Jeffries on of the most misunderstood ..

:good:good

 

If he had only had Jeffries chin he might have really shocked the world.
I don't doubt Jeffries was a good puncher ,but I see him as being some distance below top flight.

 

To be honest, I think that Sharkey would have done at least as well against Patterson as Chuvalo did.

 

Depends on the ruleset imo. Under Patterson´s rules he would get out-classed imo. I also think Patterson would outclass Jeffries under his ruleset - too fast, too skilled and too good defensivly.
In a fight to the finish fight both, Sharkey and Jeffries, would win without a doubt.

IMO this is hardly comparable. It was a different sport back then. It´s not fair to either era to compare the pre 1920/30 fighters to the ones afterwards. I also think the changes of 15 to 12 rounds, mutliple belts and so ion that came up in the 80s is a similir cut off date in boxing history. To me it looks like three eras, the transition era from 1870/80 to 1920/30, the modern era from 1930 to the early/mid 1980s and the post-modern era from then on.

 

Do you think that there were any better oponents available at the time?

 

no.not till johnson came along

 

Speaking of Sharkey here, I have read much from newspaper accounts and from contemporaries... I don't remember much differing from these accounts than him rushing his opponents and throwing haymakers from another zipcode and absorbing inhuman punishment. Hardly sounds scientific to me.

 

"post-modern era"

Oh, no. An intellectual.

 

I don't have his Jeffries book, no. And at the current state of running my own business, don't think I'll have the green to afford it for a while.

However, since I have some free time this morning, I just re-read half a dozen fight recaps from the NYT involving Sharkey and found nothing that did not support my assertion of his fighting qualities.

Please enlighten to me to what I am missing. Seriously. I am not claiming to be some sort of expert of Sharkey, though I have read my share of opinions on him.