Lennox Lewis vs Jack Sharkey

I agree that we disagree!

Just consider that Sharkey might be worth a closer look.

He is one of the more complex arguments of heavyweight history!

 

He lost 13 of 43 fights, right?

My math says 30.2%. He lost 30% of his fights. That is somewhat mediocre. And it definitely was a mediocre era. He fought a lot of lightheavies and no-hopers. In an era where skilless slobs ruled.

That some of you want to argue that this would be near competitive just reveals your agenda-driven, conclusion first/argument second stance. Now what drives your agenda is what I really want to know.

 

He wasn't...their heights were about the same, but that was it. Boxingwise, Lewis was a superior being entirely.

 

Lewis would have fought Sharkey much like he did Golota, Ruddock and Botha...with no fear of any consequences, and would have similarly blasted the Gob out,...whereas he would have fought a Max Baer like he did Evander Holyfield,...i.e., more conservatively....because there was more potential danger at hand with Baer. I'm not likening any of these moderns with either Baer or Sharkey stylewise, before anybody takes umbrage and gets excited, BTW.

 

No, he lost 13 of 55 fights - which is slightly less than 24% (23.6). I know, Janitor is a troll... but when he's right, he's right.

Not that it really matters, though… as Lewis obviously would crush him in a round or two, if he so desired.

 

Good Lord. My bad.

Don't get old, kids. And don't get hit in the head.

 

Your wider point that Sharkey had a lot of loses stands.

So how would I counter this?

I would draw attention to his high number of fights against elite opponents, along with the fact that he was fighting them while he was very inexperience, and also well past his prime.

I would also draw attention to the eight year period where he had 33 fights, and only lost to Jack Dempsey, Johny Risko, and Max Schmeling.

 

Then why didn't he crush Mavrovic in a round or two?

He wasn't a lot bigger than Sharkey, and I doubt that many would argue that he was better.

 

If he could get rid of big, strong opponents like Ruddock, Golota, Botha, Grant inside two rounds - then why couldn't he do the same with Sharkey?

 

Perhaps he could, but there are two reasons not to think that he would.

Firstly Sharkey was a defensive specialist, who was unlikely to get drawn into an early exchange with Lewis.

Secondly we don't have a precedent for anybody doing this sort of thing to Sharkey.

Her lost a lot, but he always seems to have given people problems.

As for the Louis bout, I firmly believe that he would have given Louis a competitive fight, a few years earlier.

 

There's of course no way we can know, how a fight between the two would turn out. Maybe Lewis would toy with him for a few rounds, before putting him out of his misery. The inside a round or two was followed by "if he so desired".

But let me ask you this:
If these two met prime vs prime, and just before they entered the ring Lewis was told, that his purse would be doubled if he stopped his opponent inside two rounds… don't you think there's a good chance, he would do just that?

 

I am not even sure that Lewis would be tempted by that offer to be honest.

While he would be favorite over Sharkey, he would not be able to discount him as a threat, especially if the title was on the line.

Given his height and reach advantage, he would probably prefer to play it safe in the early rounds.

 

So he wouldn't be tempted to double his money - but would prefer to play it safe against a much smaller, feather-fisted opponent ? Yeah, that makes sense...

 

While Sharkey was not a dynamite puncher, he was not exactly feather fisted either.

He was a hurtful puncher, who had superb delivery.

Not the sort of man you could afford to make mistakes against.

 

Trivia question:
Name the heavyweight champions with a lower KO% than Sharkey's 23.6

He was exactly the type of opponent, you could afford to take chances against.