Another thread long in coming. Before I get started, I have to invite someone I have been including on a lot of my Sharkey threads, purposely, so that they can be here for my final statement given on Sharkey: @70sFan865. Having watched 13 of Sharkey's fights (there are only 13 on youtube, right?), I feel I have a good idea of Sharkey, considering he only had 53 pro fights, and from careful study, we could accurately surmise that these available bouts were among his most significant (agreed?). Having established that, I don't have a favorable view of Sharkey. He struggled with too many basic things. He was not an adaptable fighter. I don't mean that his style couldn't vary from fight to fight, but that he seemed too easily confounded in nearly all of his fights. The jab in particular always seemed to trouble Sharkey, and that always troubled me. Also, other things about Sharkey, even more basic, bothered me. He would be in fights, like Schmeling II, but not throw at all. How the hell does a guy win a fight if he doesn't throw? Sharkey also had bad stamina, off-and-on. He was also easily demoralized imo. It seemed like if he floored a guy, or severely hurt him, but then the guy got back up and weathered the storm, Sharkey no longer seemed very interested in fighting. I have often read either in articles or in comments from people here on the forum that Sharkey was a good boxer. A time or two he showed some ability, but largely I do not see the support for such a statement. Also, @KasimirKid, you said you thought Sharkey was one of the most exciting heavyweights to watch, correct? I just don't understand this. I watched 13 of his fights, expecting a few dandies. The Jim Maloney fight was the only one I enjoyed for action value. I have heard many say that the Sharkey-Dempsey fight was good, but it wasn't that good imo. Boxrec described the first Carnera fight as a brawl, but it was the furthest thing from it. Oh, and I do have to throw in there, Sharkey's fight with Walker was a pretty decent fight. As I'm sure you have gathered, I was very unimpressed and bored with Sharkey throughout the 13 fights. He did show decent power, but he actually only has 13 knockouts in 38 fights, which looks pretty bleak. My most favorable comment on Sharkey is that he had a good bob and weave that was pretty crazy. And when he was in clinches he worked pretty cleverly. He would shove his head up a guy's neck to get him to let go or he would bend his knees to get out of clinches. My overall opinion of Sharkey is very poor. I didn't enjoy him at all and he had little value to me personally.
I think he is a very clever fighter, and I find that clever often can be exciting. I guess I've drunk his Koolade, and I'm always interested to see what he's gonna do. It's like listening to one of my favorite jazz players. I hang on every note to see where they are going next. That's the way I am with Sharkey and a fair number of other fighters. What is it that makes you like a fighter? What qualities do they have to have? What has to happen to make a fight interesting for you? I must say, I've been puzzled by many of your posts. I'm really more interested in following the narrative of a fighter's career than I am in just seeing all out wars. A good fight for me is like a game of chess. The fighters definitely have to engage, but they don't necessarily have to kill each other for me to appreciate what they are doing.
I didn't take that into consideration. That does make sense, although it doesn't change anything on my part. [/QUOTE] What is it that makes you like a fighter? What qualities do they have to have? What has to happen to make a fight interesting for you? I must say, I've been puzzled by many of your posts. I'm really more interested in following the narrative of a fighter's career than I am in just seeing all out wars. A good fight for me is like a game of chess. The fighters definitely have to engage, but they don't necessarily have to kill each other for me to appreciate what they are doing.[/QUOTE] It varies really. Sure, I love the battlers like Saad Muhammad, Chacon, Paret, Frazier. Those kinds of fighters. But I enjoy good technicians such as Eddie Machen, Harold Johnson, Carlos Monzon-fighters I appreciate and enjoy watching that others don't like and I can't undestand why. I love watching clowns and showmen like Ali and Max Baer. I love a boxer that's a gentleman, like Ken Norton, or someone like that. I like a wide variety of fighters. But I enjoy all kinds of fights just as I enjoy all kinds of fighters, I just don't think I've watched too many of those yet. I love slugfests, beatdowns, great tactical fights, great performances, and fights that could be only good for a laugh.
I think that Sharkey being very inconsistent gives you such a conclusion. He looks very good in his best performances to me, but he looks also very bad in his worst fights.
I agree with your take. "very poor" might be harsh, but I would place him in the bottom tier of champions. He didn't show consistent power, with only 13 KO's in I think 55 fights. That is right near the bottom KO % for a champion. It isn't like he was some sort of magical boxer to overcome that. He gets outboxed a lot. I agree that he seems to have a lot of trouble against a good jab. Sharkey managed to become champion in a down era on the strength of a very dubious decision, and was then blown out by Carnera. I think his chin was fair, but shaky. Another thing I noticed is that he looked muscular in the twenties, but by the 1932 or so looked flabby. I don't think he was a guy who was a bear for training. In fairness to Sharkey, the Wills fight is not on film and it could be his best win. Wills was 37 though and lost much more decisively in his next fight against Uzcudun.
In the Summer of 1984 or 85, Boxing News serialised a full interview with Sharkey, then the oldest living World Heavyweight Champion. It was really fascinating. Sharkey was unpopular with the the fight public in his day. They could see the ability but on so many occasions, Sharkey would choose to grab and maul. Writers and fight traders recognised his cleverness but saw him as a negative sort. He certainly looks it. Jack was in his 80's when interviewed and was utterly unrepentant. He Boxed in a time of appalling poverty in the States, the Great Depression. He was well paid for it and was, in his own opinion, as good as any of them. Context is important, I think, in judging a Fighter. Some are givers. They feed off the love of the crowd and go all out to please them. Jack Sharkey couldn't care less. I remember reading that interview and liking the old boy.
In my opinion I enjoy watching Sharkey, when he gets into a flow he's a real joy to watch. He had a lot of ability, and his record is stacked with very good, even great wins, but he was erractic as hell, and didn't press enough in a lot of fights. In terms of his power, he tended not to get a lot of power from rotation, and wasn't a great puncher in general, but could get a lot more force from shots from forward momentum. Though are exceptions, especially with some of his wider punches. A lot of his harder shots on Primo, including the knockdown at 4:50 where when he was coming in. This content is protected Tons of forward momentum in the Loughran KO This content is protected He was certainly a better puncher than his KO percent suggests, and part of it is probably from fighting good competition. The uppercut he nailed Dempsey with at 2:30 was very good for example. This content is protected
When judging someone like Sharkey we have to admit the footage isn't great. It's difficult to take in the experience. It's a bit earlier but, considering how celebrated Dempsey-Firpo was, the poor footage destroys almost all the drama. As for his stock, it's sounds like you're re-confirming he was inconsistent, but he I believe he had a versatility the likes of Schmeling didn't. I found his performances against Dempsey, Maloney IV, Loughran I, Carnera I, and Schmeling I (minus the nut-crack) to be impressive.
