These were two of the least predictable heavyweight champions. I think Sharkey wins at his best, and I think he performed nearer his best more often, but Maxie has the big equalizer. I guess Sharkey, but I wouldn't be betting on this. (Even if I was the sort of guy that made bets)
I believe peak Sharkey outpoints peak Baer, although Baer could easily turn the tide with one of his haymakers at any time. Sharkey at his best was a well-rounded fighter who was capable of upsetting almost anyone. Had they met in real time, which was possible, we have a different situation. Sharkey was on the downgrade even when he won the title in that controversial rematch with Schmeling in 1932. In June, 1933, instead of defending against Carnera, had Sharkey defended his title against the Baer who earlier in the month took out Schmeling, Baer would have won by knockout.
MHO: I agree, if Baer had met Sharkey, replacing Carnera, Baer would have won by knockout and would have taken the belt then. In that case, it's likely we would have never had Carnera as Champion.
Have to give the edge to a focused Baer...only if he was at his best. A partying womanizing Baer losses by decision
Bump. This’ll be a decisive thread, but on most occasions, I feel at their best, Baer finds the right hand, he jabs with Sharkey, then after a while, he throws the jab, or feints and comes over the top of Sharkey’s jab and knocks him out with that chin in the air of Sharkey. Obviously Sharkey could get away without being clipped, but I feel it’s more likely that Baer finds the knockout punch.
I’d pick Sharkey prime for prime. Excellent track record against bigger men. Wills, Godfrey, Carnera, to name a few. Baer could be outboxed by men that used some movement Schaaf (a protege of Sharkey), Loughran, Farr. On film Sharkey moves as well as any of them. I wouldn’t bet on this one but I lean Sharkey.
