Primo Carnera vs any 1970s top-ten contender

[Joson]

My guess is that Primo loses to almost all of them. What do you think?

Very possibly Carnera beats Chuck Wepner, Leon Spinks, and Scott LeDoux. Maybe he beats Henry Clark and Howard "KO" Smith. Just maybe he beats Duane Bobick, although that's iffy.

Now that I think about it, Primo probably bests Alfredo Evangelista, Richard Dunn, Lorenzo Zanon, and Jack Bodell. Very possibly he beats Larry Middleton. Maybe Primo would have a 50/50 chance against Leroy Jones and Kallie Knoetze.

But I think that's it. All these guys I mentioned were lower top-ten types and dudes just passing through the ratings. They weren't necessarily bonafide contenders.

1970s guys who'd always whip Carnera are Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Joe Bugner, Oscar Bonavena, John Tate, Mike Weaver, and Gerrie Coetzee. The aging versions of George Chuvalo, Jimmy Ellis, and Floyd Patterson - who were wrapping up their careers in the 1970s - would most likely beat him as well.

[HomicideHenry]

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. He'd of gotten ranked in the top ten, but not of been a champion. He'd of gone in and out of the ratings.

[Ambling Alp II]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

[scorpio83]

Carnera would decision Chuvalo behind his long jabs and uppercuts at long range and he would stop Weaver in the late rounds.

[HomicideHenry]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

Sarcasm don't suit you.

Carnera was a very large man, yes, though heavyweights today are basically his size. He is underrated because he was better than given credit for. No bum or manufactured fighter would be able to defeat Tommy Loughran and others.

So it's on the basis of his ability combined with size that I think he'd float in and out of the top ten in the 1970s. But because he wasn't as good skillwise as the likes of Norton, etc he wouldn't have gone far.

[Joson]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

Sarcasm don't suit you.

Carnera was a very large man, yes, though heavyweights today are basically his size. He is underrated because he was better than given credit for. No bum or manufactured fighter would be able to defeat Tommy Loughran and others.

So it's on the basis of his ability combined with size that I think he'd float in and out of the top ten in the 1970s. But because he wasn't as good skillwise as the likes of Norton, etc he wouldn't have gone far.

Interestingly, there was a 1970s heavyweight who physically resembled Carnera. That guy was Jack O'Halloran, who stood 6'5" and weighed in the 250 lbs range. At his best, O'Halloran warranted a top-20 rating, but no better.

I assume Carnera was better than O'Halloran, BTW.

[HomicideHenry]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

Sarcasm don't suit you.

Carnera was a very large man, yes, though heavyweights today are basically his size. He is underrated because he was better than given credit for. No bum or manufactured fighter would be able to defeat Tommy Loughran and others.

So it's on the basis of his ability combined with size that I think he'd float in and out of the top ten in the 1970s. But because he wasn't as good skillwise as the likes of Norton, etc he wouldn't have gone far.

Interestingly, there was a 1970s heavyweight who physically resembled Carnera. That guy was Jack O'Halloran, who stood 6'5" and weighed in the 250 lbs range. At his best, O'Halloran warranted a top-20 rating, but no better.

I assume Carnera was better than O'Halloran, BTW.

O'Halloran had an interesting career. A lot of his fights were on short notice, etc. so his career kind of stagnated as a result. But he certainly was a gatekeeper type in the 70s. If you could beat "The Giant" then you could lay claim to being a certified contender.

[Ambling Alp II]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

Sarcasm don't suit you.

Carnera was a very large man, yes, though heavyweights today are basically his size. He is underrated because he was better than given credit for. No bum or manufactured fighter would be able to defeat Tommy Loughran and others.

So it's on the basis of his ability combined with size that I think he'd float in and out of the top ten in the 1970s. But because he wasn't as good skillwise as the likes of Norton, etc he wouldn't have gone far.

It's all about the weight when it suits you. When it doesn't then you start talking about ability. Not that you are the only one.

Since are now considering ability as factor, a better question would be Carnera how would be do against the top heavyweights in the current weak era?

[HomicideHenry]

But he weighed more than all of these guys. It's all about the weight, remember?

Sarcasm don't suit you.

Carnera was a very large man, yes, though heavyweights today are basically his size. He is underrated because he was better than given credit for. No bum or manufactured fighter would be able to defeat Tommy Loughran and others.

So it's on the basis of his ability combined with size that I think he'd float in and out of the top ten in the 1970s. But because he wasn't as good skillwise as the likes of Norton, etc he wouldn't have gone far.

It's all about the weight when it suits you. When it doesn't then you start talking about ability. Not that you are the only one.

Since are now considering ability as factor, a better question would be Carnera how would be do against the top heavyweights in the current weak era?

I suspect that he would be solidly a top ten contender today. If not a temporary alphabet champion. And I say that largely because outside the top 3 or 4 heavyweights in the world the division is really there for the taking. Nobody really stands out.

Even among the top 5, they lost to the likes of Andy Ruiz and Joseph Parker, etc so I tend to think Carnera stands a good chance consider guys like Charles Martin became IBF champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

Buit remember Carnera has some ability (as you alluded to) and has size. That automatically makes great. The only thing he doesn't have is that he didn't fight during our time.

[HomicideHenry]

Buit remember Carnera has some ability (as you alluded to) and has size. That automatically makes great. The only thing he doesn't have is that he didn't fight during our time.

He had some ability, and had size, yes.

But, he didn't have the ability or athleticism of Fury. Or Joshua. Or Klitschko. And arguably Wilder. So no, he wasn't automatically great. However, because he was better (imho) than Valuev and others of immense size in the passed 30 years he would've broke into the top 10 or 5 in almost any era.

[Ambling Alp II]

Carnera certainly had his limitations. But so do all of these guys. Hard to say with fury, Wilder and Joshua. They really have only had one real opponent. Joshua was 0-2 in his only big tests and also managed to lose to Ruiz. Outside of power, Carnera certainly had more ability than Wilder. Would have beaten either Klitschko or Fury if they fought like they did in their actual fight. Or either Wilder or Fury in their draw.