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

Looks pretty much even Stevens between them to me, at least at heavyweight.

Charles is obviously greater p4p.

 

Yup, the final fight was basically a draw if you gather up all reports.

However Charles has the clear edge in record when it comes to common opponents. He made more title defences, lasted longer at the top, has the better résumé ect. Not to mention that the Charles from the first fight (the best HW Charles imo) would beat any version of Walcott in that manner.

All whilst considerably smaller, Charles is definitely above Walcott. At HW and P4P.

 

I thought that this thread was about who was better sharkey or walcott? Charles has nothing to do here, anyway i rate higher a huge ko victory and a decision win over 2 competitive decisions .
H2h At hw charles never proved that he was better than walcott AGAINST WALCOTT.
Now you will have here 200 excuses "the super version of charles would have could have blahblah"
Ko and ud vs ud and ud. Period

 

Independent unbiased opinion on the ongoing war of words between 70sfan865 and Charlieft is 70s didn't hold his argument together, so Charlieft for me , is the outright winner, no offence 70s.

 

If you took the time to research and simply read you'd know that Walcott UD was immensely controversial, and Charles was past prime for it.

Charles fought on even terms with Walcott whilst past it, smaller and from what you're saying not as good. Charles also has a litter of achievements which make Walcott look silly.

This is just wrong. Prime Charles beat prime Walcott twice. It's literally on film, Charles gives him a boxing lesson. His fancy footwork and power didn't do ****. Walcott has the KO win. Yeah, great. He couldn't do it again, and he couldn't convincingly beat Charles without it. It's a classic case of a lesser fighter beating a better one due to styles.

Prime Charles made 8 title defences. Walcott made 1, and it was very controversial.

Past prime Charles went 15 with Marciano. Prime Walcott was KTFO'd.

Charles beat Louis. Walcott was KOed. You wan give Walcott the first Louis fight? Then I can give Charles the Johnson and Layne fights. That's even more good wins Charles has which Walcott doesn't.

Charles schooled and stopped Layne whilst very past prime. Walcott lost to him in his absolute prime.

Charles has Walcott 2x, Louis, Layne 2x, Bivins 2x, Maxim 3x, Lesenvich, Oma and Satterfield.

Walcott has Bivins, Maxim 2x, Johnson*, Charles and Sheppard.
*Injured

It's clear who's better. And it's even clearer if you give the wins I mentioned above to both.

Charles > Walcott.



You just gotta look at it and it's clear.

And you say this?

Walcott's entire legacy hinges over wins over Charles and a some fun losing efforts. That's why he's mentioned here. Charles is an upper echelon ATG with or without Walcott.

 

It seems that this boy does not notice when someone ignores him

 

It seems that this girl has no arguments.

 

Very very close talent wise but I happen to like JJW style more so I picked him. Cant go wrong either way though.

 

Exactly what I said ! Doh..

 

Charles is definitely better than Walcott, Sharkey too.

as for this thread. It's really close. To be honest, it's a brilliant little debate but I think I'd go for Sharkey here cos he beat better fighters(out side of Charles)and whilst both relied a lot on a few controversial decisions Sharkey has the better legitimate wins.

 

H2h he has a very good case ,after all he had the last word in their fights and knocked him out ,against this you have no debate

 

God's work son, God's work...