but Spinks, exceed that upper threshold and are skilled enough to beat Carnera.

That's just how I see it.

Bruno was up there, in terms of size and strength; not too far off in skill, either. By the end of 1986, he was Ring rated and I think he too would have too much for Carnera.

 

Agreed.