Sports and the importance of size debate

[Dr. Z]

Baer was no 6 in 41, no7 in 42.
Simon was no 4 in 41
Carnera was no2 in 35. Would they have been better if they were?
Were there any supersized heavies that fit that category that were ranked that he avoided? ****** criteria !
More Louis bashing from you!

By the time Louis got to Carnera, he was shot and had lost SIX Times. Louis said he showed absolutely nothing! Should we take his word ,or yours? In fact you quote him a while back the Carnera fight you dolt.

[JAB5239]

By the time Louis got to Carnera, he was shot and had lost SIX Times. Louis said he showed absolutely nothing! Should we take his word ,or yours? In fact you quote him a while back the Carnera fight you dolt.

You tried saying they were all lowly ranked which isn't true. Louis took care of Carnere the same as he would the K's and ALMOST any other heavyweight in history.

[QueensburyRules]

You tried saying they were all lowly ranked which isn't true. Louis took care of Carnere the same as he would the K's and ALMOST any other heavyweight in history.

- - Like you took care of your mangy carcass on AOL.

Carnera was an experienced former champion and Joe an aspiring contender, ie a boxing 101 up and comer development as witnessed throughout boxing history that you desperately need to study up on.

[Dr. Z]

You tried saying they were all lowly ranked which isn't true. Louis took care of Carnere the same as he would the K's and ALMOST any other heavyweight in history.

Okay, so the in decline Carnera is one ( yeah right he compares to Klitschko ) , what about Louis three losses to sub 200 pound men , question call vs another and getting slapped around by the 168 poised Conn.

[JAB5239]

Okay, so the in decline Carnera is one ( yeah right he compares to Klitschko ) , what about Louis three losses to sub 200 pound men , question call vs another and getting slapped around by the 168 poised Conn.

Much more skilled than today's heavyweights. It's really not even arguable. Fact is Louis never lost to a superheavyweight.

[Ivich]

By the time Louis got to Carnera, he was shot and had lost SIX Times. Louis said he showed absolutely nothing! Should we take his word ,or yours? In fact you quote him a while back the Carnera fight you dolt.

You argued they were all lower ranked and Carnera at number 2 clearly wasnt, he had lost twice since July 1932 when he was robbed against Poreda,Twice in 3 years losing only to Baer and Louis during which time he had beaten;
Campolo
Santa
Levinsky
Schaaf
Santa
Kennedy
Uzcudun
Loughran
Lasky
Among 23 others Primo had lost 6 times in 89 fights so he was shot?
In his next fight after Louis, Carnera stopped Neusel in 4 rds.
Walcott has lost13 times when he went to the wire with Louis,was he shot?
How about Conn who was leading Louis in their1 st fight he had lost9 times,was he shot?
Puritty had lost13 times when he ko'd Wlad,,was he shot?

As usual you don't know what the **** you are talking about!

[Dr. Z]

Much more skilled than today's heavyweights. It's really not even arguable. Fact is Louis never lost to a superheavyweight.

He never beat a skilled super heavyweight either! Carnera was washed up and no one considers him skilled! Fact he was beaten badly by three sub 200 pound men, lucky to beat another and would have lost to168 pound Billy Conn. Wake up and admit this, then extrapolate if you can how he would do today Go on try.

[Ivich]

He never beat a skilled super heavyweight either! Carnera was washed up and no one considers him skilled! Fact he was beaten badly by three sub 200 pound men, lucky to beat another and would have lost to168 pound Billy Conn. Wake up and admit this, then extrapolate if you can how he would do today Go on try.

Carnera was 28 years old when Louis beat him and he had lost 1 fight in the previous 2 years,to Max Baer.

Which skilled super heavyweights did Louis avoid?

Louis beat what was around, that's all any champ can do.

Louis lost just 3 fights,2 of them when he was making a comeback for financial reasons and had no business in the ring. Three losses in 69 fights .
Six heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions among his victims.

All his 3 losses were to men who held the heavyweight title.

Unlike your hero Wlad who lost to journeymen .

It's official ,you are an absurdly biased MORON!

[Dr. Z]

You argued they were all lower ranked and Carnera at number 2 clearly wasnt, he had lost twice since July 1932 when he was robbed against Poreda,Twice in 3 years losing only to Baer and Louis during which time he had beaten;
Campolo
Santa
Levinsky
Schaaf
Santa
Kennedy
Uzcudun
Loughran
Lasky
Among 23 others Primo had lost 6 times in 89 fights so he was shot?
In his next fight after Louis, Carnera stopped Neusel in 4 rds.
Walcott has lost13 times when he went to the wire with Louis,was he shot?
How about Conn who was leading Louis in their1 st fight he had lost9 times,was he shot?
Puritty had lost13 times when he ko'd Wlad,,was he shot?

As usual you don't know what the **** you are talking about!

He was past his best! Should I quote Louis on Carnera?

Sure Wlad was upset by Purity. Now can we compare his record and his opponents to others? Do you really want to go there? YKSAB

Yes, Walcott who lost 13 times was robbed in the Louis 1 fight! No the 168 pound Billy Conn who Wlad would dominate is was not past his prime vs Louis. But if the fight was 12 rounds he is likely the winner.

You reply is nonsense.

[Willow The Wisp]

You argued they were all lower ranked and Carnera at number 2 clearly wasnt, he had lost twice since July 1932 when he was robbed against Poreda,Twice in 3 years losing only to Baer and Louis during which time he had beaten;
Campolo
Santa
Levinsky
Schaaf
Santa
Kennedy
Uzcudun
Loughran
Lasky
Among 23 others Primo had lost 6 times in 89 fights so he was shot?
In his next fight after Louis, Carnera stopped Neusel in 4 rds.
Walcott has lost13 times when he went to the wire with Louis,was he shot?
How about Conn who was leading Louis in their1 st fight he had lost9 times,was he shot?
Puritty had lost13 times when he ko'd Wlad,,was he shot?

As usual you don't know what the **** you are talking about!

That's the field goal for the win. Thanks for all the type. Seems so many times I read responses like this and think, "Ive responded almost identically on AOL or Compuserve back in 199x and they STILL refuse to learn a darn thing!". After a time you simply throw up your hands and lament the folly of the human creature.

So I'll just say this bit here. "Don't think of Boxing's science as being akin to nano tech, Data processing or 20th century team sports. Instead, regard boxing more like marble sculpture or cathedral design; because that's the timeline upon which it's perfection has taken place". And on the heavyweights, don't forget the dufus cutoff!! #$%&!!!