Was Schmeling really robbed in his second fight with Sharkey?

"ignorant"

No problem.

"trolling"

I'm just giving an opinion.

Savold never beat a heavyweight champion while Sharkey did, even if the Schmeling win is doubtful, and Sharkey also defeated Wills. Savold consistently lost to the best he fought, while Sharkey was in and out against the best he fought.

I just don't see Sharkey either on film or off his record (especially if one goes beneath the surface like the bad decision over Schmeling and the perhaps fluky win over Maloney in 1925) as being all that impressive for such a highly regarded fighter.

Yes, I think Savold is sort of Sharkey-light.

 

Yeah Sharkey, Savold isn't really a fair comparison to Sharkey. He held wins over Hall of Famers like Stribling, Loughran, Godfrey and Wills. Not to mention tough fighters like Risko and Carnera. Even with a tainted Schmeling win to compare him to Savold is a little harsh. Although Savold was solid fighter and won a ton of fights he doesn't have quite the same caliber of wins on his ledger.

 

Fair enough, Count.

I would say neither Sharkey nor Savold beat their ATG opposition (Dempsey, Louis, Marciano) and in fact failed pretty badly against them. Sharkey fought Dempsey when Sharkey was young and Dempsey old.

The difference is Savold lost also to all the second-tier guys (Bivins, Ray, Conn) while Sharkey was competitive enough to win a few against this level (Wills, Carnera, Loughran) and got an undeserved victory over Schmeling.

Against the third level competition, both were erratic, but Savold was just as likely to win as Sharkey and Sharkey just as likely to lose as Savold (Nova, Franklin, Baksi, Dorazio, etc) vs (Weinert, Stribling, Maloney, Levinsky, etc)

**It might just be me, but just because second or third stringers like Godfrey and Stribling are in the Hall of Fame just doesn't mean much to me. Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano, and perhaps a Conn or Wills or Loughran, are what a Hall of Famer should be.

 

That is some amazing footage ... once again thanks for your terrific contribution !

 

Savold was a contender and IMO very average. Sharkeys issue was inconsistency. One fight he could look like a world beater and the next ordinary. When on he was miles ahead of Savold. When not on he was still a much better hwt.

 

Just re-watched the available footage on mute provided by Baclava. Thanks again for such a pristine copy. Scoring the fight, and I know this to be a futile endeavor since the fight is heavily edited, I came away with the following.
Round 1,3,4,6, Sharkey
Round 2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, Schmeling
Round 15 even
There is no round 5 footage.
A clear Schmeling win. Not even taking into account that Schmeling is the champion and your supposed to "take" the title from the champion. Or the fact Schmeling makes the fight as the constant aggressor throughout. He is also effective in doing so.
I will say this Sharkey's jab was impressive early on and he did bank a few rounds off it. He also shows his versatility with his ability to fight off the back foot. However by the mid rounds the jab is just a feeble flick of a weapon and he takes heavy punishment from Schmeling in every exchange.
A rather dull title fight but one where the clear winner was shortchanged.

 

I think he would have been his most dangerous opponent.
Sharkey only managing a draw with Heeney gave Tunney a chance to show case his boxing skiills against the far more limited Heeney.The perfect bow out fight for him.

 

Good point on Heeney. He clearly was the more favorable style matchup for Tunney. Perfect fighter to leave on high note career wise.

 

While I don't make it the overwhelming whitewash that Steve Holdsworth,[ former anchor man for Eurosport,] does,there is no doubt Schmeling was the faster. better conditioned, more aggressive and more effective fighter in the footage kindly provided by Baklava.