Jack Sharkey vs Floyd Patterson

The best version of Sharkey would probably beat Patterson, bt it is statisticaly more likley that a lesser version of Sharkey would meet the best version of Patterson.

If they shared a timeline, Patterson would very probably beat Sharkey at some point.

 

Both favourites of mine.
Sharkey wasn't as inconsistent as generally assumed, from 1925 whan he hit the big time by beating Risko to whan Carnera took his title in 1933, he competed at the top, fighting just about everybody, lost a split decision to Risko, a controversial ko loss to Dempsey when ahead on the cards, and a DQ in a fight v Schmeling that he was winning handily. He defeated Wills, Godfrey, Schmeling, Carnera, Loughran, Stribling. A couple of draws with Walker and Heeney does show a bit of an inconsistency but I think the "Good Sharkey" turned up more often than not.
Floyd has the edge on speed, power similar, boxing skills and savy Jack, work-rate the same, durability "The Gob".
{ think a great fight but for me if Quarry and Ellis were on a par with Patterson then I think he'll find it hard to find a way to defeat the man that bombed out Loughran in three.

 

Never seeing Shark and seeing Floyd lots of times I have to go with him.

 

I see Patterson getting picked over Sharkey here, and Walcott being picked over Schmeling in a previous thread.

This suggests to me that the transitional champions of the 50s are rated too highly relative to those of the 30s.

I think the 50s guys are on a par at best, and perhaps a bit worse, and most people thought so during the 50s guys reigns.

 

Sharkey by knockout for me.

 

I've always seen Sharkey and Schmeling on an even keel with Walcott and Charles when ranking as all time great heavy's.

I rate all four above Patterson.