I know, but I want to see what you see wrong in Sharkey's fighting that you so quickly downgrade his chances against even journeymen.
Just the fact that he’s too small and there really wasn’t anything extraordinary about his boxing skills in the clips, I think a high end journeyman from mikes era could take him out since they have the advantage of much more modern training, knowledge and techniques. Do you really think he has a chance to even become a contender in mike’s era?
By modern standards, yes. I’m not a guy that thinks boxing has continuously evolved, either. Certainly not as far as technique is concerned. The Walker Law brought forth a renaissance. I think it created more positive growth from its inception in 1920 through to the 1940s (when the sport peaked) than there has been during the other 100+ years of MOQ combined. Unfortunately that peak came almost 40 years after Sailor Tom was in the ring. In fact, the revolution didn’t even begin until 16 years after he hung them up. Not saying there were no improvements made from the beginning of MOQ to the Walker Law. There were. Many. Anyways, you can only fight in the era you live in, so I don’t hold it against Sharkey or any other pre-20s fighter. Nor do I downplay their achievements or dismiss them in discussions of the all time greats. They belong there. I just can’t bother with head to head matchups or take discussion of their “refined” or “advanced” technique seriously. Unless someone is willing to educate me further on those techniques. I’m sure they had their reasons for fighting the way they did.
Jim Corbett and James J Jefferies and Bob Fitzsimmons would beat many a modern day fighter. Are you telling me that Ruby Bob would not beat Michael Moorer with that punch???
But what makes "modern" training that much better? Do you know Sharkey's training details? What techniques did fighters use in Tyson's era that wasn't used in Sharkey's era? For me the only reason you pick against Sharkey is because of size, which is fine but don't try to hide it with this tak about training and technique.
Base what on what? Technique? I have two eyes and plenty of experience training, studying, and watching/analyzing fights and fighters. Here’s a question: can you describe Ruby Rob’s “corkscrew punch”?
What footage of Sharkey have you seen? What I've seen isn't good or long enough to be a measure stick. What do you mean?
No, they didn't use the same methods. I'm asking you if you know Sharkey's training methods. Without this knowledge, you're not allowed to criticize them.
I’m sure we can safely say his training was very primitive, unless he was some genius that figured out modern training methods before they were a thing
What does "modern training methods" mean? What did 1980s fighters do that 1900s fighters were too stupid to do?
Not even sure I have seen footage of Sharkey. I’ve seen footage of several fighters from the era, including Fitz. If Fitz was considered a top technician by the standards of that era, then the standards were completely primitive. Or, at best, just very, very different for reasons I can’t fathom. Sharkey was considered lacking technically by those same standards, so I’m just gonna go with my gut and assume I wouldn’t be impressed by him, either.
