Jack Sharkey vs. Billy Conn

Nope.

8 gave it to Sharkey
7 gave it to Walker
4 had it even

The punches are blatantly landing well below Sharket's waistband

 

So you know Boxing better than Gene Tunney .... who was ringside?

Point is, a fat Welterweight went the distance in a competitive disputed fight. You're splitting hairs to avoid the reality - Conn is a more dangerous proposition than Walker.

Conn might have gone low against Pastor. That was Boxing at that time. Check out a fighter name HENRY ARMSTRONG. He made a career of throwing nut-shots. Full blown ones like Salido. How about Salido. In the teens a fighter (who had grossy missed weight, no less) was allowed to repeatedly foul without being disciplined.

Again, if you watch the Dempsey fight, they're clean. But they are powerful and Sharkey is not used to getting hit there. Regardless, low blows were tolerated in that era.

Conn TKO 14.

 

Sharkey lost the first fight to Schmeling on a single accidental low blow. They were not allowed, nor were they ever.

Conn's record at the lower weights are full of lackluster performances and disputed decisions.

As for the Walker fight, it clearly wasn't a good performance, but what you've been claiming isn't backed up by the next day reports. Also this match up is then at their best which that wasn't

 

It's up to you to prove that Pastor is better. The consensus on this forum says that Sharkey is better.

 

I agree, but would you call him better than Sharkey?

 

When you run out of arguments (did you ever have one for how Sharkey would beat Conn!?), and begin contradicting yourself in a single post, it's time to stop.

 

And I do not really think he is better than Sharkey; at least, not on offense. Plus we actually have footage of Sharkey that is very flattering relative to the era he competed in and the inconsistency of his record. I just want to hear people actually defend their positions rather than fall back on an argument ad populum.

 

No, YOU stated it. So you confirm it. I get it, some questions are just stupid: "Why is Louis better than Pastor", or "Is the sky blue", for example. But you are resting on an assumption. Pastor went deep with Louis in an era more advanced than the one Sharkey debuted in.

 

There's no contradiction there. I never stated we should judge Conn by his worse performances.

I can also refute what other posters say, without making a direct argument if I choose to. It's telling that you only suddenly seem to have a problem with that now, in a post where you don't actually respond to any of my points.

There are plenty of posters here I'll give my opinions and reasons to if they ask. You're not one of them.

 

You literally mentioned Conn struggling at lower weights before stressing Sharkey should only be considered at his best. How is that not a contradiction!?

A hallmark of Jack's career was his inconsistency. He was a very good fighter, but undependable. While I agree we should focus on the best Sharkey, we really don't know who that is. He certainly never showed up against a fighter like Conn.

There's nothing that Sharkey offers that Louis does not. He's a bit more athletic, but it's at the expense of being more wild and unwieldy. Conn will eat that up.

 

It seems that you struggle to understand his post.

 

Nope. Reread it.

None of that changes that Sharkey did well against opponents who weren't particularly adept defensively. Even if you consider the Walker fight a win for Sharkey and a subpar performance, it shows smaller men could pressure him and handle his power.

Conn is a nightmare for Sharkey. Referring to his earlier career is just a distraction.