Man, this is a good challenge! According to extent records, Tommy was slightly taller with a slightly longer reach, but appears to box lower than the more upright Sharkey in the footage I've seen. Jack's speed might be the key to this one. I don't think he had the necessary power to hurt Gibbons (who was stunned by Dempsey's Sunday Punch, but only succumbed to Tunney after a sustained beat down), and Tommy may not have had the top shelf power necessary to knock Sharkey out at his best. We don't have footage of Tommy at his peak, but we have their resumes, and Sharkey's late 1920s HW resume surpasses what Gibbons racked up during his late WW I peak against top LHWs and MWs. I believe that may be the difference here. Jack was a pure heavyweight (by the standards of the era) with speed, while Tommy was never really more than a 175 pounder. Sharkey chewed up ATG LHWs Delaney and Loughran, also McTigue. Gibbons is tougher than they though, and has a huge advantage between the ears. This is not something I can commit an opinion to, certainly not yet. To me, this is a discussion to be carefully hashed out and analyzed, a learning experience to be provided by hardcore scholars and savored like fine wine (not guzzled like moonshine, or green Liquid Skunk Beer), particularly with respect to Tommy, who was not bested in his first 52 bouts, and not officially defeated until fight #80, when he was about to turn 31, after nearly a dozen years of competition. (Both times of course, the culprit was the nightmarish Greb, evening up their series at two apiece.)
Which Gibbons? The cagier one who boxed more before his HW KO streak or the more aggressive one that fought Dempsey?
