[1949 article] Jeffries and Sharkey slam Walcott and Charles

You don't need to outbox someone to win on the cards.

Marciano didn't outbox Charles either.

 

Sharkey was past his best when that sparring happened. Your statement is ironic coming to from a guy who has downplayed sparring events before.

#Sameoldagenda

Pre 1900, Sharkey would have beaten Johnson, as he was better than Choynski who flattened Jack in 3 rounds.

 

The ranking looks a bit like this:

1. Jeffries

2. Charles
3. Walcott

4. Sharkey

 

Neither Charles or Walcott were considered good champion in their day, and this is not me speaking, it's the historians and boxing people who lived in the times. Even Marciano was just considered a worthy champion, a level below Jeffries, Johnson, and Dempsey.

Still, Jeffries and Sharkey are being harsh as I think Charles and Walcott would certainly be contenders in their time. I can't see either as a 2nd rater, though Walcott did lose a bit too much, so there could be some validity there. Its too bad there isn't enough clean film that runs at the right speed from 1897-1905 to tell.

As for the training comment, 15 rounds in the eyes of Jeffries and Sharkey, men who used to go 20-25 rounds might be what they are talking about. It's hard to tell due to the lack of context.

1950's heavyweight boxing had average talent, but some great fights! The advantage the era had fights were easier to make.

 

QUOTE="Mendoza, post: 19765228, member: 19227"]Sharkey was past his best when that sparring happened. Your statement is ironic coming to from a guy who has downplayed sparring events before.

#Sameoldagenda

Pre 1900, Sharkey would have beaten Johnson, as he was better than Choynski who flattened Jack in 3 rounds.[/QUOTE]
Sharkey was 28 years old when he sparred with Johnson.Reports say Johnson made him look foolish.Sharkey was sparring with a young, pre-prime Johnson who according to your "mate" Monte Cox ,was green in 1901 when the spar occurred and also when Johnson met Choynski, the same year.Please tell me what my agenda would be in this instant?

 

Ummm He landed more punches than Charles did. He also missed more, but he was landing on Charles through work-rate, which again, can certainly lead one to get a decision. Jeffries was PEDESTRIAN when it comes to work rate. Slowly moving forward while crouched to the side, and throwing punches here and there is a FAR cry to how Marciano fought. Terrible analogy. So no, based on the work-rate we generally see from Jeffries, he's not winning a decision against either of these guys unless he has multiple KD's in each fight to give him 10-8 rounds. Then maybe, but again, I'm not even seeing that frankly. So I stand by my statement that he's not winning a decision against them.

 

Because naturally fighters use the same work rate for 20 or 25 rounds as 15 rounds.

 

Ahhh, the old absence of proof is proof theory eh? That doesn't hold much water as far as proving your case goes. So no, I'm not buying into this theory that Jeffries would be some prodigious swarmer if a fight was 15 rounds, and he only fought as slow as molasses in January because it's a 25 round fight? He fought how he fought, might he fight different, maybe, or it could be that he'd fight the same. There's certainly more evidence he fought one way over the other

Point is though, it was a terrible analogy, and Maricano and Jeffries share very little in common we can draw from the other.

 

The only folks who saw either Sharkey or Jeffries and Walcott and Charles have spoken on the matter. How is anyone here better qualified to comment? We must abide by their estimations.

 

No, we must not. Just because someone saw all four doesn't make their opinion a lock. I have an opinion too. So do you. Do you know how many times I have been in a room with an elderly gentleman who says verbatim to the previous one, "The fighters in my day..." We all have our heroes and like it or not, sometimes a better one comes along. Of the film I have seen on all four (admittedly more on Charles and Walcott than the two former), the styles evolved. Boxing, counter-punching, defense, training methods all advanced beyond the days of 'toeing the mark' and it is up to us to decide. Not by taking the words of others who clearly have an agenda. I use my baby blues and am not easily impressed. And I have to say, although I believe those old-timers were tougher by life in general, Charles and Walcott were miles beyond them in craft.

 

Well played it seems

 

Jefferies and Sharkey likely would've said the same about Tyson and Holyfield.

 

Even with a lowest estimation of Jeffries' and Tom Sharkey's boxing ability, I really doubt they could have been much worse than Rex Layne.
(Layne beat Walcott the following year, and got a gift hometown decision over Charles in 1952 which was nevertheless probably a close fight).

I don't particulary rate Charles and Walcott, and I reckon Jeffries is probably even more overrated.
Tom Sharkey's an interesting character. Obviously an extremely tough cookie and I give him a lot of credit for giving the much bigger Jeffries those brutal 20, 25 round fights. It's hard to knock a guy like that. Even if he was just a brawler, he was no ordinary brawler.

 

One who did was Nat Fleischer ,he rates Jack Johnson as better than all of them,in fact he ranks Johnson as the best,do you concur?

Jeffries was definitely a couple of levels above Layne imo,both in conditioning,durabilty ,and probably power.
Sharkey was twice one punch ko'd by Fitz ,he was a tough swarmer ,but crude, and lacking in any semblance of science.
I think both would jab his head off until he lost his rag and resorted to fouling,resulting in probable dsq's against both.

 

Mendoza said: Sharkey was past his best when that sparring happened. Your statement is ironic coming to from a guy who has downplayed sparring events before.

#Sameoldagenda

Pre 1900, Sharkey would have beaten Johnson, as he was better than Choynski who flattened Jack in 3 rounds.

Sharkey was past his best by 1902 when he was 28 and you know it. By the time Sharkey was 28 he never won a fight agin. Your agenda trumps what you might even know as fact. How sad.

Sharkey's prime ended in 1900 after he took a beating from Jeffries. Sharkey was an aggressive type without much defense quick enough to get the better of fast fighters in McCoy, Corbett and Choynski. He would likely beat Johnson from 1896-1900.

As for Johnson, he had 25 fights under his belt and had been fighting for 5+ years when Choysnki capped him. Hardly green.

Cox doesn't view Johnson as once did after further research. He now sees him for who he was and penned an article why Johnson is not as great as you were told. Read it.

Why Jack Johnson is Not as Great as You Were Told!

[url]http://www.boxing.com/why_jack_johnson_is_not_as_great_as_you_were_told.html[/url]