Primo Carnera's ability

No elite fighters don't lose to the likes of Heinz Lazek 3 times, or Hein Ten Hoff twice.

 

I shouldn't need to tell you that those losses were well past Neusell's prime.

 

The mob dumped him.

 

He was 30,31, and 32 .
Euro level.

 

But he wasn't Euro level at his peak.

He was legitimately world class.

 

Says who? Your report still said it was one sided. Only difference was one report says elbow another says a punch, both reports say Primo was well on top. No controversy.

You forget the American press turned on Primo when their hero Damon Runyons wife embarrassed him by having an affair with Primo Carnera.

 

No it isn’t. This is outrageous to say so.

 

No you shouldn’t. But of course He’s clutching at straws.

 

Yet he stil legitimately beat Neusel.

 

And some people still criticize his resume!

 

It was stopped on a cut.

 

I don't understand this obsession with the fight being stopped on a cut.

If Carnera won every single round, and was hitting Neusell at will, then it was obviously only going in one direction.

It is not like Neusell was ahead on all the cards, when he got cut.

Also I don't think that it was actually stopped due to the cut, I think that Neusell quit.

 

No. The question I posed was in respect to Carnera's ability, i.e. "Surely, this needs to be measured, in terms of his effectiveness against other Heavyweights?"

Limited ability can still gain you relative success and this depends on the circumstances. So I am not concerned with his moment in the sun, but more with the fact that he was pushed by men who were giving up over 4 stone in weight to him.

I am also interested in the fact that in Carnera's alleged prime period he beat only two ranked opponents, whilst losing to another two, emphatically.

I suspect the weight of opinion was against Carnera being technically gifted, given that, in ten's of articles I have read, the most complimentary thing reported about his boxing referred to his jab - and that's it. The rest of the commentary refers to his physical attributes, toughness and stamina.

I could probably find more evidence about Tyson Fury's boxing technique, from two or three written articles, in an audio visual age, than I can on Carnera, who was probably one of the most written about sportspeople of the period.

If only that carried even an ounce of statistical meaning...


The entire division and [an undefined] period is given the value 'X'
However - a single fight 'Y', happened like 'Z'
Therefore, 'X' is really 'Z'

It's not plain to see on film, but it's a theory.

Widely considered a robbery? Overstatement is the best I can say about that.

The truth is that Carnera was fouling left right and center and Poreda honestly fought his way to a victory, coming on strong at the end. Carnera may have won, if he'd heeded multiple warnings from the referee. He didn't. He lost.

Poreda was giving him 60-plus pounds and Carnera had not the sense to box him.

Not one report I've read cites the result as a robbery, despite another Little Napolean's (George E. Keenen's) hissy fit.

It's a theory, but it raises as many questions, as it answers. Like, when did his prime begin to wither and, given the possibilities, aren't we pushing his prime into a very narrow box?

I don't see a whole lot of wrestling in world class boxing, these days, to be honest. Wlad Klitschko gave it a go. It stood out like a sore thumb and wasn't well received, either.

Campolo and Impelletiere had no tier. They were barely serviceable as professional heavyweights.

Louis would always win - he was unquestionably elite.

Probably Baer, too. Nonetheless, I find the similarities in sizes and certain level of ability possessed (reached and or surpassed) by the men who beat Carnera, very compelling evidence; that, once the right sized opponent, with a bit of ability came into focus, Carnera lost.

 

I don't think much of Neusel, and it was a stray elbow.I don't put much stock in that.