[1949 article] Jeffries and Sharkey slam Walcott and Charles

And they say

#1 Jeffries

#2 Charles and Sharkey about even actually more rated Sharkey, very few think highly of Charles as a heavyweight.

#3 Walcott

On Charles, he was undoubtedly very skilled. If he just hit harder and was a bit bigger you really have something.

On Sharkey his lack of size would not matter much 50 years past his last fight. I could easily see him being the #1 contender from 1915-1955, possibly a champion by catching any of the former greats not at their best, or by upsetting them outright.

 

Compared to them he was ,compared to Sharkey he was Nicolino Locche!lol

 

He wasn't the number one contender in his own era!

 

You said he was 28. You did NOT give a year, it could be very late in 1901 or 1902, so my reply was not wrong. What was the date of the sparring? Produce it, then tell me if you think Sharkey was in his prime was this sparring happened. Do not duck me as you always do!

By the way, did you read the Cox Article? Which fact in the below article did he get wrong?

No short swarmer beats Johnson you say?! Choysnki was shorter and he Ko'd him cold, and Sharkey has many more KO's, so your theory does not hold water as usual. I'm sure you think Tyson, Frazier or Marciano would have no chance vs. your wife beating and assaulting the sick idol too because they were shorter swarmers. What a joke you are.

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]

 

You're a moron as there were no official rankings, but many feel Sharkey was an uncrowned champion. After Jeffries beat Fitzsimmons to win the title, I'd argue Sharkey was the #1 contender. Many on the board would agree with that.

Now, are you going to give me the dates when Johnson and Sharkey sparred or not?

 

To be fair, you probably could hand pick a point where Sharkey was the #1 contender.

A good win while Fitzsimmons was inactive, or coming off a loss, should do it.

 

For what it's worth, mattdonnellon had him the top contender in 1899, and second in 1897 and 1898.

But McVey did say of the era, which is different from being just the top contender at some point.

For what it's worth I think he was the best of his era who never won the title, but it depends how you define the era.

 

Choynsky wasn't short , neither was he a swarmer and Johnson was still green according to "your pal" Cox.
Cox gets lots of thing wrong including Johnson's height. Johnson sparred with Sharkey in May 1901.

 

What a joke.

Yes, when I think of Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott, the two descriptions that immediately spring to mind are "They don't know anything about boxing" and "they won't train."

Two of the fittest, most skilled heavyweight champions ever.

 

Can I get an official source for this post?

 

But never the standout of the era ,which is what I stated.

 

And by 1901, Sharkey was a spent hurricane. The sparring meant little.

You're a moron as there were no official rankings, but many feel Sharkey was an uncrowned champion. After Jeffries beat Fitzsimmons to win the title, I'd argue Sharkey was the #1 contender. Many on the board would agree with that.

Do you still think Sharkey wasn't viewed as the #1 contender while Jeffries was champion? Here's your chance to admit you're wrong.

 

You said no short swarmer beats Johnson. Are you going to back that up with Tyson, Marciano, and Frazier? All three of them?

Answer or hide again in shame.

Choysnki was slightly shorter than Johnson and likely higher in weight. Joe went at him and KO'd him cold. End of. Johnson had 20+ recorded fights under this belt and had been boxing since 1894. We are talking 1901. I'm sure if Cox had the rest of the details, he would make a correction and no, I doubt he thinks Johnson was 6'2" tall.