John L v Sailor Tom???

I'm sure we can all agree that he already had quite a rep well before the Jeffries fights. The Jeffries fights simply strengthened the already existing image of Sharkey as a durable, hard-hitting iron man who possessed endless stamina and didn't know the meaning of the word "quit".

Fitz was the deadliest, most avoided hitter of the day. He hit Sharkey with countless crushers for 8 rounds before the controversial ending. If anything, this fight should be held up as a testament to Tom's toughness and ability to take it, rather than his detriment as you seem to be trying to do. Think Sullivan could have taken that punishment?

Sharkey was pretty much finished by the second Fitz fight. Almost everyone was in agreement that the second Jeffries fight took everything out of him. So I don't hold this against him. The fact that he went 8 rounds pre-Jeff and couldn't even survive a full 2 rounds post-Jeff supports that notion.

Sullivan never proved to have a chin in Sharkey's league ever, btw.

You wrote a book on Maher, so I respect your opinion. But my understanding was that it was a fairly tame fight. Dull even(mostly due to Maher, who the papers say didn't seem as "willing" as Sharkey). I read the NY Press' round by round. The fight was so without action up to that point that the crowd hissed and yelled "fight" in the third and fifth rounds. Sharkey obliged them by flooring and badly hurting Maher in the sixth. Peter came up bloody. 1st blood for Sharkey.
Then Maher floored Sharkey the next round. Tom bounced up quickly and all hell broke loose.

The NY Press doesn't indicate Maher as having any appreciable advantage. If he did (and other papers may say he did, I don't know) then it wasn't by much. Maher wasn't known as the sturdiest HW. Unlike Sharkey, he had a shaky chin, so I'm pretty sure Sharks stops him sooner or later.

Disagree. The pre-Jeffries Sharkey stopped Ruhlin in a single round. The past prime, post-Jeffries version got stopped. That says it all. No boxing people at the time considered Ruhlin to be a better fighter than Sharkey.

 

Three rounds? Really? Which quality gloved fighter did Sullivan beat? Sharkey has a better resume by good margin, and is far more battle tested.

Sullivan is extremely hard to rate due to a thin resume of wins. Without a doubt, Sharkey would be the best name on his resume had they meet, and John L defeated him.

Shareky has early KO's vs the likes of Ruhlin and Choysnki--two guys who were likely better than anyone John L beat.

Sullivan's durability in gloved fights vs. big punchers is somewhat untested.

IMO, this fight could go either way. Sullivan once sparred with a young Sharkey and for what's its worth/ He was impressed and felt he would be the next champion.

 

Charley Mitchell was certainly better than either Ruhlin or Choynski, or Sharkey, for that matter, much-much better.

 

To be honest with you Jimmy Braddock probabl;y has a better win on his resume thyanh any that Larry Holmes has.

It dosn't mean that he should be favoured over him, or is in the same class as him.

 

Senya13,

I normally agree with you and respect you as a well informed poster. However on this topic we are far apart. Mitchell better than Sharkey? I doubt that.

Mitchell was a part time fighter, and ( full time criminal ) who was quickly dispatched in three rounds by Jim Corbett when he was 29 years old.

Mitchell also never went more than 10 rounds in his career. Most of his fights were short, and ended without a stoppage.

The fact that Mitchell, a 5'9" Middle weight who hit did not hit in Sharkey's class floored Sullivan should spark a debate on Sullivan's defense and durability.

 

I think Holmes beat better fighters than Braddock, and would blow Braddock out to the tune of 13 rounds to 2 in a 15 round match or TKO him. I also think the Norton and and Witherpsoon that Holmes beat was far better than the apathetic Baer that Braddock defeated.

Back to point, Sharkey's resume of wins and class of fighters he meet exceeds Sullivan. Question. Why do few few historians and prominent fighters of the early 1900's ranked Sullivan as a top 1-3 ATG.

A better view of Sullivan is he was a dynamic puncher type who wasn't tested with top level competition, and in two cases avoided the best out there in Jackson and Slavin. This is not to say he didn't struggle at times with the fighters he meet. In some cases he did.

 

There are WBO champions dominating today that do not fight the best out there. If Sullivan was born around the same time as Fitzsimmons, Corbett, and Jeffries as Sharkey was, he would be winning and losing his share vs. the lineal champions too. Mostly losing.

How so? He did not meet Jackson, or Slavin. Nor Goddard or Dooley. Its easy to look invincible when you are a puncher facing lesser competition Janitor. We see it 120 years later with numerous prospects who never fought anyone. The sport when Sullivan was king was in its infancy, and the talent level wasn't exactly teaming either.

Come on now. Not even in the same ring?

He did not defeat say the best three boxers from the 1880's to 1890's in Corbett, Jackson, and Slavin. Heck, Joe Goddard would likely rate as Sullivan's 1st or 2nd best win.

Depends on how short you define his prime. Pre 1880, I can buy into that.

Jackson and Slavin started boxing in 1882. Janitor, that is 10 years before Sullivan meet Corbett!

W

On the contrary, I know who the best fighters from 1880-1890 were, and Sullivan did not meet the best of them. How can one dominate or as you say clean out an era when he did not face the best? He can't.

 

Though not as well versed on Charlie Mitchell as others here, I've read up on him some. I don't really see what Charlie Mitchell accomplished that would put him above Sharkey or Choynski on any list.

 

Sometimes it's not about accomplishments. Otherwise you wouldn't have Bob Foster near the top of all lhw ratings.

 

True. But Foster at least had SOMETHING to show us. He cleaned out a division, more often than not in shockingly brutal fashion. What did Mitchell do? And what makes him a more successful fighter than Sharkey and Choynski?

 

I don't know what you mean by more successful. My point was Mitchell was better P4P and head-to-head than any of the three names mentioned.

 

In other words you think he would beat Sharkey and Choynski? Or that he would have done better against opponents like Jeffries and Fitzsimmons than Sharkey and Joe did?