Tweet
From a few newspaper articles I've seen, didn't seem the public really expected Willard to put up much of a fight anyway.
-
-
It's also obvious that he was a monster. The dude was huge and fit. He was never handled like that. While Sharkey's name has been forgotten at best and tarnished at worst, there's no point in making himself into something greater than he was, either.
Dempsey was a faded fighter at that point. And while he shows off impressive skills and physical ability, it's not at all a one-sided trouncing. You can argue that his ability to fight back from adversity and win in such stunning fashion is an argument for greatness in itself. But you can't tell me that the Dempsey of Toldeo would have needed that much time and effort to dispatch of Sharkey.
Take a look at Sharkey's record, he never blew and opportunity to blow an opportunity.
Again, I fully agree with anyone who argues he was a more skilled fighter than he's been remembered for. But I don't see Willard losing to Loughran, Risko, Schmeling, and drawing with Heeny and Walker.
And if you want to argue that is all owed to Willard being simply bigger than Sharkey, but less skilled, then I point you to one Tommy Gibbons. You can't have it both ways.Comment
-
Jumping to “big” means you are a complete amateur. Hope you realize this.
Once again Willard was past his prime and untrained. Dempsey loved fighting big slow heavyweights. So in retrospect Willard had little chance even at his best.
Sharkey was in his prime and was an excellent all round boxer. Most at the time gave Dempsey little chance of winning this bout. Benny Leonard as an example gave Dempsey no chance of winning. If you watch the bout it illustrates what being an all time great is all about. Dempsey was staggered, cut to pieces, blood coming from his ears and with all this Sharkey could not stop the Dempsey attack. Body blows were killing him culminating in those three right uppercuts to the body and that ultra short hook to the head ending the bout.
Dempseys one round ko of Fulton is way up there. I’d place him No 2 followed by Gibbons.Comment
-
Watch the Willard fight and Sharkey fight again. Where is Jack faster? It's pretty clear that Dempsey was a much quicker fighter in 1919. Hence, that's the moment everyone references when discussing Dempsey, so as to separate him from the fighter who had some rough spots during fights held in later years.
As far as skill goes:
Gibbons was far more slippery than Sharkey; defensively Sharkey had nothing on Gibbons. There probably wasn't much disparity in power, either.
Point is, Gibbons fought a better version of Dempsey and lasted the distance. He definitely didn't b*thch about body shots.Comment
-
Again you are just guessing again
First Willard never fought Sharkey.
The Gibbons who fought Dempsey was looking to survive, not win. So you see from the very first round no intent to engage. Lots of covering up. Lots of clinching.
The Sharkey who fought Dempsey was there to win, in his prime as an athlete and supremely confident. He was engaging, at times attacking Dempsey with both hands. Staggering him, cutting him, winning round after round. That is until Dempsey, never dissuaded, found the key which was aggressive body work. The ko came soon after in round 7 as he ramped up his body attack in round 6.
You do realize I could charge you for these history lessons. Study up.Comment
-
If you write properly then your statements will become clearer.
Study up.Comment
Comment