A battle between two Mid level Heavyweight Champs. Sharkey a Man who boxed nearly as well as Tunney against the consumate Cutie. Does Sharkey keep his Head screwed on straight for this one? Or does the Cutie frustrate him all night?
Both at their best I´ll go with Walcott. Walcott is a fighter who would be named alongside or above Ali and Louis if the curcumstances under which he fought were different. He had everything a fighter needs to be great and then something more.
I think your right Loewe. Sharkey had a tendency to get goofy during fights and Walcott was certainly the kind of Fighter who could drive him up a Wall.
If both had fulfilled their theoretical potential then this could be a match between two top 10 all time heavyweights. In reality of course Sharkey often came up short because his head was not screwed on while Walcott came up short because he was dirt poor. Give them a level playing field and Walcott is less likley to screw up.
A real chess match, this one, with Walcott bamboozling the more orthodox but mentally shaky Sharkey (yes, "shakey Sharkey"). Walcott, as noted in an earlier post, would frustrate the life out of the Boston Gob.
I'll go with this and add that Walcott also had substantially more power,and was probably physically stronger than the mentally fragile Sailor.
I haven't seen much of Sharkey in all honesty, but I think I'll vote for Walcott on the basis of having better results against more reputable foes...Of course, Sharkey did have wins over prime versions of Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Young Stribling, Harry Wills, George Godfrey,Tommy Lauhran and a number of others...Oh ****, come to think of it, Sharkey may have the better resume. Ah **** it, I'll still go with Arnold Cream.
I dont think so. Wins over Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, and a number of others do it for me. You got to remember these guys walcott beat were much more modernly developed than sharkey's crop. Louis is better than anyone sharkey beat. Charles is better than schmeling. Johnson is better than loughran. Lee Q Murray and Elmer Ray over 37 year old Old harry wills and george godfrey. Bivins over Stribling. Walcott also performed far better against joe louis than sharkey did, outboxing joe louis in both fights knocking him down and realistically clearly won the first louis fight while sharkey got blasted away in 3. comparing there performances against marciano and dempsey, sharkey did beat the **** out of dempsey and got jobbed on a dirty shot but dempsey was well past his prime. walcott outboxing and nearly beating a peak version of rocky marciano for 12 rounds is more impressive. Walcotts knockout performances against harold johnson and ezzard charles overshadow sharkeys very controversial win over schmeling and spectacular kayo of loughran.
in head to head sense, I like sharkey alot, but Walcott did essentially EVERYTHING better on film. i dont see how sharkey takes this. Walcott was simply one step up above sharkey at his best. Louis always spoke extremley high on walcott, not the same of sharkey though. Walcott by close but clear unanimous decision. Sharkey will really get befuddled, his face jabbed apart in this fight. he will run into one too many traps. sharkey will be floored once.
very interesting I would love to hear how. Power- Walcott edge by a mile. sharkey scored something like 14 career knockouts, and injured his right hand early in his career making it useless. Walcott on film shows tremendous one punch power and a tremendous knockout over charles and rates # 66 on ring magazine top 100 punchers of all time list Skills- Sharkey was very good, but walcott was much better and much more modernly refined. sharkey kept both hands very low, stuck his chin out, and at times appeared very stiff. sharkey was a good technician with a active workrate, but walcott was as loose as a goose, he had an unbelievable boxing mind, always looking to confuse his opponent. Walcotts cute tricky style combined with waltz was one of the best developed styles in ring history. Eddie Futch called walcott "one of the finest ring technicians in boxing history." Walcott did skills that boxing had never seen before, like doing triple jab combos, doing walk-away countertraps, doing uncopyable feints. walcott always kept a high gaurd elbows in chin tucked it was the start of a new better modern style. overall speed- Walcott has the clear edge once again, walcott really had unbelievable timing skills and expolisve fast twitch muscles as evidence of his kayo of charles, he beat louis and marciano to the punch on film time and time again...his handspeed and footspeed were electrifying at his best. max schmeling beat sharkey to the punch most of the fight in the rematch, schmeling was known for his timing but not his speed. Footwork- Do I even need to go into this one? Walcott had perhaps the finest footwork in heavyweight history. sharkey had neat footwork at times, being able to shuffle in and out well but he didnt have eye popping chemistry footwork like walcott, who made ATG fighters look silly with his walcott waltz alone. jab- clear edge to walcott. He busted up 6'2 214lb joe louis all night long with it, outjabbing the brown bomber, not a easy feat to do. walcott did triple jab combos on louis jab to the head then jab to the body, feint, then jab back to the head.....a combo boxing had never ever seen before. walcotts jab was very stiff, packed alot of speed, and was accurate. sharkey had a fair jab but hardly used it and it wasnt very elegent. Bodypunching- Walcott Defense- Walcott had more to his reproitre on film. Sharkey was easy to jab with his low gaurd, and he didnt have shoulder rolls like walcott did to slip punches, nor did he have the blocking skills walcott did when he got caught on the ropes. sharkey. also didnt have the footwork to bail him out of harms way. should I bother to compare anything else?
I think you sell Sharkeys power shot a bit. He knocked Tommy Loughran into next week and the only other person to do that was Steve Hamas. He showed against Carnera that modern superheavyweights would respect his power.
Saying that Walcott performed better against Louis than Sharkey did, is neither here nor there. It means virtually nothing, given that they both fought Louis some 12 years apart. Louis was in his prime against Sharkey, and fighting great men by the gross, whereas by 1947-48, he was having regular layoffs that extended sometimes as long as 15 months, not to mention the fact he was 34 years old. And what's this claim about Walcott's opponents being " more modernly developed". In most other debates you seem to ignore the hell out of that argument when comparing various fighters of the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's to guys of the 30's, 40's 50's, etc. Yet here, you talk about two generations of fighters who existed maybe only 15 years apart from one another, and now your claiming that they were better because they were more modernly developed.... With all of the above said, I will still pick Walcott head to head, and who knows maybe even legacy wise. But using Joe Louis to make any sort of comparison is applying flawed logic..
I think a prime Sharkey was a much better fighter ... Walcott to me fought in spirts, tired easly, had a shaky chin and safety first style. Very good and crafty but lost far more big fights than he won ... I'm a bit tired about the depression excuses. It was a hard time for almost every fighter. Sharkey was an excellent boxer, had underated power, a huge heart, terrific speed and was very tough ... The problem with rating Walcott is that he is another fighter than lost his prime. He only really came into history in his mid-30's and that man does not beat the prime Sharkey to me ...
I stand by my original statement 100%. let me tell you why. I hold the opinion that post 1940 heavyweight boxing, styles changed to modern. after 1940 gaurds highered, chins tucked, elbows tucked in, punching became shorter, and combinations started to emerge. Watch the film if you dont believe me. walcott charles, patterson had basics identical to that of fighters in the 80s-90s while sharkey's basics were similiar to the fighters of his era.....