Primo Carnera vs. Gerry Cooney

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.

 

Hm...Interesting. I guess you could answer some of these questions by analogy to other, measurable sports: Do we see regression for the reasons you list in those other sports? If not, you'd probably need a way to distinguish boxing for your devil's advocate argument.

I do think boxing is one of those weird sports that needs a certain mentality; certain types of people. "Good at hurting others" is a broader-but-different sort profile than, say, "over 7 feet tall and coordinated enough for basketball."

I haven't checked, but I doubt that shot-put or high jump coaches worry about their athletes "going soft" in the lap of luxury like Dempsey did. @Seamus has some track and field experience. Maybe he'd know.

 

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.

 

Is there much of a psychological difference between top/successful track competitors and top boxers that you noticed?

 

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.

 

Stupid question, basically the reverse of the "All the best American boxers are playing football" trope:

Why don't more of these psychologically durable, athletic track people go into boxing, since the monetary rewards are greater and the standard of athleticism is lower?

 

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.