Too hard to assess the skill differences.. Two extremely different eras and one of them with a fighter who's film footage is too sp**** to make any really judgements.
I'd expect Kovalev to thoroughly outclass him from range en route to a stoppage or dq win. But who knows? Might depend on how much wrestling and headbutting the ref allows him.
Kovalev is the best light heavyweight in the world. Sharkey, who on paper looks the favourite has fought the best light heavyweight in the world before and he lost. Kovalev is not as good as Bob Fitzsimmons but he is definitely in the mix here. Incidentally, as a matter of interest, given that Sharkey was at best only ever the second or third best fighter in the world or currently about alphabet title holder, would anyone give Kovalev a shot against say Deontay Wilder? Common thinking says no, but really, I dont see any reason why he couldnt step up with the same or better competitiveness as Toney, Adamek and even an old Tarver have done in recent times.
Interesting conjecture ,I don't see Kovalev doing much to Wilder the way the Russian holds his head up ,I think he eventually gets tagged and stopped.
What competitive advantages would Kovalev have against Wilder? Better technique and balance, and probably more ring saavy given his experience, but how do you see this translating into a win? What makes you say that Kovalev "isn't as good as" Fitzsimmons? He's not as "great" as him but that's an altogether different matter, given how much the sport has evolved. I think Fitzsimmons would have a disastrous time against Wilder. As crude as he seems at times, he's still much better at controlling range and hurting people from distance than the big men Fitzsimmons fought.
Where do you make the cut off point? When did the improvement become noticeable? For instance , I'd say there were quite a few boxers in the 20's and 30's that are on a par for skills with any that came after. That's only 2/3 decades after Sailor Tom.
I need to see what type of punch Kovalev takes before making a call. He's not taking Sharkey out early. Sharkey was a real wild man. An unrefined two-fisted Joe Frazier type capable of tracking down and bettering very fast fighters like Choysnki, Corbett, and McCoy. For now, I'd slightly favor Sharkey.
He'd probably end up taking way more damage trying to close the distance and get within range on Kovalev than he would have against the boxers in his era. Crude wild men usually get picked part by skilled men who have the footwork and technique to control distance and can land hard punches from long range.
Everything Kovalev throws is long,he likes to fight at distance.With 4 inches in height and 2.5 in reach it would be the correct thing to do here. Sharkey would have to rush and get inside, but Kovalev has excellent foot work and is very mobile. A more static string-bean light heavy, Bob Fitzsimmons murdered Sharkey twice which does not auger well for Tom's chances here. A novice Jack Johnson ,employed as a sparring partner made Sharkey look foolish breaching his defences whenever he liked. Kovalev proved against Hopkins that he can box, he isn't just a one trick pony power puncher. If the Sailor can close the distance ,his thudding punches might take the steam out of the Russian, especially if he concentrates on a body attack. Kovalev has the Euro style ,upright with head high , but Sharkey was probably too short of height and reach to capitalise on it. Sharkey swarmed Corbett and bullied him into submission, but Corbett didn't have the artillery to keep Tom honest. Sharkey must slip the jab, duck the long rights and work inside , I doubt he could do it enough to slow down the taller man. Kovalev hasn't written his final chapter yet ,I would have liked to see him against Stevenson ,it would have filled in the question marks about his chin. I think it likely that Kovalev builds a decent lead ,hurts Sharkey a few times with big rights and the Sailor is reduced to grabbing and mauling, probably fouling out in frustration at his inability to cope with the Russian's power and mobility.
