Jack Sharkey: Underrated?

I go in the opposite direction and see him as possibly a bit overrated.

Wills was getting old and lost much more decisively to Uzcudun.

The win over Schmeling was a widely questioned decision. Sharkey was looking impressive in the foul loss, but the slow starting Schmeling was always the type that came on, so I'd be leery of drawing too strong a conclusion from the early rounds.

The Walker draw was not impressive for a top heavyweight. The Carnera victory is somewhat impressive, but Carnera is such a question mark and the better Carnera of 1933 flattened Sharkey in what looks on film like an honest fight.

Godfrey? Impressive if on the level. Loughran? Very impressive.

On balance the negatives cancel out the positives to a great extent with a very in and out fighter.

 

He's probably a little underrated.

Overall the theme of his career is similar to Baer's as that of unfulfilled potential, but there were more flickers on show.

The Jack Sharkey that outpointed Young Stribling, blasted Tommy Loughran and schooled Primo Carnera was an excellent heavyweight. And lets not forget how fluid n' dangerous he looked before complaining against Dempsey and fouling Schmeling.

Power, speed, in-fighting ability, stamina - The Boston Gob had a lot going for him.

 

I think we can cut Sharkey some slack for the losses to Maloney, Gorman, Rojas and Weinert. Sharkey only learned a bit of boxing aboard ship. He turned pro with very little experience and these losses all took place within his first 20 fights. And in retrospect, i think we can agree that he was thrown in pretty deep very early. He learned his trade on the job. I was always very impressed with his powerful jab, when he would go on the attack and a somewhat underrated defense. I would have liked to have seen his hands a bit higher but that is the way they fought in the day. What I don't excuse him for was his temperament, which always seemd to be hovering nearby. Very evident in the first Carnera fight after he dropped Carnera around the 4th I believe. He went ballistic when Carnera decided to re-take a knee while taking the count. He was a headcase and he seemed to go into la-la land at times. He backed off when he should have gone after Dempsey. He seemed to take it easy on Schmeling, Risko and Loughran in the rematches as if he felt he could re-produce the fire of the first fight anytime he wanted. I once referred to jerry Quarry as a '60s-'70s version of Jack Sharkey. And I think it holds true. There always seemd to be drama following them. in all, however, to answer the initial question, I do believe Sharkey is underrated.

 

Great fighter...when he wanted to be...sometimes he lost focus...probably his worst trait.

 

I've read that the Godfrey fight was razor thin in his favor in Boston .. it's always tough to factor a guy who is more known for his losses than his wins .. it's extremely hard for me to believe he lost to Carnera but if he did he was about as inconsistent as they came ..

 

Some years ago I read a book about the hw champions- the last one it covered was Liston, so it was an old book. The section on Sharkey talked about what a great jab he had, how he threw a short, powerful right hand straight from the shoulder, and how he developed a tremendous left hook. then it talked about how he was as emotional in the ring as an opera diva and how this kept him from being great.
Ray Arcel said that, when he was on, Sharkey was the best pure boxer he ever saw at HW, but that he too often let himself get emotional.

 

Sharkey was dangerous when his head was on right. He has many quality wins in the late 20's. Wills in retrospect was faded but when they fought going in Wills was not viewed as shot until after Sharkey took him apart. Deciscion wins over Mike Mctigue and Godfrey all in a six month span really positioned him as elite. The three round KO of Loughran is another impressive win. He gave Dempsey hell, until he began to wilt and got caught turning to ref. the 30s came and he began to have many valleys in there with peaks but for a time The Sailor was a man nobody wanted to tangle with.

 

Given the chance on his best night he would have given Tunney a very interesting evening.

 

Yes I would agree with that. If the best sharkey shows up it's a a tremendous fight. I would favor Gene who had a better ring I.Q. And temperment. However Sharkey was a very gifted fighter athletically.

 

The inconsistent bit is a bit over-done IMO.
From his 1925 win over Risko, midway in his second year of boxing, until the Carnera title loss in 1933, a total of 27 fights over an eight year period, he compiled one of the most impressive heavyweight resumes ever.
He beat Risko, Maloney(2), Gorman, Godfrey, Wills, McTigue, Delaney, Loughran, Stribling, Scott, Carnera and Schmeling. He also drew with Heeney and Walker. His losses were to Schmeling in a fight he boxed beautifully in, Dempsey and Risko on a split decision. A total of 18 fights against contenders, some small fast boxers, some slicksters, some punchers and several behemoths. He also looks class on film. Greatly underrated.

 

I agree with everything except I leave off the Schmeling win, for obvious reasons. I think he looks class on film too, great head movement off the ropes and under duress and a swift two handed attack when he comes for action.