Wlad v Dempsey

I'm not even sure I'd like my money on Sharkey to beat 2004 Samuel Peter, let alone Byrd/Haye/Ibragimov/Chagaev/Povetkin.

The thing about Wlad is that he dominated lesser opponents in a more consistently one-sided fashion than any other heavyweight in history. So that makes me a bit hesitant to give Sharkey - who is not going to KO him, nor outbox him - any chance at all.

 

Is that not putting a rather negative slant on the career of a very capable fighter? Indeed, if your post was the first thing a new fan read on Sharkey then that really would be a low blow.

It is not necessary to damn Klitschko in order to explain why I feel he'd lose to certain men, just highlight particular traits, stylistic and mental.

The reason I believe Dempsey would beat Wlad is not down to any worship of the former or hate of the latter, but simply that Dempsey's strength's match up with Wladimir's weaknesses like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

Ahh, that's why they call it the WORLD WIDE web...

Carry on, I will catch up later.

 

The reason this era is considered the worst heavyweight era of all time is, fortunately, because fans know what they're looking at.

There are plenty of undefeated records floating about, but you can't hide the lack of killer instinct, the inability to fight on the inside, to double jab, to fight consistently for three minutes. Most contender's give up against Wladimir after a few rounds, not because he's beating their heads in or because he's casting illusions of a Willie Pep ilk, but simply because they are incompetent.

His last defence against a sorry Alex Leapai was a perfect microcosm of this when Alex's equally hopeless corner urged him to "keep going forward!"

All we have to do is replay footage of Sharkey at his best, and, the difference in talent should be clear.

Wladimir does get credit for his dominance, it is what his legacy rests on; he is brilliant at regurgitating the same recipe. I simply doubt it's effectiveness against more attuned fighters who can identify the ingredients.

 

More eras than not have been accused of being wretched. Most of the entire 1980's, Patterson's carefully contrived reign, Marciano's era (Dempsey himself called it horrible), Louis' bum of the month, the round robin between Baer, Schmeling, Braddock, Carnera... Jeffries reign against aged midgets...

I am very suspect of allegations of an era being sub par... especially when made by contemporaries.

 

Ted Spoon,

Regarding Sharkey-Klitschko. I looked further into analyzing both Sharkey and Klitschko on film in hopes to form a strong opinion. The thing I first notice about Sharkey is that he is a good fighter. A really good fighter. Dempsey's best looking victim(By far). I'll give Dempsey his due there (Although it goes without mentioning Sharkey was in a commanding lead, and was hit in the balls deliberately by Jack Dempsey.) But let's stay off that, that's a different discussion.

Back to Jack Sharkey. He liked to move, he likes to jab, he was rough on the inside, nice handspeed, decent head movement at times, He had fantastic instincts. Good sense of range. A natural fighter. He simply lacked the physical attributes to be capable to compete with a highly skilled knockout artist like Wlad Klitschko. He did not hit hard enough in either hand to severely test Wlad's chin, he did not possess the reach to compete at a distance with a master of range like Wlad. Sharkey did not possess the Speed, athleticism, boxing skills to get inside and make Wlad miss while being able to counter effectively.

Against Carnera in 31, Sharkey displayed fine head movement, and got in and out of range nicely, but he lunged with his punches. His left hook was his best punch, but he couldn't put combination punches together. David Haye tried to use that stategy against Wlad K of going in and out, trying to potshot and land the home run punch, rather than putting combination punches together. Haye is a much more lethal puncher than Sharkey. That strategy did not work, Wlad saw right through it. He kept Haye on the outside all night, and made him pay with effective straight punches.

Worse yet, Sharkey kept his left hand really low. Wlad possessed one of the hardest and most accurate straight right hands in heavyweight history. Sharkey is going to get his face re-arranged by Wlad's right hand unless he alters his gameplan. And don't forget Wlads lethal left hook, a overlooked punch in Wlad's arsenal. The chris byrd fight shows even a defensive master will get eaten alive by Klitschko's pinpoint accuracy. Byrd is a top notch technician, as good as we've seen. All the great defensive manauevers Sharkey throws at him won't be enough to stop Wlads onset, and he didn't possess the tools on offense to severely threaten Wladimir.

In essence, while a very good fighter at 6'0 200lb, he would be outmatched by Wladimir Klitschko. If you put Wlad's two fisted knockout power, elite footwork, great left jab, high ring intelligence, sound boxing skills, top notch defense, and uncanny sense of range and add that to his 6'6 250lb muscular frame(Which gives Wlad a 6" height advantage and 50lb weight advantage)....Sharkey will be in for a one sided beating in a game effort.


Wlad Klitschko TKO 9 Jack Sharkey

 

I recall one contemporary writer discussing Sharkey, and he said something like you just need to push him off position, and he never comes back with a counter, he always takes a second or two to recharge before starting to throw something, and that that was the reason Walker was able to draw with him, but Schmeling, a better fighter, had problems with him, because he wasn't aggressive enough against Sharkey. Don't know how true that is, not really interested in those heavyweights.

 

Harry B. Smith of San Francisco Chronicle on Fred Fulton's second victory over Sam Langford: "But it was not cleverness or ability that helped Fulton to his victory--merely bulk."

 

You didn't respond to any points I made about how Sharkey lacks to the tools to put a dent in Klitschko's ranged and power-based style.

Nevertheless, replying to what you bring up: to those who have studied it, it's a well-established fact that pretty much every era is being considered as being a poor one by contemporaries. I'm past my keyboard warrioring days so I don't have the articles here, but I used to have articles from the 20's, 30's, 50's, 70's and 90's - many of which are revered now - where contemporary writers call it a weak era, wondering how easily [insert previous generation's champions] would've steamrolled the current crop.

And it's not just the writers. Jack Johnson wasn't impressed by Dempsey or Louis, Dempsey didn't care much about Marciano, Marciano wasn't high on Johansson (and almost made a comeback to prove it), Louis thought Clay was mediocre and didn't fight like a real man, Lennox Lewis isn't impressed by the current era, etc etc.

I think it's very tricky to say that one era is better than the other. There are some differences, but it's complicated. If Joe Louis didn't exist, there may be several men held in higher regard. He basically ended Baer's career (both of them), finished Sharkey, Carnera, not to mention the many competent men whom he never gave their chance to shine, like Farr, Godoy, Mauriello, Nova and Conn.

What we do know is that the manner in which Wlad's completely crushes inferior opposition is second to none. And I don't see anything that Sharkey can do to not suffer the same fate. SuzieQ's eloquent words - quoted below - describe my thoughts exactly.

Of course, it's not really a fair comparison. Sharkey comes from a different time and was an excellent boxer in his own right. But he'd be out-matched in every category but stamina here.

Lastly, I'd like to respond to your statement about Wlad's opponents:

These words have been repeated in the general forum for the last decade. And I don't believe them. There have been plenty of opponents who double-jabbed (Byrd 2x, Thompson, Peter), used a lot of head-movement (Byrd, Chambers, Chagaev Povetkin), used aggression (Peter 2x, Povetkin), were unorthodox (Thompson 2x, Chambers, Brock), attacked in bursts to neutralize his range-game (Haye, Ibragimov, McCline), etc. I don't think you appreciate just how hard it is to get on the inside of a 6"6', 245lbs athlete with a jackhammer jab and right hand/left hook that take your head off. And once you get on the inside, he just ties you up and tires you. And you have to start over.

The things that you and everyone in the general forum say are certainly things that his opponents realized, with millions of dollars of rewards awaiting them.
Just touch his chin!
Double jab to the chest and come over the top!
Pressurize him and he'll fold like a cheap suit!

You'd think that ten years later, people would come to realize it's not that easy.

 

Nicely done.

Wladimir could beat Sharkey and would likely be the favourite.

Sharkey's route to victory lies in his, as you say, instincts and variety. He didn't do anything bad, could switch his attack and make a clinch uncomfortable. This would be the foundation to disrupt Wladimir and then slip in punches that he's not composed for.

Sharkey, at his feisty best, could pull this off, though I recognize the possibility of Wladimir lining him up for that heavy right hand.

 

You're not wrong about Wladimir being a tricky obstacle.

My only real objection to your post would be that my opinions have been skewered through that contemporary lens. Unlike past champions, it is not this era I take issue with (Guillermo Rigondeaux is one of the finest boxers I've ever seen), but indeed what I am actually viewing.

Most if not all heavyweight contenders appear to have some glaring weakness, be it they can't keep in shape, have poor technique, stamina or lack bravery. The irony is that David Haye could have beaten Wladimir, but he simply was not prepared to eat something on the way in and so forfeited his chance.

Coarse as is sounds, a pervading sound-byte of "these guys are crap" surely can't be because everyone has it in for this era. Casual fans have gathered in chorus. They know what they're looking at and it pictures a very solid champion looming over guys who don't know how to overcome a jab n' grab fight.

I do feel that Wladimir's legacy is held up mainly by the deficiencies of his opponents. Some of this is down to a more general problem, a stagnation of styles were trainers believe in piling on the weight and working behind a jab; essentially play a game that Wladimir is the king of. There are virtually no decent, aggressive heavyweights, and this is reflective of very poor trainers and training habits.

We have become obsessed with weight. You need athleticism. Povetkin, Pulev, these guys have poor physiques and can't properly bend at the waist - essential against our heavyweight champion.

 

Sharkey has nothing to offer Wlad. He's not stronger, he can't hit hard enough and he's not fast enough. He doesn't have the speed of hand or foot and doesn't cover distance especially quickly. Also, his mental stability make Oliver McCall look like a stoic.