The under rated resume of Jack Sharky

"there is a window where Sharkey is the best heavyweight in the world, even if it was not obvious at the time."

Or now. They shared three opponents from 1928 to 1932. Sharkey lost to Risko. Schmeling KO'd him less than a year later. Sharkey outpointed Stribling. Schmeling KO'd him (in fairness at the championship distance which Sharkey never fought him at). Sharkey drew with Walker. Schmeling KO'd him.

What in all of this would prove Sharkey better? Going 1-1-1 with O KO's to 3-0 with 3 KO's.

The argument that Sharkey was better falls entirely on the 1932 decision, but this was one of the most dubious in the entire history of boxing, more than a hometown decision, a home country decision.

Sharkey never beat anyone who beat or drew with Schmeling. But Schmeling beat Risko, Walker, and Louis.

I am interested in what evidence favors Sharkey.

 

Satterfield's 44% is still way above Sharkey's 24%, and Satterfield was also in against top men his entire career.

 

A rather good copy of the Sharkey-Phil Scott fight is on you tube. The 3rd round is entertaining to say the least. Sharkey scores three knockdowns but doesn't appear to land a head punch in the round. Scott seems to react after the second knockdown as if he had been hit low. No way of telling on the film as Scott's back is to the camera. The third knockdown is a pip. Sharkey comes forward like a Billy goat, rather obviously butting Scott while apparently landing a left to the body we can't see. If Scott is putting on a show about being hit low, he is quite an actor. Hollywood should have been beckoning.

Perhaps a computer savvy fan can bring this one over.