Jack Sharkey Vs Bob Fitzimmons?

20 Rounds, for the most part, implies the rule set in Fitzsimmons' era. If that's the case, Fitzsimmons' chances improve greatly, because he'll have the leeway to set his traps and work his magic.

 

The number of rounds is irrelevant here, Fitz always went for stoppage at HW anyway. Although Sharkey was tricky, I don't think he was tricky enough to outsmart such a experienced puncher like Fitzsimmons. Bob would stop him sooner or later.

 

Back in 1967 there was a computerized all-time heavyweight tournament with the results broadcast each week on the radio. I was fascinated by this series, particularly the predictions from boxing greats and experts that came at the beginning of each mythical bout. One of the earliest such matches put Jack Sharkey against Bob Fitzsimmons. Nat Fleischer, founder of Ring Magazine, predicted that Fitzsimmons would double Sharkey over with body blows. Angelo Dundee picked Sharkey based on size differences. Rocky Marciano said that on a good night, he believed Sharkey could beat a Bob Fitzsimmons. In the computerized contest, Fitz won a 15-round decision.

Fitz could do it all. He was crafty, durable, and his punching power was legendary. He could go 20 rounds, even as an old fighter, as he did when he won the light heavy title in 1903. He nearly killed Gus Ruhlin, had Tom Sharkey's number, and the only fighter who defeated him during his prime years was Jeffries, and those victories were hard fought. A reporter who was at ringside for both Jeffries-Fitz II and Willard-Dempsey wrote that in the first round of their bout, Fitz gave Jeff a worse beating than Dempsey gave Willard.

When he had it together, Jack Sharkey could do it all as well. A very clever boxer, he was a decent puncher despite the relatively few KOs in his record. He was especially at his best during the early rounds of a fight. Sharkey had several fine victories on his way to the title, most notably Harry Wills, George Godfrey, and Jim Maloney. He was doing very well against Jack Dempsey until that instant when he looked away toward the ref. Sharkey could be a very inconsistent performer - in some bouts he was brilliant, in others just so-so. On a really good night he was capable of upsetting anyone.

For Sharkey to win, he would have to bring his "A" game and stick to it through to the end. If he could do this, he could win. But he could not afford to make any mistakes, as he did in the Dempsey fight. Fitz was durable and could come back from rough going to win, as he did in the Corbett fight. I would expect a Sharkey-Fitzsimmons fight to look like the Fitz-Corbett bout. Sharkey would start fast and dominate during the early rounds. Fitz would weather the storm, all the while landing blows of his own and setting traps. Fitz at his best was a beast in the ring and going 20 rounds against him would be a tall order. Once the tide shifted in Fitz' favor, it would be his fight. I would expect Fitz to stop a game Sharkey during the latter rounds.

 

Here is a link to the Fitzsimmons-Sharkey fantasy fight radio broadcast from 1967. It's worth a listen ....

This content is protected

 

I'm pretty fascinated by Fitz. I have 3 books on him. He claims over 300 fights which far exceeds what Boxrec has.
I gotta go with Fitz by KO. The guy was so fearless and durable its really incredible reading about him. Of course some things I take with a grain of salt but that doesnt diminish the big picture IMO

 

Fitz had the equalizer, that's for sure. But Sharkey was pretty dang durable. And when his head was screwed on he was formidable for his era, a well-schooled boxer with fighting focus and, most importantly, he was pretty yoked.

Great match-up. I'm taking Fitz to turn the trick. Probably lose my money on that.

 

You and me both. My money would also be going on Ruby Robert Fitzsimmons, especially in his era's rules set.

 

I'm with Sharkey all the way. Fitz's all-time reputation is built too much on romance, IMO. The quality of Sharkey's competition in the 1920s and '30s was far better than that of Fitzsimmons in the 1890s and early 1900s. I enjoy all the legends about boxing, but I try to be a realist in analyzing head-to-head match-ups of fighters from different eras. That's why I generally avoid commenting in most of those threads. Not even sure why I'm posting to this thread. Maybe it's because I'm trying to balance all the one-sided opinions favoring Fitzsimmons.

The idea that staging the fight in the 20-round era would favor Fitz is specious at a minimum and laughable at the maximum. A look at Fitz's record on Boxrec demonstrates that most of his fights were scheduled for four, six, and eight rounds. Of those fights scheduled for 20, he went the distance only once, against George Gardner who weighed 168 pounds. Other than that, his longest route was the 14 he went against Corbett. If you look at Sharkey's record, he went the full 15 five times, three of which were against opponents who were undisputable heavyweights. So who had the better endurance as demonstrated by their actual ring records?

Sharkey was a true heavyweight. Fitzsimmons at his most effective weight against heavyweights was nothing more than a super middleweight who could still make the middleweight limit at any time in his career. He even weighed 156 pounds against Bill Lang in 1909. Sharkey would outweigh him by 20-30 pounds if Bob were in top condition. Really, give me a break. The more I think about it, Fitz would have almost no chance. Dream on or get real!

 

Kas, thank you for your post. I agree with all of it. Sharkey all the way.

 

Fitzsimmons didn't face weaker competition than Sharkey and he was more consistent than Jack.