Jim Corbett vs Jack Sharkey

Ah, but how would Francesco do vs. Johnson! He was bigger, he hit harder and had too much length, facing a guy Ko'd cold by a light heavyweight. Tell us!

 

If Sullivan was a skilled puncher, he'd spark them and they would stay down. I think he was a puncher in a land with very few of them, and stood out like a redwood tree because of that. Boxing in Sullivan's time was mostly stand and trade. Corbett revolutionized the game, and showed it when he fought a past his best Sullivan. It wasn't close. Sullivan didn't win 30 seconds.

Well, they called Louis the shuffler in his time for a reason. He had slow feet and moved deliberately. You should see Ali and Cus Damato look at Joe Louis on film, Ali rips Louis. Footwork was not Louis' thing. I don't have to say it, " they " the people of the times and famous boxers after that time said it.

 

Damiani wasnt a big puncher.
What has Jack Johnson to do with this thread?
You've just introduced the Johnson v Langford fight into the thread Sullivan v Langford!
Can't you try and show a little courtesy and stop hijacking others threads with your hatred?
You need taking to the Vets and putting to sleep!

 

You can't compare LPR rounds with gloved rounds. LPR rounds weren't a fixed length, and it's generally much harder to finish somone.

 

Based on what? Do you think Lees, Farnan and...I dunno...Dooley were better than McCaffrey, Jack Burke, Mitchell, Greenfield, Cardiff? And you do know that the Mitchell and Kilrain bouts you quoted were London Prize fights, the Lees and Godfrey contests were with gloves.

 

You added Damiani in this thread. I just chose to expose your double standards That never gets old. But removing that, Jack Sharkey lost often vs non hall of fame boxers. Why? Indeed.

Men like Risko, Maloney, Gorman, Weinert, Rojas, and Ricordi beat Sharkey. They are not beating Corbett.

I have a hard time seeing Corbett drawing with Walker, Heeney, and Shucco too.

I do think Sharkey was on his way to beating Dempsey until Jack went low and took advantage of the situation when Sharkey complained to the ref! That fight should be a NC.

But don't take my word, most boxing lists of the time have Corbett above Sharkey.

There's the data you need relevant to this thread. I pity your dogs, they must have done something wrong in a past life to have miserable person like you as their owner.

 

Yes I'm aware of London rules fights. Either way Sullivan should have finished them sooner, if he was as skilled as some say.

The issue for me is Sullivan's best win were, Mcaffrey, Jack Burke, Mitchell, Greenfield, Cardift, etc.. Jackson mixed it with Maher, Goddard, Corbett, and Slavin, a better class. Jackson win over Slavin is better than any Sullivan win.

 

Sullivans record is deeper than Corbett's.

 

What? Please, offer some evidence before such a bold claim. I can't think of a single credible list which has Sharkey lower than Corbett.

First of all, Risko could absolutely beat Corbett. Second, Walker could very well get a draw vs Corbett. He beat plenty of heavyweight contenders, and was clearly better than someone like Tom Sharkey or Dave Campbell. Oh yeah, you know that works two ways, right? I can't see Tom Sharkey drawing with Jack. I also can't see Dave Campbell doing it either. There's noway Sharkey would lose to Fitzsimmons either.

 

Irrelevant to the mid 1880's.

 

Maher was not a better class when Jackson fought him, he was a novice, he didn't beat either of Corbett or Goddard. Slavin

He beat Slavin in 1892, not close to the dates being argued, and in Slavin's next fight he turned up drunk and got KOed by a middleweight.

 

With the possible exception of Ricordi, they would likely all beat the **** out of Corbett.

Take someone like Risko - why on earth do you think, he would lose to Corbett?

 

Not talented enough to beat a crude brawler in Tom Sharkey in two tries.Fitz did,though he was robbed in one,