Thoughts? We all know Sharkey is the better fighter, but does Layne have the stylistic advantage here?
At their respective bests, Sharkey's hand speed and skills would be too much for Layne, who was destroyed in large part by Marciano's own greatly superior (and underrated) hand speed and quickness. This would be a clean cut UD for Jack.
Great fight I think. Sharkey on his best would beat Layne I think. But every other version would get beaten. He really should have his head straight there.
A prime Sharkey wins an easy decision ... A mid thirties version could lose a decision like older Walcott and Charles did ..
Why do you refer to Walcott and Charles as "older" A year after losing to Layne, Walcott knocked out Ezzard Charles to win the heavyweight championship. 2 years after the layne loss, he would come within 2 rounds of beating Rocky Marciano. He was clearly not past his prime in 1950. He had some of his best yeare right before 1950, and some of his best years right after 1950. He was smack in the middle of his prime years. Would Sharkey beat the Walcott who won the world heavyweight championship in 1951 with a devastating one punch knockout? Checkout this film here of Charles in 1952(the year Layne beat charles)...tell me from this footage where charles looks blatantly past his prime? In fact, tell me from this film where Jack Sharkey(at any point in his career) shows the reflexes and speed of a 1952 Ezzard Charles? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PutDflPYo&feature=related[/ame] I think Jack Sharkey was a great master boxer against the right styles, but again, Layne is going to keep coming into him all night long. Sharkey does not have the punch to keep layne off him, and layne could certainly bull him into the ropes and score with volumes of shots including his big right hand. Layne also could jab with sharkey. All I am saying is sharkey better bring his absolute A game, or this could turn out to be an upset. Sharkey was not as refined and acute a counterpuncher as schmeling was, and did not have blazing fast hands like charles. This could be a tough one for Shark. I watched Shark's fight with Tom Heeney the other day. Heeney gave him a lot of trouble. Heeney was a gooftrooper.
I think Sharkey could have some problems with Layne, especially if Layne smartly applies pressure as he did against Walcott. Sharkey sometimes had fighters who pressured him and didn't allow him to dictate the pace, ie: Heeney, Risko, Rojas.
That's not necessarily true. Most reports from that time describe him as showing his age by the early '50s, and what footage is available of him shows him looking a bit slower and less fluid or consistent with his footwork in the '50s than he had in the late '40s. Just because he happened to score his biggest official win(s) in the '50s doesn't mean that was when he showed his best form. From what can be gleaned from footage and contemporary reports, it seems more likely that Walcott's peaked in the mid and late '40s, around the time he beat Bivins and fought Louis. Possibly, who knows. Certainly, Walcott sure looked pretty tired as he was being interviewed after the fight, after having fought for only 7 moderately paced rounds.
I am the biggest Jersey Joe Walcott fan out there. I rate him well within my top 15. All of what you say above is true, but again arguements can be made. I have for years(as a huge walcott fan) tried to make excuses for the Layne loss, but I can't. Walcott simply got outfought, outworked by a younger strong opponent. This fight happened right after some great Walcott performances(Louis I and II, Tandberg, Skhor, Agramonte Johnson) and proceeded with some equally impressive performances(Charles III, Marciano I)....It was a major upset. But Layne earned it. I have read all the reports. The reports "thought" he was slowing down, until he dismantled Ezzard Charles in 7 rounds in Pittsburgh, then nearly beat Rocky Marciano in 13 amazing rounds one year later(which many reports stated was the best fight of his career). Walcott fooled them all. I agree his footwork, feet are a bit slower/less fluid than seen in the Louis fights. That is clear. But that is the only thing he lost. Walcotts footwork even in the early 50s was still very good. While his footwork/foot speed was not what it once was, I think he gained in other areas. I think his offense was at his peak in the 1950s, and part of that was he decided to let his hands go(Walcott was a powerful puncher with both hands). He was more aggressive. He went after H Johnson, Hoff, Agramonte, Charles, and most importantly Marciano. Another area he improved in was Confidence, which really helped him against Marciano. He was the champ, he wasn't going to give up his title so easily. I think Walcott's prime is 1947-1952. Walcott was certainly near it in 1946, but it was only his 2nd year with Boccichio and Florio. He had some snoozefests with Joey Maxim and allowed Elmer Ray to outland and outwork him in 1946. I think as time progressed and he had more time with them, he became better/wiser/healthier. Walcott really really looked good dispatching a prime ezzard charles in 7 rounds(something no one had ever done to charles, put him down for 10 count). I have the first fight on film, he fought too tentative. Let charles dictate the pace. The 2nd fight was MUCH closer than the scorecards indicate, everytime walcott unloaded a power punch he hurt charles badly. Charles boxed beautifully too that night and slightly edged it. The 3rd fight, Walcott stayed aggressive and it paid off. That was the single great puncher ever executed in the ring. If you ask me to pinpoint his very best..his absolute peak..I would say Joe Louis in 1947. He was really magical with his jab/feet/feints/counters that night, plus he let his hands go. Perhaps..But a tired man wouldn't be able to outline an execution that perfect and smooth in the 7th round in pittsburgh would he? Also, if he was such a tired old man, how the hell did he beat the **** out of a young prime Rocky Marciano in rounds 11 and 12? Damm he looked so fresh entering round 13.
Very possibly he could, if he was a great fighter to begin with (as Walcott was) and had managed to slow the pace and pattern of the fight to his liking (as Walcott did). Probably because he'd managed to box through some of the earlier rounds and save up for a second wind.
Because I think the Walcott that fought Layne was not as good as the Walcott who fought Louis. He was older. Against Rocky he fought the fight of his life against what a consider to be a near but not yet prime Marciano. He got blown out in the rematch. I feel Charles was definately past his best when he fought Lex as well. His legs were shells of what they were in the late forties. Both Charles and Walcott were still tough, cagey ,skilled and dangerous veterans but not in their primes.
I don't want to get into the middle of the Walcott growing old argument, but I think one big factor is that Walcott obviously pointed to the Louis and Marciano fights, while he most likely underestimated Layne and was not at the top of him game for that fight.
