[1949 article] Jeffries and Sharkey slam Walcott and Charles

So many gems.

Present Heavies Don’t Have It—Say Ex-Titlists, Rapid City Journal, Sept. 13, 1949

James J. Jeffries and Tom Sharkey were asked to tell what they believed was wrong with the current state of the heavyweight division.

Jeffries, who retired as an undefeated champion and then came back for his lamentable affair with Jack Johnson, won from Sharkey in 20 rounds and repeated in a savage battle of 25, Nov. 3, 1899.

“Men like Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott would be lucky to be preliminary men in the days of the real fighters,” says the one-time boilermaker, who at 74 is retired and living in Burbank.

“The trouble is that the boys won’t train.

“They want money too fast.

“They don’t know anything about boxing, and don’t care to learn.”

Sharkey works as a guard at a Stockton, Calif., motor pool.

“Charles is a second-rater,” asserts Sailor Tom.

“Most of the present big-time fighters couldn’t carry water for the battlers of my day.

“At 77, I could still lick all of them myself.”

 

LOL, different times, different names… but same old story!

 

It was a poor fight, to be fair.

 

Incredible that Tom Sharkey lived so long.
Died at age 82, a ripe old age for someone born in 1871 and was known to have been in some really brutal fights.
He outlived Jeffries by a few weeks (they both died in 1953). Jeffries himself was 77 when he died.

The oldest surviving former world heavyweight champion right now is, I think, George Foreman, who has just turned 70.
I can only think of one top contender of his day (1970s) still alive, older than he, Earnie Shavers, 74.
They both look well and in good shape too.

 

Seems like they were good friends! Wonder what they thought of Walcott's terrific KO of Charles in their 3rd fight

Also, to be fair, in terms of heavyweight champs, they weren't exactly top 10 material even at the time. Some probably still regarded Sharkey as the superior contender, his fights with Jeffries were brutal, wheras the first two Charles vs Walcott fights were tame by comparison.

I feel as though both would be a fan of Marciano, especially Jeffries

 

Charles would lap Sharkey if it came to boxing expertise,the Sailor was as crude as ****.A green Jack Johnson made a fool of him in sparring.

 

Neither Charles or Walcott were particularly well regarded in the 40s,50s,60s, a certain amount of revisionism has significantly enhanced their standing over the last 30 years or so.

 

By "even at the time" I meant before Ali and Holmes and Holyfield and the like came about, which would therefore make it easier to be a top 10 heavy through objective view

 

No criticism was implied in my post.

 

Frankly, I find their words worthy of serious consideration and validity.

 

I can imagine Walcott turning Jeffries,pivoting and banging that short left hook home time after time.
Charles would beat Sharkey up.

 

Jeffries might well have been a cut or two above them, Sharkey not so much.

 

I'd pick both Walcott and Charles to beat either, so I'm not so sure about their words on the matter

 

Well Jeffries at least was clearly far more successful than either of them at heavyweight.

They might have beaten him, or they might not, it is all supposition.

 

Of course it's all supposition. What isn't though, is the later had more ways to win. If these fights go to the cards, Charles and Walcott will win. Sharkey and Jeffries aren't outboxing them to a decision. So that leaves them with the only option of KOing them before 12 or 15... Something I think they could pull off. If this fight was 25 or a finish fight, that might be different.