Was Jack Sharkey one of the greatest natural talents of all time?

...and Carnera?

 

No ,he said Baer was his best fight,there is a difference. He also said he spent more time on the golf course and in bed than he did training for the first Schmeling fight. Louis had just turned 22 when he fought Max ,he wasn't prime he was ****y and overconfident and thought he would blow Max away.People forget that Schmeling caught Louis at the end of the fifth round as the bell rang he landed a punch on Louis who was turning to go to his corner he never recovered from that or the kd in the 4th rd. Louis said his last great fight ,when he felt like he still had all his power was against Tami Mauriello Sept 1946, over 5 years before Marciano brought the curtain down on his career.

 

Notch up another one:good If that ain't a weak era we haven't had one!

 

Marciano did not fight the real Joe Louis but Max Schmeling did. There is no getting around that. Schmeling at the very least proved a great strategy can beat a greater fighter. We can't take that away from him or his era.

 

Its ridiculous to say Tunney wanted nothing to do with Sharkey. There is absolutely nothing to that statement. Sharkey fought an eliminator with Heeney to face Tunney and turned in an absolutely horrid performance resulting in a draw. As was the story of Sharkeys career he could have gotten the Tunney fight with a bit more effort and heart on his part. Instead Rickard chose Heeney because Heeney showed exactly those qualities which Rickard reasoned would make for a better fight. Instead of struggling with Heeney Tunney dominated him and turned in the most complete performance of his career. Thats how you close the show. Why would Tunney fear Sharkey, of all their common opponents Tunney always had the better showing and rightly so, he was the better fighter.

 

Louis was not prime when he fought Schmeling, neither was he in the best of condition. 1930's? Six champions in the first 7 years of the decade .
If you want to believe the 30's was a strong heavyweight era that is your prerogative, just don't expect anyone here to agree with you.

 

Tunney was the better fighter no question. I do believe however that a focused Sharkey,[never a given],would have given Tunney a very hard nights work ,certainly he would have been a lot tougher than Heeney who was target practice for Tunney.

 

Sharkey fought:

Wills
Godfrey
Heeney
Dempsey
Schmeling
Carnera
Levinsk
Loughran
Louis


This is called a stacked resume.

 

A weak era does not mean the same as a weak resume though does it?

 

Weak eras aren't usually accompanied by All-star resumes.

 

First of all, Sharkey also lost to Loughran ,only drew with Heeney lost to Carnera,lost to Schucco,lost to Schmeling,drew with middleweight Walker all in the 30's.And the Godfrey and Wills fights were in the previous decade ,1926 to be precise. And Wills , a couple of months off 37 was on the way out.
The Dempsey fight was also in the previous decade 1927.
Six heavyweight champions in the decade ,only one of whom makes anyone's top ten.
In summary the 30's was a sh*t era for heavyweights until Louis came along and swept all the dross out the door.

 

Spitt out my water again!! LOL

 

Of course Louis was in good condition, Joe was probably the most professional and disciplined champion of all time. Chappie always had him primed like a machine. To take the beating he took Louis needed to be in good shape.

What's wrong with Schmeling having the experience and right tactics to overcome a greater fighter? It happens.

 

I prefer to take Louis's word on it over your opinion.:good

 

A) Heeney is a nobody you only know because Tunney fought his fight against him.

B) He lost to Dempsey, Schmeling, Carnera, Louis and Levinksy and drew with Heaney. It's not a great resume when you get beat by most guys on it. Otherwise, Jordan Keeper would be in the Hall of Fame.

3) Harry Wills was 107 years old.