Lets say that some one liked the novel idea of the LHW great Conn facing the biggest HW champion in history.
Carnera no doubt past his 'best' is still a big and fit man with alot of experience.
Billy Conn, a clever boxer who is as we all know one of histories best LHW. As with many LHW he has aspirations at being a HW champ.
The principles
Billy Conn - 6'1, 174lb
Primo Carnera - 6'5, 260lb
Borth men train hard for this high profile bout and come in at good shape. The fight is set for late 1937.
Who wins and how...
Kym
Billy Conn Vs Primo Carnera 1937
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Conn would have won rather easily, either by unaminous decision by scores of 10 rounds to 2 with 3 even (if we're talking 15 rounders here), that or would have knocked Carnera out. After Louis, Carnera was never again up for title consideration and would lose to less than mediocre opposition; one fighter in particular sticks out in my mind, whose name escapes me, but he was a light heavyweight making his debut I believe, and who was a good prospect due to his amateur credentials...Carnera lost to him twice by decisions I think.
Throw in a drinking problem, having a kidney removed, and the loss of interest in the sport, plus him already being a veteran of 80+ bouts and being passed his best and never quite being a good boxer anyways...Carnera is a 5-1 underdog in my eyes in this hypothetical match up.
Throw in a drinking problem, having a kidney removed, and the loss of interest in the sport, plus him already being a veteran of 80+ bouts and being passed his best and never quite being a good boxer anyways...Carnera is a 5-1 underdog in my eyes in this hypothetical match up.
Ouch....I'm afraid I just can't agree with this. I know the size difference will persuede many on this one....but not me.Cap wrote:Carnera beat Tommy Loughran who was probably just as good as Conn. The Amblin Alp was just too big and strong for Conn.
Cap
However if the money was in the envelope and Billy was in agreeance I suppose anything could happen.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Carnera in 1937 would lose, he was pretty much done as a fighter by that point.
Best for best, it's close. Carnera-Loughran was NOT a fixed fight, and Carnera was not a bad fighter. His stamina, jab, and good inside (and dirty) skills make him clearly more forminable than some modern day super HWs like McCline, Whitaker and Grant (I'd say Valuev and Carnera are about equals). Conn had speed and skills but he would be simply dwarfed here and I think Carnera's stamina and strength on the inside would wear Billy done over the long haul. Carnera by a close but clear decision.
Best for best, it's close. Carnera-Loughran was NOT a fixed fight, and Carnera was not a bad fighter. His stamina, jab, and good inside (and dirty) skills make him clearly more forminable than some modern day super HWs like McCline, Whitaker and Grant (I'd say Valuev and Carnera are about equals). Conn had speed and skills but he would be simply dwarfed here and I think Carnera's stamina and strength on the inside would wear Billy done over the long haul. Carnera by a close but clear decision.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I couldn't resist commenting on thsi thread. 
If the fight was with both men at their best, then I would go with Carnera. Obviously Conn was better pound for pound, but Carnera would have an almost 100 pound weight advantage. Carnera wasn't as bad as some people make make him out to be. He had good power and a good jab. The comparison of Conn to Loughran is pretty valid. Carnera was able to beat Loughran, he should also be able to beat Conn.
However, the question was what would happen if they fought in 1937.
It should be pointed out that Conn still a middleweight in 1937. He wasn't even the best middleweight at the time. He did lose two fights that year.
Nevertheless, Carnera was pretty much finished by this point. He lost to a guy in his 3rd fight (who was 0-1-1) who finished his career 1-4-1.
I would have to pick Conn by decision. Canera would only have a remote puncher's chance.
If the fight was with both men at their best, then I would go with Carnera. Obviously Conn was better pound for pound, but Carnera would have an almost 100 pound weight advantage. Carnera wasn't as bad as some people make make him out to be. He had good power and a good jab. The comparison of Conn to Loughran is pretty valid. Carnera was able to beat Loughran, he should also be able to beat Conn.
However, the question was what would happen if they fought in 1937.
It should be pointed out that Conn still a middleweight in 1937. He wasn't even the best middleweight at the time. He did lose two fights that year.
Nevertheless, Carnera was pretty much finished by this point. He lost to a guy in his 3rd fight (who was 0-1-1) who finished his career 1-4-1.
I would have to pick Conn by decision. Canera would only have a remote puncher's chance.
re
Size usually is not a big hinderance at heavyweight, but when a fighter has 100 pounds and many inches in height then it is going to be very difficult for a rather light hitting boxer to gain any kind of advantage. The same thing played a big part in most all of the fights of Nikolay Valuev...he wasn't successful in winning due to his overwhelming talent...his wins were almost entirely due to his gigantic size and that much of a size advantage is going to be a difficult task for any fighter and those that would likely be most successful against huge size disadvantages are the fighters who have a big punch and who can cripple any fighter. A light hitter will have to land a 1000 punches to do damage and someone with huge size who knows how to use that size will always have the advantage whereas a big puncher just needs one shot to turn the tide. Tommy Lougran was one of the best pure boxers in the history of the sport, but Carnera's size was just too much. Now in a ten fight series Loughran is likely to win a couple against Carnera, but his size was just too much for a fighter of that style and though Conn certainly enjoyed to brawl, he just did not have the big punch that could turn a fight! I'd say the results of a fight between Carnera and Conn would be very similar to the Carnera-Loughran fight.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Well, you would be one.BoxBuzz wrote:Who are "these people" who are saying such things?Ambling Alp wrote: Carnera wasn't as bad as some people make make him out to be.
.
Apparently Terry D feels the same way. On this forum, I have heard many people knock him, though I have heard some people support him.
Specifically, I went through some old threads and found comments from people like jaclem ,cosand, and overhand right. I'm sure there are many more.
I have read many books that rip him. (Though some do acknowledge some positives about him.)
He isn't in the International Boxing Hall of Fame; nor does he deserve to be. However, he has about as good of a case as Willard,Braddock, and Godfrey who are all in. If Carnera did get in, there would probably be much more outrage than there was when Willard,Braddock, and Godfrey somehow got in.
Carnera certainly wasn't graceful and I can see why some people don't think he looks good on film. However, very few fighters close to his size look smooth.
Carnera did beat Sharkey,Nuesel,Loughran, and both Uzcudun and Levinsky twice. He had to be at least a decent fighter to do this.
Of course I am familiar with the stories about some of his fights being fixed, and some are no doubt true. However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence this happened in these fights. I have seen the Sharkey fight and there is no doubt in my mind that it was a legitimate puch that knocked Sharkey out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he was a legend or anything like that. He was one of the worst heavyweight champions, no question about it. He had obvious weaknesses, (slow,easy to hit,mediocre chin etc.) but he also had some positive attributes (Smarts to use his size to his advantage, a good jab, good power, and a lot of heart.). He wouldn't have been a champion in many eras, however he would have been a Top 10 contender in most.