What if Jack Sharkey had an army of loyal apologists....

1926-1932. A six year span, during which Sharkey lost three times, once on a controversial knockout against Dempsey (where Sharkey was hit low), once on a foul against Schmeling (when Sharkey hit low), once on a controversial split decision against Risko which many thought Sharkey won. He had wins over Schmeling, Carnera, Loughran, Wills, Godfrey, Stribling, Delaney, McTigue and others. After the winning the title, or rather before winning it, Sharkey had lost interest in boxing and was more of a part time fighter, fighting once or twice a year at most. Career was derailed because of a bad call against Schmeling, the only time the title has been won on a DQ. Sharkey was dominating until the sudden ending.

 

I would argue he lost both Schmeling fights. :tong

 

In the second fight, a fat old disinterested Sharkey was still outboxing Schmeling who was only able to outwork an opponent who had to conserve his energy due to being badly out of shape. It was like Hopkins-Calzaghe.

 

sharkey was a great all rounder. he was a succesful figter with a happier ending than a lot of greater fighters.

 

Testicles were a deal breaker with this guy one way or another huh.

 

I am a bit of that (see the other thread), so for me the opposite is true.

Not at all. Sharkey was highly motivated and at his best for quite a while to avenge a loss he thought he shouldn´t have on his ledger. And still he wasn´t able to beat Schmeling who outworked, outfought and outthought him. He needed the help of the ref and the judges to win despite clearly losing and thus is responsible for the creation of a term still in use today: robbery.

 

Phil Scott tried to capitalize on this reputation by claiming a low blow which was obviously a legal punch to the body.

 

Sharkey came in at career highest weight and looked horrible compared to the well-conditioned Sharkey of the late 20's. Schmeling caught him on a bad night and still couldn't get the job done.

 

Two good runs October 1925 till July27 when, after leading Dempsey he turned his head to complain about low blows and got left hooked out of it.

13 straight wins over the likes of

Risko
Maloney
Soloman
Gorman
Maloney
Godfrey
Wills
Mctigue


Followed by April 19 28-June 1930
7 straight wins ,including
Delaney
Christner
Stribling
Loughran
Scott
Dekuh
Sharkey allways found a way to lose just when he was looking dominant, good runs were interrupted by inexplicable losses, often to guys he had either beat allready ,or would go on to beat .
Sharkey was the opposite of Gene Tunney ,where Sharkey was all fire ,and emotion.Tunney was ice ,and calculating savvy.
At his best The Sailor would have given any heavy a tough time and may have even beaten Tunney, or,at least held him close. but he lost silly fights, that gave Tunney the opportunity to by pass him.
Sharkey fought with his heart,Tunney with his head.
A talented fighter ,who could box or brawl, and, who hit a deal harder than his ko% suggests. On his night he was capable of holding anyone ,but you never knew when his night would be ,and neither did he.

 

If I remember correctly in Nat Fleischer's " A Pictorial History of Boxing" there were a series of pictures that showed the punch that stoped Schmeling in their first fight as landing on the hip instead of the groin.

 

I think Schmeling deserved the decision against Sharkey the second time.