joe louis vs primo carnera

[evrenb]

Just watched two versions of this ; if anyone has questions on how Louis would have coped with Wladimir then watch this. Awesome Louis...

[gilgamesh]

Carnera was NOTHING compared to Wladimir Klitschko. The only thing they had in common was being tall.

[evrenb]

Carnera was NOTHING compared to Wladimir Klitschko. The only thing they had in common was being tall.

I think thats unfair to Primo...i do agree that he wasn't as good....but not 'nothing'....

[gilgamesh]

Carnera was NOTHING compared to Wladimir Klitschko. The only thing they had in common was being tall.

I think thats unfair to Primo...i do agree that he wasn't as good....but not 'nothing'....

It's also unfair to Wladimir to say "Joe Louis beat this tall guy so he'd beat THAT tall guy"

I'd probably pick Joe to KO Wlad personally, but still drawing comparisons between Wladimir and Carnera is an insult to Wlad.

[evrenb]

I didnt make any reference to his height. You are making assumptions. How much have you studied Carnera.? I do know that Klinchko would not have got away with consistent illegal tactics in that era and not received retaliation...while I do agree that Wladimir is a better fighter overall it annoys me that Primo is much maligned by modern day 'experts'. Heis put down as a novelty act because of his enormous size. He was a very decent boxer who had skill, movement and an underrated jab...

[DaveyMac]

I think Wlad compares more to Carnera than anyone else. They seem very similar to me. Not to mention Carnera fought much better fighters than Wlad has.

[HomicideHenry]

Carnera is highly under-rated and under-sold on this forum, mainly because many are under the delusion that his entire career was either bought or that he fought completely inept opponents. Both trains of thought are wrong, for the most part. It is true, that while in Europe some of his opponents took dives. It is true, that when he did his first tour of America, that he was matched softly.

However, over the course of years, he picked up alot. He wasn't just a tall, big, strong heavyweight. If one watches training videos of the 'Man Mountain' they will be greatly surprised to see not only how light in his feet he was, but how flexible and overall athletic he was. His skillset, while not the best of his time, was certainly good. He had a very under-rated jab, and he was well placed to protect himself at all times; tying men up before they could mount offense, holding them back at range, and sometimes (yes) even dirty tactics such as pushing.

I will always stand firm in my position that he was not this manufactured heavyweight, that many believe that he was. No man, completely in the dark about dives and facing nothing but shitcan bums, could have taken the sort of punishment that he did against the likes of Max Baer and Joe Louis. No man, whose entire career was a fraud, could have went fifteen rounds with Jack Sharkey or went the full route with Tommy Loughran and Uzcudon. No man, with just size alone and naive about his abilities, could have beaten half the men he did.

Even the largest of men, even the strongest of men, who don't have a clue about real fighting couldn't last any time at all with even the smallest of legitimate boxers. Anyone ever take a look at how Shaq faired against Oscar De La Hoya or Shane Mosley, and those men were outweighed by 200 pounds. No, I'm sorry, Carnera may not of been the creme de la creme, but he's certainly a top 15-20 heavyweight of all time. If the Baer fight happened today, good ol' Maxie would of been disqualified a hundred times over for all the illegal tactics he did against Primo. With a broken ankle, completely shattered (after a Baer shove) Carnera fought on for eleven rounds and absorbed the kind of blows that killed poor Frankie Campbell, and for many rounds Carnera was talking smack back to Baer. It was pure politics, only, that Baer was allowed to get away with so much because Italy was being occupied by the Nazi party; they let Baer brutalized Max Schmeling for the same reasons. If you were a foreign heavyweight, in occupied lands, forget it you weren't gonna get a fair shake in America.

[DaveyMac]

Agreed Henry.

[evrenb]

Carnera is highly under-rated and under-sold on this forum, mainly because many are under the delusion that his entire career was either bought or that he fought completely inept opponents. Both trains of thought are wrong, for the most part. It is true, that while in Europe some of his opponents took dives. It is true, that when he did his first tour of America, that he was matched softly.

However, over the course of years, he picked up alot. He wasn't just a tall, big, strong heavyweight. If one watches training videos of the 'Man Mountain' they will be greatly surprised to see not only how light in his feet he was, but how flexible and overall athletic he was. His skillset, while not the best of his time, was certainly good. He had a very under-rated jab, and he was well placed to protect himself at all times; tying men up before they could mount offense, holding them back at range, and sometimes (yes) even dirty tactics such as pushing.

I will always stand firm in my position that he was not this manufactured heavyweight, that many believe that he was. No man, completely in the dark about dives and facing nothing but shitcan bums, could have taken the sort of punishment that he did against the likes of Max Baer and Joe Louis. No man, whose entire career was a fraud, could have went fifteen rounds with Jack Sharkey or went the full route with Tommy Loughran and Uzcudon. No man, with just size alone and naive about his abilities, could have beaten half the men he did.

Even the largest of men, even the strongest of men, who don't have a clue about real fighting couldn't last any time at all with even the smallest of legitimate boxers. Anyone ever take a look at how Shaq faired against Oscar De La Hoya or Shane Mosley, and those men were outweighed by 200 pounds. No, I'm sorry, Carnera may not of been the creme de la creme, but he's certainly a top 15-20 heavyweight of all time. If the Baer fight happened today, good ol' Maxie would of been disqualified a hundred times over for all the illegal tactics he did against Primo. With a broken ankle, completely shattered (after a Baer shove) Carnera fought on for eleven rounds and absorbed the kind of blows that killed poor Frankie Campbell, and for many rounds Carnera was talking smack back to Baer. It was pure politics, only, that Baer was allowed to get away with so much because Italy was being occupied by the Nazi party; they let Baer brutalized Max Schmeling for the same reasons. If you were a foreign heavyweight, in occupied lands, forget it you weren't gonna get a fair shake in America.

Great comments...

[Sheldonian]

In my opinion, for what it's worth, there is a lot more suspicion about the arguments used against Carnera than anything Carnera was actually involved in.

Yes, he had gangsters involved in his management. So did Ali. So did a great many fighters, of Primo's time, before and since. Doesn't mean all his fights were fixed. The guys who beat him also had mob connections, were his defeats therefore fixed?

Yes, people reported that they had been threatened or paid to take a dive against him. Start telling the world his fights are fixed, you won't want to admit you lost honestly. And how come Primo himself was never accused of taking a dive? If he was so incorruptible, would he have been interested in fixed fights?

Yes, a lot of hype surrounded him. It surrounds all boxers. Again, one law for him and one for others.

Yes, his ex-manager gave a list of fixed fights Carnera had been involved in. He failed to mention however that Carnera had committed what his management regarded as the ultimate sin. His managers ended up broke or in jail. Carnera, who they had hoped to exploit, had got his money out to Italy and protected it by declaring himself bankrupt in the US. Any fruits of his labours ultimately went to him. Clearly there is a need to cast doubt on how he obtained them if you want to deflect the blame.

The anti-Carnera stuff just doesn't add up, Paul Gallico notwithstanding. Losing to Joe Louis is hardly a shame, nor was losing to Baer when he had broken his ankle. His later losses can be largely explained by diabetes, and he still beat some folks well into his thirties with one kidney. At this stage fighting Carnera was not a ticket to a shot at someone bigger. Give the guy a break.

[BoxBuzz]

Carnera is highly under-rated and under-sold on this forum, mainly because many are under the delusion that his entire career was either bought or that he fought completely inept opponents. Both trains of thought are wrong, for the most part. It is true, that while in Europe some of his opponents took dives. It is true, that when he did his first tour of America, that he was matched softly.

However, over the course of years, he picked up alot. He wasn't just a tall, big, strong heavyweight. If one watches training videos of the 'Man Mountain' they will be greatly surprised to see not only how light in his feet he was, but how flexible and overall athletic he was. His skillset, while not the best of his time, was certainly good. He had a very under-rated jab, and he was well placed to protect himself at all times; tying men up before they could mount offense, holding them back at range, and sometimes (yes) even dirty tactics such as pushing.

I will always stand firm in my position that he was not this manufactured heavyweight, that many believe that he was. No man, completely in the dark about dives and facing nothing but shitcan bums, could have taken the sort of punishment that he did against the likes of Max Baer and Joe Louis. No man, whose entire career was a fraud, could have went fifteen rounds with Jack Sharkey or went the full route with Tommy Loughran and Uzcudon. No man, with just size alone and naive about his abilities, could have beaten half the men he did.

Even the largest of men, even the strongest of men, who don't have a clue about real fighting couldn't last any time at all with even the smallest of legitimate boxers. Anyone ever take a look at how Shaq faired against Oscar De La Hoya or Shane Mosley, and those men were outweighed by 200 pounds. No, I'm sorry, Carnera may not of been the creme de la creme, but he's certainly a top 15-20 heavyweight of all time. If the Baer fight happened today, good ol' Maxie would of been disqualified a hundred times over for all the illegal tactics he did against Primo. With a broken ankle, completely shattered (after a Baer shove) Carnera fought on for eleven rounds and absorbed the kind of blows that killed poor Frankie Campbell, and for many rounds Carnera was talking smack back to Baer. It was pure politics, only, that Baer was allowed to get away with so much because Italy was being occupied by the Nazi party; they let Baer brutalized Max Schmeling for the same reasons. If you were a foreign heavyweight, in occupied lands, forget it you weren't gonna get a fair shake in America.

Stop it....your killing me here. He was a galoot. However to his credit....he was a BIG galoot.

[DaveyMac]

He beat much better fighters than either Klitschko did.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who is this Carnera guy that you guys are talking about?

[HomicideHenry]

He beat much better fighters than either Klitschko did.

That will always be a question that will be contended. While I defend Carnera, for he wasn't as horrible or inept or unathletic as people imagine him as being (far from it), when one looks at the record and can be objective--- you can't really say that of him. The younger Vladimir, even before getting downed by Sanders, held more impressive wins (Mercer, Botha, Byrd, Schulz) than Primo in his entire career. His best wins were against light-heavyweight Tommy Loughran, Paulino Uzcudun, and Jack Sharkey. Yes he did hold wins over guys like Art Lasky, Kingfish Levinsky, Ernie Schaaf--- but those men also had wins/losses against a myriad of winners and losers alike.

Klitschko (collectively) from start to present time holds wins over several champions: Mercer, Botha, Byrd (2xs), Schulz, Peter (2xs), Brewster, Ibragimov, Rahman, Chagaev, Haye, Mormeck, Povetkin. Then you throw in assorted challengers like Thompson (3xs), Chambers, McCline, Barrett, Williamson, Austin, Pulev, etc. and there is no comparison between him and Carnera. Considering the majority of these men were near in size, near in prime, etc. that wasn't the case with Carnera as most were under-size, passed their prime, etc.

We can argue how it was far and away different then, with their being one lineal championship and that in order to be anywhere near the top ten you had to be damn good--- hell I've seen people argue top twenty or lower guys back then were better than top five-ten guys today, based on that same logic--- but the fact remains when you hold wins over twelve alphabet champions, and defeated a wide assortment of fringe contenders, etc. its far more impressive than Carnera defeating 60+ journeymen and a few hard nosed fringe guys and three guys who actually were the goods.

And that's basing everything on paper--- by observation alone--- not factoring in the "What if?" scenario that Jack Sharkey, one of those wins, may or may not of been on the level. Myself personally, I believe it was. Sharkey got pushed into the ropes, tried to regain his balance and caught a tremendous uppercut to the chin that lifted him off the floor and was out cold. But, considering the two men had fought before, some years prior and Sharkey won a decision over the much larger man, there will always be the skeptics who will maintain that the mob ties Carnera had put the title around his waist that night. However, to believe all this as gospel truth, my response to such believers is: "How can you dismiss the fact that Sharkey was a well known flake and choke artist to begin with?", and would do stupid things and throw himself out of the picture.

The man was the Andrew Golota of his time. He complained about low blows in his fight with Dempsey, and got knocked out as a consequence. Yet, that didn't stop Sharkey from throwing blatant low blows against Max Schmeling and getting his own self disqualified. He was hot and cold, to say the least, in his performances. One night, he would look marvelous, and then he'd be given a HUGE gift decision over the former Welterweight champion of the world and everyone cried BS. His whole career was ripe with odd results, and it was his own doing. And AFTER the fight with Carnera, how can you ignore the facts that he dropped went 1-2-1 against the likes of Kingfish Levinksy and Unknown Winston? He was slipping. Plain and simple.

[dempseyfire]

He beat much better fighters than either Klitschko did.

That will always be a question that will be contended. While I defend Carnera, for he wasn't as horrible or inept or unathletic as people imagine him as being (far from it), when one looks at the record and can be objective--- you can't really say that of him. The younger Vladimir, even before getting downed by Sanders, held more impressive wins (Mercer, Botha, Byrd, Schulz) than Primo in his entire career. His best wins were against light-heavyweight Tommy Loughran, Paulino Uzcudun, and Jack Sharkey. Yes he did hold wins over guys like Art Lasky, Kingfish Levinsky, Ernie Schaaf--- but those men also had wins/losses against a myriad of winners and losers alike.

Klitschko (collectively) from start to present time holds wins over several champions: Mercer, Botha, Byrd (2xs), Schulz, Peter (2xs), Brewster, Ibragimov, Rahman, Chagaev, Haye, Mormeck, Povetkin. Then you throw in assorted challengers like Thompson (3xs), Chambers, McCline, Barrett, Williamson, Austin, Pulev, etc. and there is no comparison between him and Carnera.

Yes, no comparison in that Carnera beat the superior fighters. Shot Rahman, Mormeck, Mercer, Botha (?)

You bring up a blown up light HW (Byrd . .add in Chambers) but dismiss a win over one of the greatest light heavyweights of all time (Loughran)

Schaff, Sharkey, Uzcudun, Wright, Maloney, Gross etc. are better than the likes of Peter, Brewster, Chagaev, Ibragimov etc. David Haye was knackered over the pressure of non-hitting Fragomeni and a 37 year old John Ruiz; how would've he dealt with a prime Paulino Uzucudun? Plus the best of that bunch (Haye, Ibragimov, Chagaev,) are natural 190-210 lbers anyway. Chagaev and Ibragimov's "plumber man" physiques in the 220s didn't make them better fighters.

Carnera was a top fighter in a MUCH deeper era. You didn't have a bunch of protected and padded 30-0s running around. And you can see from the film of Primo at his peak . . he developed a very solid skill set in terms of countering, inside fighting/use of the uppercut, and importantly showed amazing stamina for such a colossal man. He fought at a much quicker pace over longer distances than Klitschko has ever gone through. This makes sense given he was facing much more skilled and well conditioned fighters than Wladimir has. An embarrassment like an Alex Leapai or Wach wouldn't have gone above 8 round undercard status (the curiosity Ray Impelliterre, who Carnera knocked out, was a better boxer than Wach).

Sharkey also didn't get a "gift decision" over Walker. That is one of the myths of boxing just like Dempsey had loaded gloves vs Willard. By the accounts the draw was a "gift" towards Walker, but Walker was thought of as the moral victor given how impressive Sharkey had just looked vs Schmeling and the size disadvantage. The fight was considered a huge disappointment for Sharkey, but round by round he won more than Walker.

[DaveyMac]

Henry, I almost always agree with your posts and find them well thought out and entertaining to read, but I have to disagree on this one.
The names you gave for K only have relevance because they are from our era. In 10-20 years they will mean nothing for the most part.
Carnera fought a handful of guys who were flat out legends, and did OK with them.

In the end I think Carnera fought the much better competition.

[HomicideHenry]

Henry, I almost always agree with your posts and find them well thought out and entertaining to read, but I have to disagree on this one.
The names you gave for K only have relevance because they are from our era. In 10-20 years they will mean nothing for the most part.
Carnera fought a handful of guys who were flat out legends, and did OK with them.

In the end I think Carnera fought the much better competition.

The thing is.... do all the names Carnera fought, have any meaning to the world, except to us diehard fans?... that same logic you use to dismiss Klitschko is the same logic I could use on Primo. Outside of Sharkey and Loughran... what name sticks out, or is remembered? Hell Loughran and Sharkey as it is seldom is remembered, except to maybe their home towns where their legend is told from time to time in bars or in historical societies.

And even if Carnera did fight the better opposition--- that's still dismissing the fact that the majority of the men he fought were nearly a foot shorter, and certainly anywhere from 50-100 pounds lighter then he was. Good little men, will not beat good big men. Plain and simple. It takes an exceptionally great little man--- in most cases---- to come out looking competitive with a good big man. That, in essence, somewhat diminishes the all-around worth of his victories.

[DaveyMac]

Henry, I almost always agree with your posts and find them well thought out and entertaining to read, but I have to disagree on this one.
The names you gave for K only have relevance because they are from our era. In 10-20 years they will mean nothing for the most part.
Carnera fought a handful of guys who were flat out legends, and did OK with them.

In the end I think Carnera fought the much better competition.

The thing is.... do all the names Carnera fought, have any meaning to the world, except to us diehard fans?... that same logic you use to dismiss Klitschko is the same logic I could use on Primo. Outside of Sharkey and Loughran... what name sticks out, or is remembered? Hell Loughran and Sharkey as it is seldom is remembered, except to maybe their home towns where their legend is told from time to time in bars or in historical societies.

And even if Carnera did fight the better opposition--- that's still dismissing the fact that the majority of the men he fought were nearly a foot shorter, and certainly anywhere from 50-100 pounds lighter then he was. Good little men, will not beat good big men. Plain and simple. It takes an exceptionally great little man--- in most cases---- to come out looking competitive with a good big man. That, in essence, somewhat diminishes the all-around worth of his victories.

Even if you are right, we are agreeing that K fought just slightly better competition, and yet today's people consider him an ATG and yet Carnera is as dismissed as Carnera's opponents are.

In the end I just don't see K as a really significant HW.

[man]

Carnera may not of been the creme de la creme, but he's certainly a top 15-20 heavyweight of all time.

the top 15-2o are the creme de la creme and
canera is not in it.

[Ambling Alp II]

No he isn't anywhere near the Top 15-20 nor are either of the Kltischkos. HomcideHenry is ripping Carnera and then he says something contradictory like that? huh?

Outside of Loughran and Sharkey, Carnera's victims were not memorable? Well the opponents that the Klitschkos beat aren't going to be well remembered 80 years from now either.

[dempseyfire]

No he isn't anywhere near the Top 15-20 nor are either of the Kltischkos. HomcideHenry is ripping Carnera and then he says something contradictory like that? huh?

Outside of Loughran and Sharkey, Carnera's victims were not memorable? Well the opponents that the Klitschkos beat aren't going to be well remembered 80 years from now either.

Exactly. Heck, I've already forgotten about Eddie Chambers.

Klitschko's opponents are the epitome of pedestrian. They looked pedestrian in their wins prior to Klitschko and also vs Klitschko (what fight were Pulev, Chagaev, McCline, Peter etc. involved in that afterwards someone went "wow, what a skilled/exciting fighter")

[HomicideHenry]

Hmm.... reminds me of another certain heavyweight in history, what wasn't really appreciated until the last 5-10 years in retrospect, and that was Larry Holmes. Outside of Cooney and Shavers and Michael Spinks, whose really all that memorable? And dont bring up Berbick, Smith, and alphabet title holders either. They were shit then and shit still. Beating Ali meant nothing at that stage. Neither did beating Norton in all reality--- considering Norton's next few fights were life and death struggles with Cobb, LeDoux. 20 title defenses, and all for not in the minds of many, except us diehards who realize just how good he actually was.

[HomicideHenry]

No he isn't anywhere near the Top 15-20 nor are either of the Kltischkos. HomcideHenry is ripping Carnera and then he says something contradictory like that? huh?

Outside of Loughran and Sharkey, Carnera's victims were not memorable? Well the opponents that the Klitschkos beat aren't going to be well remembered 80 years from now either.

I think you are really biased in your views to remain objective. Let's face it, when you get to the top 20 in ANY DIVISION, anyone in the top twenty on any given night can beat anyone else in the top twenty--- when you get to that high in any division, you are really splitting hairs and atoms when it comes down to it. I'd wager Max Baer has a strong chance at defeating Lennox Lewis--- and Baer isn't no top ten-fifteen man either. The question, then becomes, who wins best two out of three, or all three in a series. That's when the top five of all time matters most. But even then, there's always that off-chance, that a man in the top twenty can win at least once out of ten, etc.

I know alot of people hate Vladimir's guts for this reason or that reason--- but let's get down to brass tax here. IF Ali is the measuring stick by which all other fighters are to be compared, then let's look at how Vladimir would compare or even do against Ali. For starters, Ali may of fought mean nearly as tall (Wepner, Terrell) men nearly as heavy (Mathis), men nearly as strong (Foreman, Liston, Shavers) and men nearly as skilled (Norton, Young), etc. but never did Ali fight a man who was a combination of all those things. Klitschko is all those things.

He's made a quantum leap from his vulnerable days when he lost to Sanders--- hasn't lost in ten years plus. He has been all but untouchable in 16 title defenses against a myriad of men of various skills and abilities and values. For being 6'6" in height, 250 pounds in weight (solid muscle) he is very athletic, nimble on his feet, well balanced, has excellent ring generalship, has a first rate jab, etc. The closest thing to an Ali he's ever fought were Chambers, Byrd, and Haye--- and all three of those men with that elusive, fast paced, style he dominated rather easily or made them look very average and weak. It was as if he never got out of first gear against those men--- could you imagine him shifting into second, third, fourth, etc. if he fought someone like Ali? Not too many people have lasted passed the first barrage of punches thrown their way when Klitschko goes to the next pace.

Imagine Foreman in his prime, being calm and collected and not wasting punches--- and being technically proficient as well. That kind of Foreman would of beaten Ali in Zaire, and at any time in his career. Now, make Foreman a bit taller and a bit heavier, and larger in reach. Say what you want of Klitschko's chin--- but in essence, minus that chin, what I just described is Vladimir to a 'T'. He's a technically sound, level headed, version of Foreman.

[Ambling Alp II]

You said Carnera was certainly a top 20 heavyweight of all time. That is what you wrote. He wasn't. Maybe on a rare night he pulls off an upset, but he is not a top 20 heavyweight or close to it. Neither are the Klitschkos.

Jimmy Young was nearly as skillful as Klitschko? Wow. Young was much more skilled.

Eddie Chambers was fast paced? Really? Ali beat many fighters much faster than Chambers.

He has not made a quantum leap from the Sanders days. He just never fights anyone that can punch, because there is not anyone.
There are lot of fighters who could have made those 16 successsful title defenses against the got Klitschkos beat.

Well yes he has a glass jaw and that is a big deal. He also has poor stamina which forces him to fight as at a slow pace.
Offensively, he was better several years ago.

Berbick and Smith were poo? They certainly were not legends, but they were better than anyone that glassjaw ever beat. Holmes also beat Witherspoon and Weaver. He had to beat Norton to win the title as well. Norton still has a lot left going into the Holmes fight. He did not after it.
Ever watch the Holmes-Norton fight? Tell me what heavyweight fight in the last 20 years was as good?
Way past his best, he beat Mercer and gave a prime Holyfield a tough fight.

I do agree with one thing you said; the closest thing he has fought to Ali is Byrd, Chambers and Haye. That says a lot.

[BoxBuzz]

Carnera IS a top 20 HW of all time IF your drop the list, and happen to pick it up...upside down.


With that said, I'd still give him a fair shot against the Galoot Brothers Wlad and Vitali.