Sharkey beats dempsey, meets tunney?

Sharkey was the definition of mercurial. On his best day, he could certainly pull it off. Tunney never really beat any fresh, elite heavies. Gibbons in his last fight and a Dempsey coming off a long stretch of inactivity don't qualify. But again, it would have to be the best version of Sharkey and there is just no guarantee of getting that.

 

Sharkey would definitely have a chance of pulling it off, but as noted he would have to bring his A-game. He would be facing in Tunney a master boxer who always made a thorough study of his opposition and was always in top condition. Tunney, like Schmeling later on, would no doubt observe that Sharkey did his best work early in the fight and that the third round was usually his best. Sharkey was at his best around this time - he was better than when he finally won the title in 1932 in that disputed win over Schmeling. I would look to see Gene try to frustrate Sharkey and throw him off his game and make mistakes that he could take advantage of. Tunney was a consistent performer who was still improving when he retired on top. Assuming he faces the best Sharkey, I would pick Tunney to win a decision in a close, hard-fought fight that may well call for a rematch.

When Gene retired in 1928, Ring Magazine lamented that it was regrettable that the public did not get to see a Tunney-Sharkey fight. I fully agree - this could have been one of those rare dream fights with both contestants at or near their respective primes.

 

I think that the smart money would have to be on Tunney here.

He had twice dominated the same Dempsey who defeated Sharkey, and dominated the same Tom Heeney who held Jack Sharkey to a draw.

The feeling at the time was that Tunney was a class above Sharkey, who was seen as being on the same sort of level as Risko and Heeney.

Sharkey would probably pose a greater stylistic puzzle for Tunney in hindsight, but I still think we would have to favour Tunney based on his excellent and consistent recent showings.

 

Jack Sharkey had skills. But he had a questionable chin and was an erratic performer. You might get Jack Sharkey's A, B or C game, but Tunney's bringing his A game nearly every time and had a speed and outfighting edge.

Tunney on points, possibly a later round TKO.

 

Sharkey had tremendous natural talent, and was became one of those fighters who was good at everything on paper.

Unfortunately he was very unstable mentally.

He used to break down and cry hysterically for no obvious reason, or for a comparatively minor reason.

That is why he could capture lightning on a bottle one day, but look very ordinary the next.

 

I think that we have to regard him as a man, given the list of terrifying hard cases that he put away.

The fact that he did this while suffering from an obvious mental illness arguably makes him braver.

Perhaps he was always fighting two opponents.

Just saying!

 

I would favor Tunney over 15 rounds. Over a shorter distance, like 10, Sharkey would probably have a better chance.

 

Well, Jack Sharkey would be one fine example of a fresh, elite heavyweight, even counting the ko loss to Dempsey...that Gene Tunney would beat. The error a lot of people make is assessing two fighters based on a performance vs a common opponent...the troica of Ali, Norton and Foreman provides a classic example. It was a mistake to conclude that Foreman would beat Ali based on their respective performances vs Norton. However....to compare Tunney and Sharkey's performances vs Jack Dempsey is a different matter altogether. This comparison vs a common opponent instead illustrated the prime difference between the two men IMO. Sharkey's mercurial, erratic nature surfaced in several of his bouts,...most notably vs Dempsey. It was sheer insanity...and a gross violation of everything that a fighter is taught...to protect oneself at all times primarily...to stop protecting oneself and turn to the referee and complain about a low blow (Tunney would have never done this). For Sharkey, this was a fatal error...a complete breach of discipline...and it resulted in his getting embalmed for the night. Sure Tunney got clocked by the old Manassa Mauler in that 7th round of the September 1927 rematch with Dempsey (a better, more prepared Dempsey than the version that fought Sharkey IMO), but it was what he did afterwards that counted..that backpedaling and fighting on the retreat...all that clear headed disipline. That was what Tunney had in abundance...discipline...and it was what Sharkey was short on.....again, discipline. Both Tunney and Sharkey were superbly skilled, talented fighters, but Tunney had the edge in discipline...control. The difference between the two men was a matter of fire vs ice. Both were similarly skilled, but Tunney was by far the more controlled, wise ring general, and those attributes would have been enough to propel him to victory over Sharkey...by a comfortable points decision IMHO.

 

Nice post. It would definitely be a long shot for Sharkey to win. Professionalism and focus are two elements often left out of consideration in these mythical matchups. Tunney had both in spades.

 

The hot headed, mercurical Sharkey would have given Tunney problems,...but only for limited stretches. Tunney, on the other hand, would have imposed himself on Sharkey for longer, protracted stretches...and would have given the Gob a methodical lacing. I've always believed that Tunney was superior to Sharkey, and it was a shame that the two never met, as it would have been perhaps, a career defining feather in Gene's cap.

 

Very good post janitor (My God, but there's a ridiculous number of smilies available here!)