Primo Carnera or Jess Willard?

I've already made it.

When did I state that "Willard was technically superior to Carnera"?

Here's a clue: I didn't.

You see, this is the problem with you members of the 'Carnera fan club'. You're so wrapped up in the mythology you've created about him, that in defense of your man, you forget yourself and introduce language to the discussion, you can't possibly justify, once reality dawns for you again.

It was you, who claimed Carnera was the "better technician". Now DEMONSTRATE!

 

I never expected to have to demonstrate it, but OK.

Here is Jess Willard against Frank Moran, and I don't think there is that much finesse to his style. He depends primarily upon his height and reach advantage to avoid getting hit. His left hand is his main weapon, and he switches to the uppercut when his opponent is in close. His style is simple and effective, but I doubt that you would call it technically brilliant.

This content is protected

Carnera for contrast makes much better use of combinations, punch variety, and employs feints. He controls range better, is a lot less predictable, and just has more layers to his game generally. If Willard had only had Carnera's power and chin, I doubt that he would have been champion.

This content is protected

Yes I acknowledge that I am comparing them based on a limited selection of footage, and that the available film is less likely to do justice to Willard, but you should be able to see why I consider Carnera to be better from a technical standpoint.

 

@BitPlayerVesti - Not entirely sure what your point in quoting two of my previous posts is.

 

YOU suggested pulling up some videos...

I didn't even hint at Willard being "technically brilliant".

I look forward to seeing the Primo video you select to support your opinion.

I doubt that, if not for Carnera's size and handlers, he would have become champion, either.

In the spirit of fairness, try and find footage of a Carnera fight, for which the result wasn't already bought and paid for.

 

Has to be Carnera.

Carnera actually had some technique, and some basic fundamentals. Willard probably somewhat more on the game side but Carnera is going to hit him more often and Willard's mauling clinch game will backfire.

 

Methodical = High praise for Willard.

 

Maybe - from those two clips alone, you could make the case for Carnera but, then again, why would you, on such slim evidence? I'm not sure how far this type of 'compare and contrast', from snippets of fights, can take a claim, one way or another.

Not that I thought Carnera looked particularly good against Sharkey (II), but he showed nothing like that form against Baer or Campollo (II) or Ray Impelletiere, in my opinion. Much worse.


Willard, to my mind, from what I can gather, seemed to be consistently straightforward, with not only the power but the composure to either deter and/or finish his opponent in quite basic ways. I'm not sure if he was ever put into a panic or a fluster, until he encountered Dempsey. He might have been, but I don't know.

I couldn't say the same about Carnera, who seemed uncoordinated, at times, and particularly when under attack - his size, conditioning and pretty good chin, keeping him afloat.

In any event, I still wouldn't use the term "technician" (to describe either of them).

 

I did not say that you did.

I feel that I provided two videos that allowed you to compare and contrast their technical attributes.

I think that I was pretty fair in my choice of videos, given the points in their respective careers.

I also think that Carnera demonstrates a lot more layers to his game, in the video that I provided of him.

Now there I would have to disagree.

He might not have penetrated the American market, or got Abe Attell as a trainer, if not for his backers, but he was still the one in the ring.

There is no evidence for his fights being bought and paid for, except a couple against minor opponents, early in his career.

Similar accusations can be leveled at most fighters of that era.

The Sharkey fight was almost certainly on the level, as were the key fights that established him as a title contender.

I find it somewhat ironic that he get's more criticism in this regard than other fighters of the era.

Max Schmeling won the title on a low blow.

Jack Sharkey won the title on a robbery.

Carnera won it on a pretty unambiguous KO

 

I think that what limited evidence we can throw together, will show the same pattern.

Carnera the better boxer, but Willard obviously the much harder hitter, and more durable.

He was fighting for the tile.

I agree with this.

 

There's a truckload - and you know it, with the countless times this debate has rolled around.

Not sure why this^ is relevant. Most fighters of the era weren't directly owned by mobsters and promoted to the hilt.

There's enough of a taint for doubt.

Unambiguous?

That's the last thing I'd call the result of that fight.

 

Very little that would stand up to scrutiny, and then are we going to look into the allegations against Baer and Braddock?

It would be hard to find a fighter from that era, who was not connected to the mob on some level.

Joe Louis was essentially a mob controlled fighter.

If I say that you stole the cookies from the jar, the onus is on me to prove that you did it, not on you to prove that you didn't!

 

More and better quality film is available of Carnera and this immediately puts Willard at a disadvantage. But, either way, I have never been convinced by 5-to-15-second moments of action, used to show what some might perceive as 'skill', which we then don't see repeated in any other of the boxer's footage.

Also - snippets of action don't really speak to overall effectiveness of a boxer's performance.

He was fighting for (defending) the Title against Baer.

And did he, from then on, fight with no desire to reclaim it?

Are you excluding any footage taken after his first title fight then?

Then it depends on what you consider to be 'competency', as well as how you interpret the action you observe.

 

I agree, but we have to work with what we have got, and the rest tells the same story.

No, but it sometimes pays to look at the fighters big moment.

Yes, but he was fighting a much more dangerous opponent.

The version of Baer that challenged him for the title, would have slaughtered the version of Sharkey that he defended against.

Only fair to point out that he did well enough against Loughran.

He got some good results after he lost the tile, when I can't imagine that his mob backers saw him as a huge prospect.

The Impelletiere fight was supposed to be an eliminator.

Walter Neusel was a significant contender of the era.

Gastanaga was being hyped as an up and coming man when Carnera beat him.

 

He already showed you the one - Sharkey II wasn't a fix.