Fitz is an all-time great fighter, no shame in losing to him. Sharkey didn't fight blacks like a lot of fighters (Dempsey included), judge him by the standards of his era.
Maher fought loads of blacks, Jeffries too actually, Choynski did, Corbett fought one (?) Slavin did, Goddard did, Kilrain too, don't think Ruhlin did, maybe McCoy either, Sharkey fought just one iknow, early on..
Sharkey fought one and got sparked out!JackSharkey boxes his ears off imo. Sailor Tom probably gets slung out for fouling in frustration.
You should be quite low on Jack Dempsey based on these criteria I don't get it how can you really believe that 1900s is much stronger than 1890s.
Dempsey was a revelation, he fought out of a bob and weave crouch, fast feet, fast hands, every punch in the book .Two fisted power with maximum leverage coming from his hips going into short hooks.Tom Sharkey just charged at you with no defence and he fought,"temper dirty". Sharkey was described as crude in his own era.You're putting an interpretation on my post that I do not accept and it isnt the first time you've done it. I've never said all 1900s fighters are technically better than those a decade earlier.I just don't think Corbett or Sharkey are good examples for your argument.
the 1890 guys stack up well versus the next and previous decade IMO. Choynski and Griffin beat Johnson(green) Maher beat contender Kennedy, Armstrong defeated Martin, Ruhlin drew with Hart and Ferguson, Fitz beat Gardner, McCoy drew with O'Brien etc.
True, but he didn't fight black fighters. In very limited footage we have, Sharkey looks fine enough and he didn't do things you imply here. He even used a high guard, something that is considered a good thing in this forum. But you said that 1890s was an era of crude skills and that's why Sharkey succeed. I'm just saying that 1890s fighters don't look worse than 1900s H2H, as Matt just proved.
Actually I said it was it was in its rudimentary stages,and for the most part so it was into the next decade. However that isnt Jack Sharkey's era or Dempsey's for that matter. Boxing took a giant leap forward in the second decade of the 1900's,huge crowds, million dollar gates ,hundreds of fighters engaging in legal boxing matches. It was a golden age. You want to suggest Tom Sharkey wasnt crude and unrefined? Bye.
There are no reasons to believe so though. He might be, but some reports also call him very fast and he was certainly effective.
Says who? Corbettt until the 1960's was viewed as a top 10 heavyweight by the boxing community. These men are journeyman that beat Sharkey because he wasn't that good!
Yes there are, there were literally hundreds of fighters in the 20's lots of trainers and regular fights.Any describe Tom Sharkey as skilled,technically clever,elusive? First radio broadcast 1921. NBA formed 1921 https://www.handerick.com/boxers-in-the-1920s/
What are Corbett's top 3 wins? I see you didn't accept my challenge to point out untruths on Jeffries? I knew you wouldn't.I expect you," were very busy,"lol
How does Tom Sharkey work his way into a Corbett vs Jack Sharkey thread? Oh must be Mcvey... Jack took his professional boxing name after Tom, so obviously he respected him.