You could be right of course, but then he did fairly well against Dempsey before the infamous KO and we can see that it was mostly an inside game.
Agree, all four are on a similar level, Patterson too, that's why it is a good debate. For the record I think Jack beats Ellis and Quarry but loses to Patterson. However, I think Ingo could spark Jack! styles.
I think I'd go with Patterson on points. He would be more agressive than sometimes lazy Sharkey and he could find Jack with some powerful hooks. I wouldn't expect a KO from either side here though. Sharkey fought a lot of good punchers and it wasn't easy to stop him.
They're pretty evenly matched and it's an interesting combination of styles and attributes. Quarry was best against big slugger types who came to him. I don't think he'd enjoy facing Sharkey. Sharkey would out-box Ingo but there's always the chance he gets flattened by that right hand. Ellis.. I'm not sure how to call that one.
Patterson could be lazy too, if he had upped his workrate, h would have had the Ellis win for sure. Jimmy was gifted some slow rounds, never felt it was the out-and-out robbery that it has become fabled to be.
I had a vision today of Patterson performing superlatively vs Sharkey like he did vs Henry Cooper...being utterly dominant with his power and his hand speed, and wrecking the Boston Gob in the same way he did dear 'Enery..and winning by a knockout in round 5. Floyd would have devastated Sharkey in an above average performance.
He wasn't lazy as a rule though....Floyd would occasionally let up on an opponent, like he did with Eddie Machen, but it was more a case of Floyd's odd but endearing sense of compassion for an opponent, and in the case with Ellis, I think Floyd was just trying to pace himself for the 15 round distance, which was somewhat unaccustomed to.
I'll go Floyd on points. He might be a little too quick of hand and foot for Jack over the course of a fight.
I never implied that Cooper and Sharkey were similar as fighters....but the results IMO would be the same.