Jersey Joe Walcott v Luis Firpo, Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey

Jersey Joe beats Firpo for all the reasons above. Tunney might edge Walcott, probably busier with a better outside game but it's a "pick 'em".
The one I go against the grain on is Sharkey, I think his A game is more varied than JJW and see a great boxing match but one cannot rule out Walcott taking Jack out. However the Sharley of the Wills, Godfrey, Schmeling 1, and Dempsey fights beats any version of Walcott more often than not.

 

Great clip that, it sure was hard to get kayoed in them days!

 

Disagree. The Walcott of the Louis I, Charles III, and Marciano I fights is a class above Sharkey in my opinion. Film shows it all. That version of Walcott had much better two fisted power, was physically stronger, much better footwork, more unpredictable movement, better head movement, much more fluid boxing style, better feints, better jab, more tricks in his bag. Sharkey would have had major problems with Walcotts jab, punching power, tricky footwork, and unbelievable feints. Sharkey doesn't have the reach, athleticism, and outside game to outbox Walcott, and if he tries to punch with Walcott he will get murdered. I do like Sharkey and consider him a very good fighter, a great boxer.


I think Walcott will show Tunney tricks/movement/left jab he's never seen before. I don't think Tunney can show Walcott anything he hasn't already seen(having fought Bivins, Johnson, Louis, Charles, Marciano). Tunney does have a master outside game, speed, and strength..so I do view this as a 50-50 type match.


Firpo is a joke. Walcott would finish that gooftrooper whenever he pleases.

 

A lot of what you say is a matter of opinion, I take Sharkey's head movement, athleticism, footwork, reflexes above Walcotts who was more unpredictable but not as sound fundamentally as Jack-not dissing Walcott but I don't see the clear advantages that you do.

 

I don't see how you can, although I respect your opinion

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVMg1VNiDZU[/ame]

1:53-2:05 Checkout that footwork. Sharkey could never do something like that. Checkout the head movement, and the subtle slipping of Joe Louis jab by inches...Sharkey could never do anything like that. Athletcism? Walcott's jukes/slips/turns/walk a way moves are some of the best in history, sharkey could never match that kind of athleticism.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVMg1VNiDZU[/ame]
3:28-3:33 Sharkey can't make people miss like that

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uCpJ0bm6RI[/ame]
3:25 Watch the way Walcott makes Louis miss with the jab. Sharkey doesn't have that kind of slick head movement.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gB09VEEZvM[/ame]
5:48-6:00 Walcott shows ridiculous upperbody movement, tricky footwork, and a lethal counter punch. When has Sharkey on film ever shown you something so slick, smooth and effective in his footwork as Walcott did right here against an ATG?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0hZKnQ07IE[/ame]
Perfect Execution, Lethal Punching Power, and possibly the best trap ever laid on anyone, let alone a prime Ezzard Charles. Sharkey has never shown a punch, ability to set a trap, or head movement like this on film.

 

In that case, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "athleticism". You're posting examples of incredible skill, since Walcott was -- in my opinion -- a subtler fighter than Sharkey. I agree with your general point that he was a more skilled fighter by modern standards, but I don't understand how you can say that he was more athletic.

Sharkey relied massively on movement in his prime. He bobbed, he weaved, he swiveled his upper body like a pinwheel, he moved into and out of a crouch in an instant, he hopped forward and backward, and he did a bunch of other stuff that you could only get away with if you have great athleticism and reflexes.

Walcott, by contrast, didn't waste movement. His style was more economical and, while tricky, it absorbed a lot less energy to get similar results. Not a surprise, really. He developed it when he was starving in a Depression. Although Walcott did hit like a ton of bricks, he didn't survive Rocky Marciano for 13 rounds in his late 30's by being more athletic. He survived by being cannier.

 

I think Jack Sharkey (1927 version) was at least as good as Jersey Joe Walcott, just as big and strong, and might well outworked/outbox Jersey Joe.
I'd call it 50-50 and feel I'm being generous to Walcott.

Tunney outboxes Walcott.

Walcott should beat Firpo, but it may not be easy. I really don't think Rex Layne looks any better than Firpo, nor does Abe Simon - and Walcott lost to both (excuses aside).
Still, I'd expect Walcott to get a decision win against Firpo.

 

Firpo was crude but he did manage to time dempsey in their fight. Walcott has to be favoured to box his ears off but he can get sparked if he gets too cute. Still i'd favour walcott by late stoppage.

Sharkey was a good gatekeeper who made it to the top when tunney retired. He's out of his depth here though. The only guy he fought whilst prime who could time a punch as well as walcott was max and a gift aside he came up short.

It's perhaps over simplistic but I think we can pick tunney based on charles performances against jersey. A good outside game will beat jersey and I don't think tunney would get taken out with one shot.

 

Walcott decisions Firpo.

Tunney decisions Walcott.

Sharkey is a toss up ... could go either way ...

 

In a SI article from the early 80's Ray Arcel reportedly told Larry Holmes that Jack Sharkey was the best HW boxer he ever saw. That's some praise coming from a man like Arcel who had seen it all. When his head was screwed on right Sharkey was quite a boxer. At thier respective best, I'd call Walcott vs Sharkey a pick 'em fight. Joe beats Firpo and Tunney would be close but I favor Gene.

 

He beats fripo
Jack /Jersey toss up Sharkey at his best is very good
Gene every time wins against a game Jersey.

 

If Walcott boxes carefully and doesn't get too cocky, tricky or cute he will pitch a shutout over Firpo.

Against JJW Tunney boxes smart and keeps on the move, jumping in to deliver his combos before scuttling away. Walcott is patient. He jabs from the outside and catches Tunney coming in with his sneak left hook (which was a crippling shot). Walcott eventually times a perfect left hook on the incoming Tunney and hurts him. A blistering follow up forces Tunney into the ropes. He tries to slide out of danger but Walcott cuts him off, landing several more hard shots before the ref jumps in to save the helpless Marine.

The first protest that will undoubtedly spring to mind would be "How? Gene has an iron jaw!" My answer to that is- how many punchers did he face who really had a shot a knocking him stiff? A washed-up Dempsey? That's not enough for me. Not when facing a prime Walcott; a fighter who had excellent boxing skills and vastly underrated power.

Sharkey? He's always been tremendously difficult for me to dream match. So erratic...

 

Walcott very rarely knocked out any top-flight fighter.
He's not knocking out Tunney, who was floored but once in about 70 or 80 pro fights.

 

Washed-up Dempsey aside, Tunney NEVER fought a whacker like Walcott. What big punchers did Tunney face who could have turned the trick? None. Check out his record. He's one of the most carefully matched fighters I can think of.