Tom Sharkey like you never seen him before! A quality carrer review

[Dr. Z]

"I Fought Them All ", goes into great detail about Sharkey's bouts I own the book. Pollack's bio of Fitzsimmons also goes into great detail of the Sharkey Fitz fights. I own that too!
There is nothing new on the video you posted,just "click bait", wilful misleading on your part in an attempt to "big yourself up ," pretending to have info others do not.And to regain some vestige of credibility after being exposed by me yet again on the "Contenders " thread
FYI. "I Fought Them All," devotes 12 pages to the Sharkey v McCoy fight 170-182.It gives a very comprehensive report and round by round summary of the fight,including the knockdowns.Clips of the fight were exhibited inApril1899 in ,The Royal Aquarium Westminster UK It proved very popular and twice a day showings were well attended by the public.This was the first time Sharkey participated in a match that was filmed.
For you to say otherwise strongly suggests you haven't read it at all!
You've been caught out deliberately lying about George Siler having refereed,Jack Johnson ,and Peter Jackson,and when called out on it by me,you offered zero proof to support your lies.You are a liar ,and a fraud.

Where do I fought them all go into details of the knock downs and Fitzs fights? Siler did referee Johnson in a battle royal match, and was faimlar with Peter Jackson's. But he and Corbett say Jackson was better than Johnson. These men lived during the times. No one who saw both Jackson and Johnson saod Johnson was better. I provided to good names, as usual you provide zero.

Embarce the facts and stop lying. Yes Pollack book goes into details. Good for you that you own it, be sure to put it in your will.

[Ivich]

Jesus....these two.

I'll expose a liar every chance I get.You are welcome to correct anything in my content that is untrue or inaccurate.

[Ivich]

Where do I fought them all go into details of the knock downs and Fitzs fights? Siler did referee Johnson in a battle royal match, and was faimlar with Peter Jackson's. But he and Corbett say Jackson was better than Johnson. These men lived during the times. No one who saw both Jackson and Johnson saod Johnson was better. I provided to good names, as usual you provide zero.

Embarce the facts and stop lying. Yes Pollack book goes into details. Good for you that you own it, be sure to put it in your will.

You said Siler referee both Johnson and Jackson,he refereed neither.
He refereed a bill of fights in which a novelty curtain raiser ,a battle royal was put on first , he made no mention of refereeing it as I have proven. By this time Siler was the acknowledged premier third man in the USA why would he demean himself officiating such circus acts? Now provide the verified quote in which Corbett said Jackson was better than Johnson FYI Corbett told Nat Fleischer ,Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter he ever saw.
Fitzsimmons is mentioned on the following pages of," I Fought Them All."
29,44,53,64,68-70,74-77,79-100,102,103-107,109-111,114-117,124,126,128,131,133,138,142,146,147,149 ,152,153,155,156,159,168,169,174,182-186,192,193,211,213,215,223-225,229-233,237-241,243,261,269,292,294,295,302,304,306,311.
Reistically how much more coverage would anyone expect about someone in a book which is not expressly about them?
It's official, you haven't read the book!

[billeau2]

You said Siler referee both Johnson and Jackson,he refereed neither.
He refereed a bill of fights in which a novelty curtain raiser ,a battle royal was put on first , he made no mention of refereeing it as I have proven. By this time Siler was the acknowledged premier third man in the USA why would he demean himself officiating such circus acts? Now provide the verified quote in which Corbett said Jackson was better than Johnson FYI Corbett told Nat Fleischer ,Johnson was the greatest defensive fighter he ever saw.
Fitzsimmons is mentioned on the following pages of," I Fought Them All."
29,44,53,64,68-70,74-77,79-100,102,103-107,109-111,114-117,124,126,128,131,133,138,142,146,147,149 ,152,153,155,156,159,168,169,174,182-186,192,193,211,213,215,223-225,229-233,237-241,243,261,269,292,294,295,302,304,306,311.
Reistically how much more coverage would anyone expect about someone in a book which is not expressly about them?
It's official, you haven't read the book!

I don't get it... Books are fun to read, you can often get them as PDF's... I know for a fact Dempsey's great work on punching can be downloaded for free... Why wouldn't someone read the book? I could never understand cliff notes for the same reason... "Very ambitious Scottish prince ascends to the top" is NOT Macbeth!

[Ivich]

I think those AI head gifs are spooky I don't like looking at them

I agree!

[Ivich]

I don't get it... Books are fun to read, you can often get them as PDF's... I know for a fact Dempsey's great work on punching can be downloaded for free... Why wouldn't someone read the book? I could never understand cliff notes for the same reason... "Very ambitious Scottish prince ascends to the top" is NOT Macbeth!

The bottom line is ,you have to be able to read.

[Willow The Wisp]

I'll expose a liar every chance I get.You are welcome to correct anything in my content that is untrue or inaccurate.

Welcome but unwilling. I listen and let others do their thing. Like a concert. I enjoy all the music. But again, Jesus, these two. Where's the love? That's what we need. We need the Luuuuuv.

[mattdonnellon]

Where do I fought them all go into details of the knock downs and Fitzs fights? Siler did referee Johnson in a battle royal match, and was faimlar with Peter Jackson's. But he and Corbett say Jackson was better than Johnson. These men lived during the times. No one who saw both Jackson and Johnson saod Johnson was better. I provided to good names, as usual you provide zero.

Embarce the facts and stop lying. Yes Pollack book goes into details. Good for you that you own it, be sure to put it in your will.

I have pointed out that Mick dooley picked Johnson over Jackson.

[Willie Pep 229]

I have pointed out that Mick dooley picked Johnson over Jackson.

OK true he did.

But there are some qualifications that should be noted

Dooley fought Jackson several times, all four round fights. No fight of importance occurred between them. A few NDs, a few draws, not even a NWS decision between them. No important fights, no fights over four rounds. Sounds close to being 'barn storming' fights, quick money on small cards.

Dooley probably saw Johnson fight live only three times, with one being a one round blow-out. (Possibly more, because Ivich says he became a reporter, so maybe he traveled. Not sure about that.)

Dooley saw Johnson at his peak, or close to it. Jackson on the other hand was probably at his best around the time of Sullivan and Corbett and probably fading by Jeffries.

(Although to be fair Dooley did fight Jackson during the early years when Jackson was coming up and when he was prime, but again never in much more than Ham and Eggers over four rounds.)

So how can we be sure which Jackson, Dooley was speaking of, when he made that quote.

Was he talking about the two men when they were both in their prime, like the types of fantasy fights we conjure up on this forum?

Or was he replying in an inquiry asking about a Johnson-Jackson match-up then and there in 1909?

Did Dooley hold any kind of grudge against Jackson?

Was Dooely just doing his newspaper job, helping promote Johnson's fights in Australia?

By calling Johnson better than Jackson, in Australia, was going to put asses in the seats. Jackson was thought an Australian champion; people would then want to see Johnson.

Testimonials about fighters, by fighters are often driven by the current circumstances, often economic, sometimes personal.

Imagine trying to assess Joe Frazier 100 years from now based on Muhammad Ali quotes. Pick a decade, he kept changing his remarks.

[Slugfester]

Jesus....these two.

I figured out they are just Queensbury and Jab under Alts.