What if Mickey Walker got the decision over Jack Sharkey?

Walker becomes ABA champ fights Schmeling and probably loses. I don't think hes winning that one if we change the day.

Because of the nature of Sharkey v Schmeling I Walker narrowly winning isn't going to kick Sharkey out of the mix here. We'd really just be swapping the order of Schmeling v Sharkey II and Schmeling v Walker.

 

Is it confirmed that a majority had it for Walker? I looked at this fight one time and most of the reports I read had Sharkey winning but putting up a poor performance.

 

This is what I was able to put together:


Sharkey

1. James Kilgallen
2. Walter Trumball
3. “Rosie” Bayonne Times
4. Bill Corum
5. Dixon Stewart
6. Dan Parker
7. Murray Lewin
8. James Dawson
9. George Kelleher
10. Bill Cumningham
11. William Braucher
12. Joe Williams
13. David Egan
14. Henry McLemore
15. Kirk Miller
16. Charles Vackner
17. Murray Robinson
18. Frank Casale
19. Ed Hughes
20. William B. Loftus
21. Jim Rooney
22. John M Flynn
23. Harold W Heinz
24. Guy Butler

Mickey Walker

1. Hype Igoe
2. Wilbur Wood
3. J Lewis Medoff
4. Al De Greco
5. Damon Runyon
6. Ed Frayne
7. Bill Farnsworth
8. Paul Gallico
9. Jackie Farrell
10. Sam Taub
11. Jack KoFoed
12. Tim Byrne
13. Marty Berg
14. Harry Singer
15. Frank McDonald
16. Warren Brown
17. Harry McNamara
18. Ray Zimmerman
19. Jimmie Feming
20. Grantland Rice
21. Westbrook Pegler
22. Frank Dunham
23. Jimmy Wood
24. C. Byron Wortman
25. William Granger

Draw

1. Edward J Neill
2. Grantland Rice 8-Walker 7-Sharkey but said Sharkey landed the harder punches which offset Walker's slight lead.
3. James J. Corbett
4. William Doc Morris
5. Alan Gould
6. Perry Lewis
7. Albert W. Keane
8. Art McMahon
9. William S Conklin

Based on all of the reports I could find from reporters present at the fight they were pretty split right down the middle as to who won. However, I did notice some interesting trends. Most of the people who thought Walker won had the fight extremely close, by a round a two. Most of the people who thought Sharkey won, thought he won by a much wider margin. It was noted that the crowd's sentiment was with the underdog Walker and many of the reporters thought this accounted for Walker getting more credit than he was due. A lot of reporters also noted that Sharkey underperformed and some held this against him more than Walker actually outpointing him.

Strangely there was a wide difference of opinion on the fight itself. Many thought it was a poor fight with both fighters not looking good and several others thought it was a great fight. Several reporters thought that both fighters had eliminated themselves from contention with Sharkey being clearly past his prime and Walker not being a legitimate heavyweight.

Sharkey jumped right back on the horse after this fight by beating Carnera three months later to earn a shot Schmeling. He defeated Schmeling in what I think is a poor decision. Walker eventually got a chance at Schmeling as well and was brutally beaten inside of eight rounds.

 

That shows that the so called Newspaper Decisions are totally crap. Reporters cannot agree to anything if not paid in advance.

 

Weird take for a close fight but ok. You do realize that the official judges split along these lines as well right? One voting for Walker, one voting for Sharkey, and one calling it a draw. Does that mean judges cant agree unless they are paid off as well? So a wide survey of newspaper decisions actually reflected the official decision almost exactly.

 

Judges rarely agree on anything either, if a fight was one-sided then you’ll usually see an overwhelmingly majority of reporters have the fight going one way. For polarizing close fights like this, it’s a toss up amongst all sides: fans, the judges and reporters.

 

A Walker victory over Jack Sharkey would have ranked among the most significant upsets and achievements in boxing history & would elevate Walkers already legendary legacy to near-mythic status.. but he would have lost to Schmelling at any point i feel..

Schmeling was a strategic counterpuncher who prioritized precision and efficiency, setting traps and capitalizing on mistakes. He fought with a chess-player’s mindset, always planning several moves ahead.. versatile, effective at range with his jab and counters or inside with body work and short punches. He could dictate the fight’s range.

 

How so?

If we there was no film of this fight and all we knew was 25 reporters scored for Walker, 24 for Sharkey and 9 as a draw, we'd conclude it was a close fight.

Ironically, in this case, the case you cite as demonstrating that newspaper decisions are "crap", the even split of reporters would mean this contest would have been deemed a newspaper decision draw, which is both a relatively rare result and exactly how the 3 x official judges scored it.

If I knew nothing else, I'd have more confidence in this being close fight that could have been reasonably scored for either fighter or as a draw, based on the 25-24-9 split from reporters, than I would based on a 1-1-1 split from the judges.

 

This might have a nugget of truth. As some see thing's differently. But for any event there are dozen's of newspaper's to cross reference any controversy. Making such a blanket statement is rather ignorant. Reporter's paid in advance is just about laughable. Have you never read fight report's from the past. You're not paying off the entire press from coast to coast that's literally ridiculous statement.

 

This says it all. Tell me which is cheaper, buying off a bunch of newspapermen or two judges? Pretty much a no brainer.

 

You actually looked up the articles by those writers? Props.

 

Yes, and I just found another win for Sharkey from Kirk Miller of the Washington Times. Im sure there are quite a few more for both guys and a draw but those are all the ones I could come up with. It is remarkable that they are split perfectly down the middle.