Sailor Tom v Rocky

Mr. Bill,

do you see many 180lbers in history being able to outslug the rock? I don't.

 

No. No I don't.. I have always matched Marciano with 175 to 200 pounders... He (Marci) matches up well there.... Against a monster with skill, well, I'm smart enough and my vision is clear enough to see otherwise.....

"Marciano and Tom Shark" would do poorly if pitted with post 1960 heavies ...... Truthfully.........

Styles and era's make fights, etc.....

MR.BILL:good

 

Why "post 1960"? Throughout the 60s and 70s, many heavyweight contenders below 200lb including an old floyd patterson cracked the top 10. Big heavyweight did not consistently come along until the 1980s.

 

Don't worry, don't ask don't tell is about to be eliminated ... it will likely relieve a lot of the pressure you're obviously suffering from ...

 

Marciano matches up exceptionally well there ... I've said here time and again he rates better P4P as a heavyweight than in straight up match ups with guys less talented but so much bigger ..

 

Hegrant,

So why is it that despite Corbett having not won a fight in six years going into the title fight with jeffries, that he was less "Faded" than charles and Walcott in the 1950s? Did Walcott and Charles go winless in the last 6 years prior too fighting marciano?

 

I'm not going to respond to you if you are going to continue to act like a hothead two year old. It gets boring, fast and your too easy to upset. It's not even fun.

 

This reminds me of an old saying.... “Avoiding the question doesn't help it go away.”

 

The colour line does blur things a little bit, but Realistically, i still dont think that it effects sharkey's ranking too much.

You raise Hank Griffin, who was certainly a top 10 fighter, but look at his record. He did win a points decision against Monroe but Sharkey was a lot better than Monroe, who himself is underated. Hank was knocked out by Jeffries (who Sharkey went the distance with) and was also knocked out by Fred Russell, who was a 4 round Tom Sharkey victim. I think Sharkey deserves a higher ranking.

Denver Ed Martin is certainly a good call, and it is possible that he could sneak into Sharkey's ranking. I think he probably has the best record of all the coloured fighters of the period. Was Denver Ed martin really 6 ft 6?

bob Armstrong had some good wins and again would have probably been a top 10 fighter. But he was Sharkey's sparring partner and he had more key losses to lesser fighters than Sharkey did. I think Sharkey definitely did enough to be rated higher than Bob, albeit by a small margin.

Frank Childs was yet another good solid fighter probaby top 10. But let us not forget that childs was beaten by Joe Choynski who sharkey handled quite well. He also had other losses that appear on the face to rank him below Sharkey.

 

Reports usually range from 6'4-6'6. No one really knows. Martin was considered a top notch defensive boxer with excellent footwork and a terrific left jab. He could have boxed sharkeys ears off. He could have also sucumbed to a knockout blow to the midsection.

 

1. "Johnson? Bob Satterfield? Your not saying either was in Marciano's class are you?"

Nope. I think Johnson easily beats Sharkey, though.

2. "Light heavyweight Johnson"

How big do you think Sharkey was? He could make 175.

3. Corbett--He fought the best heavyweights of the 1890 or so era, Kilrain, Jackson, and Sullivan, and none beat him. From 1897 to 1903 he lost four consecutive fights to Fitz, Sharkey, and Jeffries. His only "victory" was in a probably fixed fight with McCoy. My judgement is he was "faded".