Primo Carnera vs Michael Grant

Which lumbering giant is the first to fall?

 

Even Grant had a great technique compared to Carnera and he was much the more athletic so I guess I'd pick him. However, Carnera's better chin and big punch could turn it the other way too but I'd say Grant is the favorite. As weak as he was, Primo looks even more inept

 

People seriously need to let it go. Boxers who boxed a century ago are simply not as good as boxers of today. What's next I'm going to hear? That a car from 1920s could outspeed a car from 2010 ? If Grant as average as he is fought in that black and white era he would be a legend now with old timers screaming at the top of their lungs how he would beat Tyoson,Lewis and both Klitchkos all on the same day.

 

...Because little things like massive declines in Boxing's popularity & competition levels, the fact that there have been no major new techniques introduced in the sport for literally the last several decades, the Heavyweight division of today is quite arguably the worst in history, & fighters have an infinitely smaller mountain to climb to the top of the sport in every aspect pales when you have protein shakes & Hi-Def TV coverage.

Total, total myth. Fights are not decided by the birthdate on the calendar, & for what it's worth, if anyone wants to show me who Grant beat comparable to Jack Sharkey, I'm genuinely all ears.

 

Vitali Klitschko would beat Marvin Hart, Ramonza

 

No. Vitali drops his hands and doesn't bent his knees properly, thus he is useless

 

Yea true I forgot that. Hart KO 1.

 

Yes, he would.

& Ray Robinson would whip the stuffing out of every Welterweight today...& probably every one who's come since him.

 

Andrew Golota and Andrew Golota is light years ahead of Jack Sharkey...Jack Sharkey today gets knocked out by anybody in the top 10

 

Is Golota light-years ahead of Schmeling & Baer, too?

 

Yup

 

Carnera was a sideshow... his win over Jack Sharkey is one of the most controversial in the sport's history, since the general feeling is that Sharkey took a big dive

Grant would beat him

Ramonza's point is nonetheless a good one, there's way more to this than just who is at the top of a division... and in my opinion, you can not make comparisons between a good 250 pound giant (Klitschko) and a good 190 pound fighter (Schmeling) ... its ridiculous... in no other case, would anyone ever try to cling to something so illogical in order to be proven right

Golota would most likely beat Schmelng because he was WAAAAY bigger, not because he was BETTER any more than Juan Diaz is BETTER than Mark Johnson or Ricaardo Lopez, but he'd beat the stuffing out of both of them because he is gigantic compared to them

 

But the thing is, Ramonza does believe that these 180-190 lbs stars of the past would actually beat Klitshkos head to head. That's what causes the dispute

 

real captivating matchup here

 

That is completely ridiculous. Nobody in the world who is 180-190 pounds is beating the Klitschkos. Nobody. Not from the past not from the present not from the future.

 

Jack Dempsey would monster either Klitschko. Of course, Dempsey is the absolute elite of 190lbers. You wouldn't bet on anything less, because I've always felt the Klitschkos were definitely good (but never great) fighters. I don't think Schmeling would've beaten them.

 

It's a "tall order" fo sho...but with Wlad's chinny chin chin anything is possible. A guy like Dempsey could have conceivably tested that chin.

 

Dempsey would have had a chance against Wlad (Punchers')...but only because of Wlad's inconsistent whiskers. Chances are that Wlad would destroy him with ease as NO WAY could Dempsey have survived that firepower.

Vitali? Too big, too strong, too durable for Dempsey.

 

bigger AND better hno:

 

That depends on which Klitschko you're talking about --- I would call all three fighters (the K-Brothers & Schmeling) very good, not quite great, boxers, but I would only consider classing Wladimir as a better fighter than Schmeling, independent of size. Vitali I have long-since been somewhat less-impressed with, from the perspective of skill & talent.

Compared with Vitali, Wlad has an outstanding jab, demonstrably more power (though he has neglected it for a while now) & is a good deal more fluid than his older brother. I think it would be fair to argue (as a debate) he is better than Schmeling was, at least in some categories.

 

I was talking about Golota but Klitschkos are also bigger and better. Vitaly's is akward because it works for him. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Well, we will have to have an impasse on Golota being better than Schmeling. I cannot see any way around that for us.

 

anyone who thinks Andrew Golota was a superior fighter to Max Schmeling is stark raving mad

 

Klitschko's not awkward --- he's fundamentally unsound, & yes, there's a distinction between the two. It, "works for him," to a large extent because his opposition are broke.

I'm not lambasting Klitschko, or saying he isn't a capable, good HW, but he benefits enormously from the class of modern-day HW's, who absolutely drip with mediocrity, & would do so whether they were, "competing," (if that word is even justified) in 2010 or 1910.

 

As politely as it can be put, frankly.

 

Hand me my Straight Jacket then....

Schmeling achieved more, lived to be over 100 years old, and wasn't insane...but head to head Golota is clearly the superior fighter.

 

Of this, there is zero evidence

 

My problem with claims like "Schmeling is better than Golota" is that there is so much in being a good fighter that you can't really compare them.

If you want to say that Schmeling was better because he achieved more, then that's cool and obvious.

If you want to say Schmeling had the better technique, that's understandable too, but only if you think there is a "correct" way to box, which I don't believe.

If you want to say Golota is better only because of his size, well, size is very essential for a fighter and reach and strength are as much natural abilities as speed, movement and reflexes, which the small guy does better. So I do not understand why the bigger guy should be punished for having these assets.

This also leads to the point about technique: of course a fighter is going to use his strengths and fight in manner suitable for him. If Muhammad Ali had been 5'9 and fought the way he did, he would have never been a champion. So was he only good because of his size? What about Foreman being 180 lbs? Larry Holmes without reach? Jack Dempsey without any speed?

In my opinion the only comparisons that are fair when deciding who was the better fighter are 1) who wins if they fight? and 2) who achieved more. For 1, the obvious answer is Golota. He was physically much better and thus clearly the better fighter. For 2, it is obviously Schmeling, who was a legitimate world champ