Believe it or not, I have. I am a huge jack sharkey fan. Yes, he was a good boxer, but not in the class of jersey joe walcott. Sharkey was sweet, but walcott was sweeter. Walcott had alot more to offer in the ring than jack sharkey. let me ask you what do you make of sharkeys low gaurd, chin not tucked?
sharkey was skilled but defintley not one of the most skilled ever. not even close. sharkey held his hands low, stuck his chin out, he did not have top hand and footspeed, his footwork was un elegant, he was one handed fighter, he was herky jerky with his upperbody movement, he lacked a top jab. fine exclude the louis fights, that is only one small example. walcotts overall body of work is still more impressive. to me, jack sharkey never beat max schmeling. Yes harold johnson was better than tommy loughran. This is clear on film. Im not the only one who shares this opinion. harold is one of the best technicians in boxing history, his style is extremeley modern. loughran was a one handed fighter.
how so? walcott did essentially everything much better than sharkey Im sorry please point out a part in film in which walcott was ever very tired? he was still on his toes dancing and jiving in late rounds vs louis, the workrate he put up vs elmer ray was unbeliavable, he outworked rocky marciano for 12 rounds, he fought ezzard charles 3 times 15 rounds. shaky chin? sharkey was knocked out cold by primo friggin carnera! walcott fought and beat some of the best punchers of all time. in fact i cant think of many champions who fought more punchers than walcott did. only louis and marciano ever were able to stop walcott 1944-53 and it took them many many rounds. Murray, Bivins, Ray fights? HUGE fights that were elminators to earn title shots. louis I was a big fight, he deserved that one. charles III, charles IV? all title fights? what about jack sharkey, did he not lose some very big fights? he won his title on one of the worst decisions i have ever seen, than lost his title to a clown of a fighter on one punch knockout out cold.
excellent? how so what did he do better on film than walcott in terms of boxing ability? underated power? he was a one armed fighter, who scored 15 career knockouts. walcott was a two fisted one punch knockout guy who is on RING magazinges top 100 punchers of all time list. terrific speed? if sharkey had terriffic speed, then walcott must hhave had blazing speed. I understand ur a big jack dempsey fan HE, so I tend to think u hype up sharkey a little bit to attempt to pump up dempseys weak resume.
Not really. I think you are excusing many of Walcott's losses when in reality they demonstrate his limitations ... whatever, both guys were flawed, had moments of near greatness and a few too many average ones ... I like both guys so really feel no motivation in building one up at the extent of the other ..
I went back and studied up on sharkey again and happened to find alot of sharkeys flaws on film. You say he is an excellent skilled boxer, but where is his defense? he has NO head movmeent, no upperbody movement, a low gaurd, chin sticking out, mediocre footwork. he doesnt do anything dazzling, he has nothing that stands out for me in his boxing game. now walcott on the otherhand has some of the best head movement i have ever seen, slipping louis jab by inches leaving himself in perfect countering positions...walcotts upperbody movement shoulder rolls are very unpredictable, very slick and very well refined. walcotts footwork is 2nd to none, the best..... louis said "Walcott would be there one minute then come in boom boom boom...then hed be gone again when i Went to hit him back".
what losses are you talking about? the ones in the 1930s that he took on 24 hr notice with typhoid fever? the ones where a untrained walcott took fights vs top contneders to feed his family where walcott hadnt eaten a meal in nearly 48 hours? I mean ya those ones really count right? The funny thing is in many of those fights, walcott still managed to easily outbox those top contenders early on before his poor health giving out on him like the abe simon and tiger jack fox fights. hell walcott wouldnt have gotten a boxing liscense had he boxed under those circumstances today. walcott had it harder than most, even for the era. Jack Blackburn thought more of walcott than he did louis btw as young prospects. walcott showed 1945-1953 what satisfactory management, hot meals, training quarters could do for him.
I dont think walcott lost his prime, he was a latebloomer. his prime was early-mid 30s. would u say hopkins was better fighter in his 30s or 20s?? so your saying walcott does not mean jack sharkey because he is in his 30s? well walcott beat joe louis in the first fight and ezzard charles in his mid 30s, and both louis and charles are MUCH better than jack sharkey.