Some Questions for Carnera advocates

One or two have claimed Carnera is a bona fide Super Heavyweight Great. Others, that he has been woefully underrated, in terms of being a figure of ridicule - both historically and in the present day.

The former contention seems fairly nonsensical. The latter position looks as though it is being fought, based on the idea that, if one is disagreeing with the former point of greatness then they automatically consider Carnera as the ponderous oaf of ridicule.

The middle ground appears to be that Carnera could be light on his feet for his size; had endless stamina; was as tough as nails, in terms of his ability to absorb punishment, and could demonstrate a little bit of skill, here and there. However, in terms of an eye test, evidence is limited and written records all seem to point at Carnera being a hyped-up and helped-along type, who was considerably flawed but, nonetheless, won the Championship.

The attempts to contend the middle ground, which I get the impression consists of views from the majority, have been somewhat arduous.

 

0

 

I think you will find that 87% think Bowe was better than Carnera. Nobody was voting for "legit champion or Oaf". Most of the voters were probably thinking in terms of head to head between Bowe and Carnera when it was actually a question of who was closest to traditional boxing (parry, feints, using distance and space).

I don't think anyone could sensibly argue any undisputed champion could be an out and out oaf because that position cannot stand up to scrutiny anymore.

There are some (maybe a minority) who after understanding the question correctly, having explored enough evidence, still believe in the notion of the "modern super heavyweight with skill" theory. A new species started (without modern advances) and happened all by itself in the colour Tv era ...but this doesn't stand up really. If they exist it was because of modern advances and rule changes, otherwise they are the same raw material Carnera started out as.

 

Evander Holyfield ,in this month's Ring names Riddick Bowe as the beat all round fighter he ever fought.
Any of his opponents call Carnera the best they fought? Certainly Louis,Gains,Sharkey didn't!

 

I think you have this 100% the wrong way around. Check out my "Legitimate or Oaf" thread.

 

Nobody has to say Primo was the best guy they fought. Most of the best guys Primo fought also fought Joe Louis!! So it's not possible.

Gains only said primo was not the greatest champion. Sharkey did not say Primo was awful. He said
"Carnera was a much better fighter than I gave him credit for. Of course there is a lot of controversy relative to his bouts but, be that as it may, the fellows a better fighter than given credit for."

Louis was so far ahead of everybody he honestly did not have anything better to say about Baer or Braddock and a ton of elite men. Louis fought the perfect fight against them, he literally had nothing to review. Like Lennox against Ruddock and Golota. It does not mean they were rubbish. Or like Foreman against Frazier.