Primo Carnera TKO 9 Ray Impelletiere 1935

I dislike Fury, but there is nothing oafish about him ,he is a very mobile, fast for his size boxer who understands distance and range very well , throws a good variety of punches and is pretty accurate with them. He can also fight effectively out of both orthodox and southpaw stances.Pressure him and attempt to close the distance and he is gone , he moves equally well clockwise and anti clockwise and utilises the geography of the ring in a way Carnera could never have dreamed of.
Vitali too, knew just when to punch and how to keep his opponents at the optimum distance for his punches to connect without shipping return fire. He always punched long because he wanted his man where he could connect without being hit himself ,excellent chin and very good power,and unlike his brother ,he did not panic under sustained pressure Vitali could afford to keep his hands low because he was almost always out of range of incoming shots.

Carnera was a sucker for a right hand even a telegraphed one like Baer's,and had no clue what to do when under fire.


Tyson and Vitali are exact polar opposites ,to bracket them together shows a marked lack of boxing acumen and a very poor understanding of what they actually did in the ring.
Both would beat Carnera .Vitali would brutalize him ,Fury would humiliate him .

 

Did you ever think that they approach the argument that way to compensate extremist opinions? Hoping to meet somewhere in the middle. You and many others were given a perfect opportunity to point out the technical flaws that Carnera made, which are painfully obvious on film. The only problem is you didn't and even more shockingly where given evidence of Lewis and Vitali making similar technical flaws, albeit not quite as bad even 70s on from Carnera's era and for some reason wanted to ignore that. No one is saying he's an ATG, but some people are genuinely saying and believing that he was garbage, which just isn't true.

Rather than rant about this, mainly to save myself a lot of time and effort, I'll try and make a few people here see the light... People that are better posters than me but don't seem to understand their own negligence sometimes, people that are starting to 'segregate' posters by putting them into 'groups' and this isn't specifically aimed at just you Russell, because quite frankly everyone on here has very childish tendencies that they seem to be blind to, I'm sure I'm no different, but right now I'm finding it hard to understand why I didn't see that before, which is a shame, because I owe you guys and this forum the world for helping shape and form my views through second opinions, now I'm at a stage and level of knowledge where I'm more than happy to form my own views, but without you guys, there isn't that level of knowledge in the first place.

To summarise what my eyes have seen, reading between the lines On one hand you have 'Carnera was a good fighter' oh really, well he doesn't look that good on film, displays many technical faults, seems to have been well managed towards a title shot and has shady connections and has had some dubious fights that may well have been fixed and fought in a weak era

On the flip side. 'Carnera wasn't a very good fighter' or 'a terrible fighter' going along the more extremist approach, I won't even list reasons why this is wrong in all kinds of way, I'll just leave you with a statement. Tough titties, he won the undisputed heavyweight title, something only a handful of fighters can lay claim to.

So which is it? Well in truth it's clearly a mixture of all of these things and why you guys are continuing to ponder on this I have no idea, let's drop it and move on. There's a million other fighters we could be arguing about right now, yet here we are going in circles... again.

There's always a but and quite frankly, one thing we can all agree on is that Carnera's butt is one of the ugliest we've laid eyes upon.

Ps sorry if my perspective and views have hurt or enraged any of you guys, then I'm truly sorry, from the bottom of my heart I secretly love you all even if we disagree sometimes, especially you @Boxed Ears xxx

 

This tactic just really was not tolerated as the exclusive work of a top boxer by fans and officials back in the day. A fighter was expected to step in and punish a guy at some point.

There was a good heavyweight fighter called Paul Cavalierre who had a stunning record of over a hundred or so wins, (117-2-1) he supposedly beat up Tunney in sparring, he beat Galento and Braddock too. He just never registered as a contender because he was seen simply as a “boxer” and mustn’t have drew flies at the box office.

 

United we stand with fire we fall!

 

Maybe Jones might make it into the top ten rankings today. But why should this make you belong into the category as both Klitschkos, Bowe or Fury?
Even picking up the lineal title like both Spinks did vs. two ATG legends won´t make you compulsory a H2H-phenomenon.
This conclusion is just far aside from any range of possible logic comparisons. I really don´t know for what reason I have to explain a knowing boxing historican like you the difference bewteen beating ATG Holyfield twice, reigning for a long time as the Klitschkos or ending that reign undefeatet (like Fury) and fighters who didn´t achieve 20% of that (Jones, Simon or Carnera)

Carnera lost SIX TIMES against men nobody even knows on this board before getting the title from Sharkey.
Simon lost SEVEN TIMES before fighting for the title against random fighters.
Jones beat Weaver, lost to Holmes, career over.

For what reason am I wasting my time here?

 

I'm referring to fights fixed in your favour, given we are talking about Carnera I shouldn't have thought it was necessary to explain further.Anyone ever accuse Primo of laying down for somebody? Anyone ever accuse Godfrey of being the beneficiary of a tanked fight?
The Louis vCarnera fight was politicised, fair enough but that was 1935 years after Carnera's rise to contendership!

 

Cavaliere ,correct spelling,was pretty colourless ,clever but no crowd pleaser.


Vitali punished all his opponents ,that's why he has such a great stoppage record!

 

Primo also had a very public affair with Damon Runyans much younger wife which outraged Runyons friends in the press and no doubt humiliated Damon.

Unsurprisingly It was Runyon who coined some of Primos less flattering nicknames. He started the ball rolling with the ridiculing of Carnera.

 

Carnera does seem to have had a following with the Italian American community, but he was regarded with suspicion by the press and public as a whole.

What separated him from Schmeling, was that he openly identified himself with the Fascist regime in Italy, and acted as a poster boy for it, while Schmeling distanced himself from the regime in Berlin.

It is not hard to see why the American press were uncomfortable with such a man as champion.

It also probably helped that Schmeling was handsome and articulate, and spoke fluent English.

 

I wouldn't say Schmeling's English was fluent.

 

It was a lot better than my German.

 

He would have hung in this thread without any problems.

 

Sure, making no sense and babbling incoherently would see him fitting right in with some of the statements I see on these boards.

 

Carnera lost SIX TIMES against men nobody even knows on this board before getting the title from Sharkey.
Carnera lost SIX TIMES against men nobody even knows on this board before getting the title from Sharkey.
Carnera lost SIX TIMES against men nobody even knows on this board before getting the title from Sharkey.

What is this??? Fury is 25 - 0 PLUS Klitschko > Sharkey in every way you want to turn it!

 

Are you sure your okay little buddy?