Vitali's resume is very thin and built by crude brawlers. Vitali took advantage of slow, weak defensively sluggers but he didn't face any good boxers (outside of Byrd and Lennox).
The problem with Sharkey is rather the same problem we encounter with Max Baer when assessing his chances in H2H matchups .Which version will turn up? The version that lost to Risko and Gorman ,or the one that beat Godfrey and Wills?
Then you would be very misguided. At lest Sharkey has a proven track record of success, against that kind of fighter.
sharkey wasnt anything special. he beat canera........but canera was completely void of talent. vitaly was on a completly different level. this would be a one side beatdown.
This is especially funny, because Sharkey arguably had better resume than Vitali. I get that people favor Vitali based on styles, physical advantage ect. but to use resume as a compelling argument here is ridiculous.
Sharkey never saw anybody like Vitali and neither did anybody of that era. This content is protected This content is protected If you can't see the difference in skill between Vitali and the other two I can't help you.
Well he came a lot closer to fighting somebody like Vitally, than Golovkin came to fighting somebody like Sharkey. We would have to give him that at least.
Plenty of those guys could box, Adamek, Solis, Kevin Johnson, Kirk Johnson, Gomez, Donald... Vitali just wouldn't let them.
Sharkey was better than anybody that Vitally beat. Outside of his losses, he is going into uncharted territory here. You might want to keep an open mind on that alone.
I wouldn't favor Sharkey over anyone in Vitali's resume beyond Herbie Hide, his 25th fight. Past that, I don't see him beating any of those, tho given the full line-up he would probably find a way to win one or two. Sorry, but the gulf between what you and I consider about boxing it too wide to even entertain further discussion. Won't stop me from commenting honestly on these match-ups when I see fit, tho. Cheers.