Primo Carnera vs the contenders

Let's say all of Primos best opponents were not ranked (even Laughran, Levinsky, Schaaf who were) does it prevent Primo from being a real boxer? Because I think that's what @mcvey and his team are trying to prove. They are still trying to prove that Primo couldn't win fights on the level. That back when there was just one title there was no more than ten world class fighters. That because the contenders had to fight each other just to stay in the top ten once they were out of it they could no longer win fights against a fraudulent oaf...who wasn't a real boxer, who could not win any fights on the level even though he did, even though he knocked out a world champion.

 

I've never said,implied , or hinted that Carnera wasn't a real boxer, that he was a fraudulent oaf ,these are your words and yours alone. He held a professional licence to show that he was.You're the fraud here.

 

I'v e never said,implied , or hinted that Carnera wasn't a real boxer, that he was a fraudulent oaf these are your words and yours alone he held a professional licence to show that he was.You're the fraud here and a very obvious one.

 

So you are now saying his fights at contender and championship level were all on the level?

 

No I'm not, Im saying, Ive never called him a fraudulent oaf and neither has anyone else ,you are the only one to have typed those words..

 

It would have been good to see primo in there with schmeling, that would he have shown us a bit more of primo. That would have been a true test imo

 

I think Joe Louis is the greatest test of them all. Primo fared as well against Louis as any of the post title 1930s champions Joe Louis also knocked out. Louis knocked out Sharkey in about half the time he knocked out Primo. Carnera lasted two more rounds longer than Max Baer did too.

 

That's true but it is a pity they didn't meet. Would have been good to see sharkey and baer face off to. Similar in a way to Norton never fighting frazier or holmes and foreman. Same era but never actually sharing a ring.

 

I don't have any team, I don't need one to expose your facile manipulating
Don't try and explain my thought processes ,you haven't the equipment for it!

 

Your post above best reflects the fundamental issue you have in this debate. Quite simply, you're arguing against points that have not even been made.

 

You would be correct in saying so if you can convince me nobody has insinuated that Carnera wasn't good enough to be a champion? Or that the era was not weak or that primo was not as good as modern contenders?

 

Read some of your own words back to yourself:

This content is protected