This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Jack Sharkey was a terror to many light heavyweights. Despite Gibbons's success as a heavyweight, he was always more of a light heavy, especially in his prime. I don't think Gibbons could outpoint the bigger, stronger man who was equally skilled.
Gibbons was past his prime when he fought Dempsey too. This wasn't the same gibbons who was thrashing harry greb
Whilst I think Gibbons was all round better than Sharkey, probably, I think that Sharkey might have his number in the same sort of way that Taylor (kind of) had Hopkins.
Jack Sharkey would have beaten Tommy Gibbons in my opinion. Look what he did to Tommy Loughran, who was a better fighter than Gibbons.
I've only seen Gibbons been dominated by Dempsey. Sharkey was skilled but inconsistent, he usually bested smaller men but ofcourse Walker took him to a draw so could Gibbons? Perhaps I do think at his best Sharkey would be able to impose his size An odd comparison, do you consider him to have athletic advantages rather than just size and strength on him?
Sharkey in 1927: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8TGgAuOfxs[/ame] Gibbons in 1924: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNy9fJbSPZk[/ame]
This would have been a good fight. Probably a very close one to the final bell too. Young Stribling gave Sharkey a close fight and I think Gibbons was a little better than Stribling in most departments.