Where would Jack Sharkey be ranked in the modern heavyweight division?

Carnera wouldn`t have got anywhere near the top 10 today, Sharkey and Carnera would be destroyed by any modern top 10 heavyweight.

 

If he head was screwed on straight, he potentially had the talent to replicate what Usyk did.

 

Humbug.

Even if he was as bad as his detractors say, he could have got into the top ten at some point, just by fighting weak opposition.

 

Agreed. Any heavy under 6 feet needs to have exceptional ability, exceptional speed and exceptional power. Tyson is someone who could pull it off.

Sharkey would be elite at 175 and if he couldn't make it, he would be a top tier cruiserweight.

 

If Sharkley was a singer he'd be Scott Stapp

 

It depends on who he’s fighting is if he gets ranked… heavyweights who aren’t very physical perhaps… I mean Toney did alright? At 190lbs he’d be the guy…175lbs he cleans up at 200lbs with rehydration…? I don’t know.

 

Of the brilliant smaller HWs from the 10s-30s. Sharkey would translate worst to the modern era. Hes got no power and a relatively weak chin and short reach. Loughran was much more durable and while he didn't beat Carnera he beat more giant opponents.

I think the issue for guys from the past wouldn't be whether they are capable of beating superheavyweights in terms of guys from this era we've established they are but having to fight them regularly. And I like a Tunney, Loughran, John Henry Lewis, Braddock, Schmeling or Farrs chances of doing that much more. I mean you see that with Sharkey and Carnera the 2nd time he got caught. Dempsey fight was going well until it wasn't.

Schmeling, Carnera and Loughran 6 times and went 3-3 and when you throw in Wills, Dempsey, Louis etc he was generally .500 against top HWs. Sharkey didn't fight Max Baer, Braddock or Farr. Wills, Scot and Carnera are some great wins over larger opponents thats not who he was fighting in your typical outing. So I don't really like his chances of being ranked. If Sharkey was inconsistant when his average opponent was his size hows he going to handle your average opponent being Usyk sized or bigger?

Godfrey for some reason struggled against smaller elite opponents. Risko, Obie Walker etc. Godfrey actually did better guys his size. Wills was pseudo champ when Sharkey beat him but Wills was also in his late 30s at a time that really was up there. Sharkey retired Scot so what does that win really mean?

 

I really can' agree there.

He was by far the most proven fighter of the 30s, against modern sized heavyweights, apart from Louis himself.

Our current lineal heavyweight champion, tells you that cleverness can overcome size, with or without power.

 

This is simply not true.

Carnera himself knocked out the 3 best other superheavyweights in Santa, Campolo and Ray Imp as well as Gastanaga with the 88 inch reach
Loughran didn't beat Carnera but he was 5-1 against superheavyweights and went the distance with all of them. 6-1 if including the aformentioned Gastanaga. He also beat both Max Baer and Braddock.
Max Baer knocked out Carnera and Santa.
Risko also has a great record against larger HWs with the Godfrey and Scot wins Sharkey has with the Campolo and Baer wins he doesn't.
Uzcudin knocked out Wills and Scott beat Max Baer and went the distance with Carnera twice.

So thats 5 and Carnera and Loughrans records are clearly better.


Besides Carnera the 30s modern sized HWs were not top guys like they were in the 10s. The most dangerous HWs(except Louis) were Max Baer and Braddock at their peaks. Braddock would do the best in the modern era except Louis IMO and he didn't fight any of the superheavyweights of his day.

Without power is one thing. But durability is a must. Like I said I like Loughran and Farrs chances much better.

 

AND, if olden day fighters were given access to modern training and nutrition. many of the early 20th century heavies were smaller in size than the current crop.