1945-52 Jersey Joe Walcott vs 1925-32 Jack Sharkey

you retracted because you realised that the consensus did not agree with the afirmation that you made in your comment on another thread. "he was simply better than walcott" it is why you are changing now your argument.
"He was simply better" and "i can't pick between them" is clearly a contradiction.

 

Walcott despite his ability lost some fights he should’ve won due to overconfidence and this was also the case with Sharkey.

 

A common criticism of both men is that they were inconsistent, but that is by no means the whole story.

In the seven years before he won the title, Jack Sharkey fought 26 times, going 21-3-2.

His only losses during this period came to Jack Dempsey, Johny Risko and Max Schmeling.

That is an impressive run of form in my eyes.

In the six years before he won the title Walcott fought 29 times, going 22-7.

His only losses during that period come to Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, and Rex Layne.

That is also an impressive run of form, given that most of those fights were against contenders.

 

It is really really close, both are around the #20 mark at HW imo.

 

I would say that Sharkey was about on a par with Walcott and Charles at heavyweight, and that Schmeling was a bit better!

 

Sharkey slight favorite

 

Walcott handed him his head.

 

[

Janitor really? I think that you say that because you are a huge Louis fan .
Schmelling got a lucky win over a pre prime Louis then he got destroyed in the rematch in a one sided beating that proved that he was lucky in the first fight.
H2h. Walcott had much more class as fighter than schmelling, better skill, better power,better footwork,more accurate puncher, to me Walcott was clearly the better boxer.
And of course much better than sharkey( a mediocre champion actually).
And you said that he lost against Dempsey. You forgot to mention that he LOST BY BRUTAL KO AGAINST A SHOT DEMPSEY

 

In part I do say it because I am a Louis fan.

Schmeling did to a green but physically prime Louis, what Walcott and Charles could not do to a shot version.

There was nothing lucky about the win either, it was a masterclass.

That could definitely be argued either way.

I think that prime Schmeling was a little bit harder to beat.

Is losing to a shot Dempsey worse than losing to a prime Joey Maxim, or Elmer Ray, or Rex Layne, or a shot Louis?

Not necessarily.

 

Joe louis was not a shot when he fought walcott,sure he was well was past his prime but still a great fighter, i would say that this version of Louis was like 1976 Ali, anyway the version of Louis that Walcott fought was miles better than 1927 Dempsey.
Louis was a total shot against bivins and marciano, honestly i think that stylistically walcott always would trouble Louis. Walcott dropped Louis like a yo yo in the first fight. Dempsey was in his end when he destroyed sharkey. Sharkey also lost against a lot of guys that he should have not lost. Ricord,Romero,maloney,weinert twice,gorman,ETC.
I am talking best vs best. To me Walcott looked the better fighter.

 

And Charles gave him two boxing lessons.

 

A good analogy I would say.

The Dempsey who beat Sharkey, would likely have beaten other any heavyweight at the time, apart from Tunney, and possibly Risko or Godfrey.

Sharkey lost the plot badly at times, but you have that seven year span, where he only lost to Dempsey, Schmeling and Risko. These were the other top men of the era. Also he was thrown to the wolves early in his career, which resulted in a number of losses.

A very reasonable position I would say.