Anyone else rate Sharkey over Jersey Joe Walcott?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Jack Sharkey not Tom.

[OctoberRed]

Slightly higher, but it's very close in my head.

[The Old LefHook]

Tell me why.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Tell me why.

He not only could box extremely well but he could also brawl. In his prime he gives ANY heavyweight a great fight. He beat Carnera, he beat Schmeling, he was beating past prime Dempsey, he beat Wills, even while he was a shadow of his former self he gave prime Joe Louis a good scrap while it lasted, beat stribling, beat Loughran, Jack Delaney he was arguably the greatest heavyweight of the period between Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis's takeover of the title.

He had a better chin imo that Walcott too. He was a tad more consistent as well but not by a lot. I'm really impressed with Sharkey's skill set. He had it all.

[Ray Corso]

I rate Joe over Jack because of the level of Joe's competitions
skills compared to Jacks foes.

Ray

[The Old LefHook]

Jersey Joe is one of my favorite fighters. I like it when one of my boys is the very best at something. Joe is not only the top heavyweight, but maybe the top fighter ever period for cute footwork & feints. I doubt if you could call Sharkey the very best at anything! At least I have never seen that done. That does not mean Joe is better, it shows why I like him more.

I do not see a great deal to adore about Sharkey. He was dumb enough to look away from Dempsey. I like Corso's point about the respective opposition of the ledgers. Four times in with Charles is an advanced degree and post doctoral research by itself.

If Mojo is right and Sharkey had the better chin between the two, that would only come into play between them if Sharkey could show a lot more wallop than his Pathetic KO ratio indicates he had. Despite protestations, nothing indicates wallop better than KO percentage, while nothing demonstrates lack of it better than a pitful KO percentage.

[The Old LefHook]

He not only could box extremely well but he could also brawl. In his prime he gives ANY heavyweight a great fight. He beat Carnera, he beat Schmeling, he was beating past prime Dempsey, he beat Wills, even while he was a shadow of his former self he gave prime Joe Louis a good scrap while it lasted, beat stribling, beat Loughran, Jack Delaney he was arguably the greatest heavyweight of the period between Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis's takeover of the title.

He had a better chin imo that Walcott too. He was a tad more consistent as well but not by a lot. I'm really impressed with Sharkey's skill set. He had it all.

You are ignoring Tunney. I believe Gene is the best heavyweight between Dempsey and Louis, and by far. No guarantees either of them could whip a prime Tunney. His whirlwind footwork is the opposite of Louis's plodding waltz.

If there were such a thing and I had to bet something important on the result, I would bet on prime Tunney to defeat prime Louis. I base this on Conn, who was not nearly as strong as Tunney and probably no faster. Trade Irishmen that night and I believe Louis leaves the ring a loser. I would make Tunney a slight favorite over Louis, that is. I could not make any other heavyweight between Louis and Dempsey a favorite over Louis

[Mr.MojoRisin']

You are ignoring Tunney. I believe Gene is the best heavyweight between Dempsey and Louis, and by far. No guarantees either of them could whip a prime Tunney. His whirlwind footwork is the opposite of Louis's plodding waltz.

If there were such a thing and I had to bet something important on the result, I would bet on prime Tunney to defeat prime Louis. I base this on Conn, who was not nearly as strong as Tunney and probably no faster. Trade Irishmen that night and I believe Louis leaves the ring a loser. I would make Tunney a slight favorite over Louis, that is. I could not make any other heavyweight between Louis and Dempsey a favorite over Louis

His heavyweight resume is seriously lacking. The only good heavyweight Tunney ever fought was past prime Dempsey. Sharkey on the other hand beat all of those guys I mentioned. Can't really rate a guy as the best heavyweight between the champs when he fought pretty much 1 good heavyweight and retired a year after Dempsey.

Tunney was a great ring technician but even past prime Dempsey was able to get in on him over 10 rounds. How do you think Louis would do over 15? Louis's jab is far superior to Dempsey's and he is much more adept at closing the distance and firing over the top of the jab than a past prime Dempsey. There really is no comparison. Louis gets hit more by Tunney than Dempsey did but he would finish it up at some point.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

If Mojo is right and Sharkey had the better chin between the two, that would only come into play between them if Sharkey could show a lot more wallop than his Pathetic KO ratio indicates he had. Despite protestations, nothing indicates wallop better than KO percentage, while nothing demonstrates lack of it better than a pitful KO percentage.

"Pathetic KO ratio"

That's a rather ignorant thing to say. You can't guage a guy off of his ko ratio. If it came down largely to KO ratio then a guy like Bert Cooper for example wouldn't be very notable in terms of power now would he?

Sharkey had Dempsey in trouble during their fight and he took Loughran out in their fight too. I'm not claiming Sharkey is an atg puncher but he definitely had punching ability.

He ducked nobody and fought everyone. The only man to fight both Dempsey and Louis. No other fighter in history can fight his schedule without at least 1 loss. There's no way around it.

Dempsey, Schmeling, Louis, Loughran, Carnera, Walker, Godfrey, and Wills are better than the guys Walcott fought. Sharkey came out of that 5-4-1. 6 out of 8 were world champions in an era where there was one champ per division. The other two were black so they couldn't have possibly been champions.

Walcott fought mainly in what is arguable the worst era for heavyweight boxing. His best names were Marciano, Charles, Maxim, Louis (past prime), Ray, and Jimmy Bivins. His results were 9-8-0. The only one of those guy he beat that he didn't lose to at some point was Bivins!

Walcott is a great fighter no doubt about it but he's rated higher for what he didn't do rather than what he did. Put prime Sharkey in with past prime Louis, Elmer Ray, and Bivins and he would tear them apart.

[billeau2]

This is a great debate actually. I see credible points on both sides.

Mojo I think you downgrade Tunney...Me thinks that Lefty is quite right that Tunney was an incredible technician and if Schmeling could catch Louis in a bad habit Tunney could do a lot more, and was as Lefty put it "the superior Irishman to Conn" lol. The problem is that while Dempsey was an attacker whom one could never look away from for an instant, Louis was a hunter, a stalker, a ring cutter and he played chess and took his time to find his man... Tunney could play chess with the best of them, if you look at Tunney he actually had technically superb elements of both the old era of fighting where guys set traps, used footwork and distance at fencing length and the new era where one squared up and emphasized the punching. As mentored by Corbet and the newer guys nobody to my mind had as big a bag of tricks as Gene the Marine. h

On the other hand I will give you Loughren because Tunney for all his greatness is now being talked about as a light heavyweight, perhaps the best, certainly one of the best. As far as Sharkey he reminds me a bit of Jimmy Young. He could fight at the level of the best, but didn't always beat the best... Sure Young may have beat Foreman and Sharkey might have prevailed over Dempsey if he was looking where he should have been, but neither guy really rose to the top in a manner where we can say they were one of the best...

I will give you this Mojo: when one looks at Sharkey's competition he does inspire at least a comparison to Walcott. Walcott was an excellent fighter and Maxim was a better light heavy than Loughren lol. Ezzard Charles speaks for itself. I can see it either way, I would tend to go with Walcott.