Primo Carnera vs. Gerry Cooney

Well - yes - doing well in one's own era gets you into the conversation but not necessarily ahead of the next guy, even with similar numbers. There is the quality of the wins, manner of victory; the quality and manner of the losses to take into account - who was beaten, who was lost to - context of the bouts... ... ... But quality is as much if not more so driven by the action in the fights themselves, I think.

There's always something beyond the numbers; always at least a touch of subjectivity involved.

That said, I don't think one needs to get into deep detail and assessment to take a loose 'plan view' of the eras over time and gain a sense of where the quality was stacked - and, conversely, where it was not.

 

It is possible but only in the broadest of terms and I would be less inclined to look at the question of comparative eras through this lens. I am not discounting the factors you mention, the progress you are alluding to or that it might supplement other types of evidence in the wider sense. However, I think it is a study that would render a perspective some layers removed from the competition itself.

This I find problematic since I suspect the results of such an approach would be hard to align with specific cases of relative sporting successes/failures.

 

I have taken the liberty of numbering the points of your position, and I will allow myself a couple of observation.

1. I also make this assumption unless told otherwise. However if a fighters best performance is a single outlier, I treat that as a red flag, and if it is a losing effort then I see that as another red flag. So with two red flags I am already questioning whether this fight is a reliable indicator of Cooney's A game.
2. There I disagree. I am very wary of hanging too much expectation on a single very good performance, and I think I have explained why.
3. I think you know my position on this.
4. Even if we ignore my red flags, I don't this this is necessarily the case. Is a losing effort against Holmes really that more impressive than a demolition of Jack Sharkey, who himself might have given Holmes a good fight?
5. Carnera was by no means the only guy who got destroyed by Joe Louis. He also destroyed Max Baer, Max Schmeling, John Henry Lewis and Buddy Baer. Does that mean that none of those guys are any good?
6. Carnera undoubtedly changed his style between teh two Sharkey fights, and it is in this period that his ultimately successful assault on the title takes place. Coincidence? Probably not.
7. It is not so much that I assume equivalence between eras, as I don't feel comfortable assuming the superiority of one era over another. Therefore I compare them as if this equivalence was the case. For the record I am sure that there is a strong equivalence at the low to medium end of the spectrum. A guy who made a living losing in Carnera's era, woudl have fairly effortlessly settle into the same role in Cooney's era.

 

I see where you're coming from. Interesting stuff and there might be something to it. But what methods and measurements would be used for comparison? How granular would the research need to go? And, how many confounding variables would be introduced the further down the rabbit hole one journeyed?

Such a study would be a considerable undertaking. Only a fool or a hero would even attempt it.

 

Nothing controversial there. Clear differences exist and these would have their respective influences on the eras in question.
I do wonder though, about that point at which 'progress' becomes illusory and masks a regressive impact on a thing.

Is there an optimum point of evolution? If so what is optimal? When does something which on its face seems positive stop being so and begin working against progress?

For example - What is the efficacy and safety level of medicine in general? How many people does it take to be in the pool before talent gets missed in the crowd? When does balanced professionalization morph into sheer commercialization?

These are all rhetorical questions in the realm of Devil's Advocacy.

I haven't read the Arc of Boxing. But it has been nagging at me to do so. I might just have to deal with that itch.

 

Cooney would destroy Carnera, that left hook to the body would end it early, it would be like Cooney vs Eddie Gregg.

 

Your red flags are your business. I do not recognize them for reasons already given. And, quite frankly, I find it ridiculous that you even bring them into a 'fantasy' matchup, the speculation for which is conditional on the best versions of fighters in question showing up. You've made this a bit of a nonsense for pages now and I can't be bothered to keep addressing something so irrelevant to a very simple question posed by the OP..


On points 4 to 7:
Sharkey was a wreck of a paper champion and still beating Carnera before the forearm smash seemingly ended the affair.

Carnera was beaten by a developing Louis; not the finished article. And, Louis didn't even shift out of second gear - it was that easy.
You are aware and appreciate the condition of Baer going into his bout with Louis, aren't you?

Schmeling beat the version of Louis who casually swept Carnera away. Not only was Louis the finished and practiced article by the time of his rematch with Schmeling, in '38, but the latter was well past his best. Louis destroying his opponents any time during '38 to '42 is really no surprise. This was likely Louis' peak.

A change of style does not automatically translate as improvement and Carnera's defense remained next to non-existent throughout his career - but, in any event, I didn't say he had not improved - just not greatly.

Cooney and Holmes fought at a superior level than did Sharkey and Carnera. That's my opinion and the evidence is on film. People can disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I'd bet big on the best version of Cooney to beat the best version of Carnera (whatever that was) quite handily.

 

Track guys don't generally get the money to go soft. Bolt, who did get decent money, retired at 31 but wasn't going to sniff his WR's again. He could have probably been internationally competitive for at lest 5 more years but part of him really wanted away from the grind.

 

Not really. They're both assassins. But in track, there is no hiding a lack of athleticism behind skill. It is almost pure athleticism., maybe the throws have more than a sliver of technique involved. Mentality wise, very much the same.

 

Firstly, getting punched in the face is a skill all its own. I know two dudes who started in boxing and found out they were good runners through roadwork and switched to become more successful runners. They preferred a good mile race to getting punched in the face. And one of these dudes made it to GG nationals. It's a special breed that can walk through that kind of fire, be willing to pay the price to get the prize. If you lose a race, there's another meet the following week. You recover in 24-48 hours at most. You lose a hard bout, that can take months.

And just from a physical talent perspective, transferring power through your legs with great consistency and stamina does not equate to throwing punches with great power, consistency and stamina through your fists. And certainly, sprinting in a straight line does not equate to the lateral liquidity and instincts needed for good defense.

But most of it is getting punched in the face.

 

I can tell you one thing about high jumpers — since the late 1960s, the top ones are all floppers.

You flop in a track meet, I say you’d flop in the boxing ring.

They’d all be opponents, every last one of them. Flopping all over the place.

Fosbury ruined the lot of them.