Primo Carnera vs the contenders

I'm not drunk and I am sitting down.

 

I think you've missed my point entirely; a repetitively tiresome trait of a few posters.

Nothing of what you have stated or asked here^ relates to the point I was making, i.e. your use of Braddock to imply that Carnera's woefully under par opposition was a normal product of the era.

 

There was a two bit boxing promoter Champ Thomas who wrote an article of him meeting Primo Carnera and seeing him in the ring moving he was amazed at how graceful he was he had expected an oaf given the reputation in the dirty underbelly of boxing as a propped up fighter with a shady record.

 

Using the number of losses of opponents is useful in context.

Braddock was having a 50-50 record not because he was a bad fighter but because he was continually matched hard. He managed to break free of that and got a win streak together over some prospects.

By comparison Primo was matched easy for a time. So easy and so often than some of these matches were suspect. After that primo paid his dues in the big leagues of the division. He lost to Sharkey and Gains but rebounded from that.

Dismissing boxers on their records is often foolhardy.

 

I think most people agree with that, but there are a few guys here saying he was better than riddick bowe and an ATG

 

You should practice that, the next time you attempt character assasination of George Foreman.

 

No I don't. I am a fan of George. I just like things put into perspective and to not allow things to be overlooked. If we rate Foreman we cannot ignore some things like his 1972 opponents as #1 contender. If we rate him in spite of this (as I do) then don't use it against anyone else.

Foreman beat good fighters and that's wot he's rated on.

 

If Carnera really was a great SHW, a A 6'5.5 250+ pound Monster with skills...(which was even more rare back then) with "Marvelous Defense" and a huge size advantage against most of his opposition...Why would his management ever have felt the need to coddle him so much?

 

That's a good question.
I don't think they coddled him as much as they exploited his brand for a guaranteed pay day.
Even if you're confident your man could win, which maybe they weren't, you can make a boatload by knowing which round the fight ends, and how it ends.

You might not make much money betting on Primo if he is a 3 to 1 favorite. But if you can guess the round he wins in you make more.

At any rate, it was a extremely toxic situation for Primo.
They should have been developing and nurturing a talent with some legit skills and physical gifts.
Instead they were completely selfish, and abused his long term prospects for greed.
It's no environment for a serious boxer.

It all seems overblown though, when people use it to diminish his abilities as a boxer.
Has a match ever been fixed between him and a class fighter? I don't think so, and he beat many of them.

Hypothetically, this would be similar to if Wlads management fixed his early tomato can fights, so that they could bet on the round he wins in, and make a bunch of money. If that were the case, it would have little bearing on Wlads ability as a boxer faring against serious talent.

 

Nope - you have still missed the point.

But - never mind, I don't think there's much left for us to debate here, since you and I clearly look at evidence in quite different ways.

Oh - and one of your number (and possibly the other) has gone mental.

 

If you can predict the round the fight will end in and make money from it, then the result is pre-arranged ie a fixed fight
How would you classify the ability of a boxer who had:
1.A vulnerable chin?
2.Extremely limited boxing technique?
3.No punch ?
4.One who panicked when his defences were breached?
???????????

 

You mean if we are to only take Tunneys testimony.
And ignore every single other quote ever said about Primo?
Yawn

 

No you can take Tunney's ,Loughran's,Louis' and whoever else you want .I'd say Gains, Louis and Loughran's had more weight being as they both had fought him when they made those statements.

But you be as selective as you wish, it isn't going to inconvenience any of us is it?

I see you didn't answer the questions, I never thought you would!

 

How can you call me selective, when I acknowledge the unfavorable quotes.
When you don't acknowledge the favorable ones?

How can you call me selective?