Anyone else rate Sharkey over Jersey Joe Walcott?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

This is a great debate actually. I see credible points on both sides.

Mojo I think you downgrade Tunney...Me thinks that Lefty is quite right that Tunney was an incredible technician and if Schmeling could catch Louis in a bad habit Tunney could do a lot more, and was as Lefty put it "the superior Irishman to Conn" lol. The problem is that while Dempsey was an attacker whom one could never look away from for an instant, Louis was a hunter, a stalker, a ring cutter and he played chess and took his time to find his man... Tunney could play chess with the best of them, if you look at Tunney he actually had technically superb elements of both the old era of fighting where guys set traps, used footwork and distance at fencing length and the new era where one squared up and emphasized the punching. As mentored by Corbet and the newer guys nobody to my mind had as big a bag of tricks as Gene the Marine. h

On the other hand I will give you Loughren because Tunney for all his greatness is now being talked about as a light heavyweight, perhaps the best, certainly one of the best. As far as Sharkey he reminds me a bit of Jimmy Young. He could fight at the level of the best, but didn't always beat the best... Sure Young may have beat Foreman and Sharkey might have prevailed over Dempsey if he was looking where he should have been, but neither guy really rose to the top in a manner where we can say they were one of the best...

I will give you this Mojo: when one looks at Sharkey's competition he does inspire at least a comparison to Walcott. Walcott was an excellent fighter and Maxim was a better light heavy than Loughren lol. Ezzard Charles speaks for itself. I can see it either way, I would tend to go with Walcott.

I rate Tunney pretty highly and think he would beat a lot of great heavyweights that many don't agree with but at the end of the day you have to actually do stuff in the division. It's like rating Roberto Duran as a top welterweight of all time over the likes of Barbados Joe Walcott for example.

The Dempsey that fought Tunney doesn't even come close to prime Louis. Tunney had his hands full with Dempsey. Louis would be too much. Tunney's right doesn't compare to Schmeling's either.

Sharkey could give a great fight to any heavyweight from Sullivan to Joshua in his prime. No doubt about it.

Maxim was definitely not a better light heavyweight than Loughran. Maxim lost to all of the great light heavies of his era whereas Loughran beat them or gave them very good fights in the case of Harry Greb who is pretty much the number 1 or 2 p4p fighter of all time and whooped contenders from welterweight to heavyweight. Maxim lost to mediocre light heavyweights as well. Don't know where you could have gotten the impression that he was better than Loughran.

It took Walcott 3 tries before he beat Charles who was on the decline. Charles proved himself the better fighter than Walcott.

[The Old LefHook]

How old was Walcott? Recent research shows he never had a fight with an older man, even as a young man. Now that is old, you have to admit! Now. So who was on their way down when Joe faced Charles?

Darned science, got in yer ways again, didn't it fellers? Well, lap that on up, an' I'll show ye some more.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

How old was Walcott? Recent research shows he never had a fight with an older man, even as a young man. Now that is old, you have to admit! Now. So who was on their way down when Joe faced Charles?

Darned science, got in yer ways again, didn't it fellers? Well, lap that on up, an' I'll show ye some more.

Charles was 30 when Walcott finally beat him. Judging that Charles beat him very solidly in two previous encounters it's incredibly easy to deduce that prime Charles would have wiped the floor with Walcott every time. 3 out of 4 fights Charles pretty much won. He should have gotten the nod in the 4th fight.

[billeau2]

I rate Tunney pretty highly and think he would beat a lot of great heavyweights that many don't agree with but at the end of the day you have to actually do stuff in the division. It's like rating Roberto Duran as a top welterweight of all time over the likes of Barbados Joe Walcott for example.

The Dempsey that fought Tunney doesn't even come close to prime Louis. Tunney had his hands full with Dempsey. Louis would be too much. Tunney's right doesn't compare to Schmeling's either.

Sharkey could give a great fight to any heavyweight from Sullivan to Joshua in his prime. No doubt about it.

Maxim was definitely not a better light heavyweight than Loughran. Maxim lost to all of the great light heavies of his era whereas Loughran beat them or gave them very good fights in the case of Harry Greb who is pretty much the number 1 or 2 p4p fighter of all time and whooped contenders from welterweight to heavyweight. Maxim lost to mediocre light heavyweights as well. Don't know where you could have gotten the impression that he was better than Loughran.

It took Walcott 3 tries before he beat Charles who was on the decline. Charles proved himself the better fighter than Walcott.

There is always doubt and room for debate.

I will have to look again at Maxim and Loughran... Maxim beat the sugar man! Of course he had the heat to help him out.

I don't know your parity with versions of Louis and Dempsey, your entitled to your opinion, frankly, and I love Joe Louis, yet there is no way I can figure he beats Tunney, wrong style for him, worse nightmare than Conn and Schmelling put together.

I respect your point of view on the Louis fight. The thing about Tunney that is so remarkable is his crossroads. The guy was around, learning and fighting the best of the old and the best of the new. People have not yet realized what a watershed fight it was when Tunney fought Dempsey. Dempsey was the first of the modern punchers, that would later culminate in the technical perfection of Louis. Tunney got tuned up and learned by guys like Greb and Corbett...Corbett was, a technically excellent fighter who knew the backfoot ways that the bare knuckle guys brought into the first gloves era.



Oh and yes...Tunney was a light heavy, as said.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

There is always doubt and room for debate.

I will have to look again at Maxim and Loughran... Maxim beat the sugar man! Of course he had the heat to help him out.

I don't know your parity with versions of Louis and Dempsey, your entitled to your opinion, frankly, and I love Joe Louis, yet there is no way I can figure he beats Tunney, wrong style for him, worse nightmare than Conn and Schmelling put together.

I respect your point of view on the Louis fight. The thing about Tunney that is so remarkable is his crossroads. The guy was around, learning and fighting the best of the old and the best of the new. People have not yet realized what a watershed fight it was when Tunney fought Dempsey. Dempsey was the first of the modern punchers, that would later culminate in the technical perfection of Louis. Tunney got tuned up and learned by guys like Greb and Corbett...Corbett was, a technically excellent fighter who knew the backfoot ways that the bare knuckle guys brought into the first gloves era.



Oh and yes...Tunney was a light heavy, as said.

It's a figure of speech...

Maxim was losing to Robinson and that win is solely attributed to the heat. Robinson weighed 160 lbs on top of that.

When Jack Dempsey fought Tunney his legs were practically dead. You can see evidence of this in his bob and weave. Before the lay off he bent at the knees as well as the waist wheras during his fights with Dempsey he solely bends at the waist. I've watched those fights countless times and studied every aspect of Dempsey's game. Louis would be better at applying pressure. His " slow feet" are criminally exaggerated. Tunney fought mainly behind a jab. Dempsey had no jab of his own to answer it with. Louis on the other hand had a fantastic jab and parrying skills match.

[The Old LefHook]

Where is that doctor guy with his complex programmed boxing game when we need him? I think he died, actually. But I believe one of his disciples is carrying on. The machine results for Tunney/Norton were overwhelmingly in favor of Tunney. The machine saw clearly that the broken back leg Kenny dragged along behind him was not going to manage well at all against fleet Gene.

It would not prove a thing, but the machine results of Tunney/Louis would be interesting to know under this present context. I am not suggesting Louis was as club footed as Norton, or that he was not a more accurate and dangerous puncher. I am just saying it would be interesting.

If you put any stock in that machine result (as I do) it suggests that Ali would have murdered Norton when he was still Clay.

As for Gene, I am sure Tunney can do what Conn did better than Billy did it. He was a greater fighter, P4P & everything else, than Conn. He employed the same style Conn used against Louis, hit much harder, was as fast, had a more controlled temperament, had studies with the Gibbons brothers, the premier pure boxing coaches of their day. The ran a school for it in Minnesota.

I expect Louis to taste leather right away against Tunney. He will be the pursuer and he will keep slogging forward, taking punches. But landing any of his own will be hellishly difficult and costly. As for the jab of Louis, it will rarely if ever touch the fighting marine. It is too slow. Louis may taste more than leather early--he may gnaw a little canvas, as well. Tunney was not light-fisted.

It is more likely that Tunney will fight a controlled fight without the mistakes of Conn. Say all you want, that means to me that Louis is in big trouble, despite admirable traits one can dredge up in his favor. Styles make fights, and Tunney has the style and character to give Louis hell. Schmeling after all, who beat Louis in Joe's prime, was not a great fighter, but one of the most ordinary of heavyweight champions. Tunney was a great fighter. In my opinion he would have left Schmeling well whipped in a fight during their primes, despite any natural size disparity in Max's favor.

When it is a somewhat ordinary fighter that KO's an ATG, su****ions naturally arise. Schmeling stomping Louis was similar to Rahman KOing Lennox Lewis. Rhaman probably would have KO'd Schmeling easily. Rahman was mediocre. What does that make Schmeling? Personally, I like Schmeling, but I do not think he competes well in any heavyweight era other than the one where he actually did compete--the interregnum between Dempsey and Louis, well known to be a weak period. Watching him, I see Patterson or Johannson dispatching him handily.

Schmeling had good fundamentals and a decent right hand for those who would stand still or could not get out of the way of a herd of stampeding snails.

Louis, however, did face something resembling Tunney in Conn, and a smarter Conn would have walked away with the heavyweight crown, as he was handling Joe easily until he got (calk)y and careless, something Gene would not do at all.

I am not saying it is a walkover, but I do not accept the arguments for Louis beating Tunney. It is not out of the question that Joe might win, but Tunney would have to be the favorite, even though we are making him go fifteen. I doubt that anyone could take a lot of Louis's punches, so avoiding them would have to be Gene's top priority. In this fight he would utilize everything he learned from Mike Gibbons the ghost. Brother Tommy was able to go the distance with prime Dempsey, and he was not as good as Tunney either.

As for Dempsey being shot. Yeah. He was past it. But he was not a complete washed out shell who had nothing left. He was still a tiger who kept coming. Tunney's victories against Dempsey are not hollow, as they are often made out to be by implication. Any carelessness, and Dempsey still would have caved his head in. At that point in his career, for instance, I would say Jack was still far more dangerous than the Louis who fought Marciano was. Now that was being a shell of one's self! Louis was truly shot when he fought Rocky. Jack was not a thoroughly shot shell when he fought Tunney. For we would expect any opponent to have massive trouble keeping Tunney in his sights. Gene could not let people like Dempsey touch him at all; later, Ali could not let people like Liston and Williams touch him at all. They were too big and too strong. Ali proved you could beat those guys and never get touched, if you had the right style. If Tunney had been black Ali would have given him more credit as a progenitor. Tunney looked like Ali floating around the ring. He had the speed of both hand and foot to resemble Ali in the ring. Maybe it is Ali who resembled Tunney, to put our horse before our cart.

[billeau2]

It's a figure of speech...

Maxim was losing to Robinson and that win is solely attributed to the heat. Robinson weighed 160 lbs on top of that.

When Jack Dempsey fought Tunney his legs were practically dead. You can see evidence of this in his bob and weave. Before the lay off he bent at the knees as well as the waist wheras during his fights with Dempsey he solely bends at the waist. I've watched those fights countless times and studied every aspect of Dempsey's game. Louis would be better at applying pressure. His " slow feet" are criminally exaggerated. Tunney fought mainly behind a jab. Dempsey had no jab of his own to answer it with. Louis on the other hand had a fantastic jab and parrying skills match.

Mojo come on! I said it was the heat!

I don't think Louis had slow feet either. I wish I could remember where I saw it, but it was old footage of Louis and he was very fleet footed. It was more his deliberation... What people don't get in my humble opinion is that when boxing became a 12 round affair, they messed up the balance in favor of the boxer, and put the puncher at an extreme disadvantage. Louis trained to fight 15 rounds at the top level and to use every round to set it up so he would get the right amount of times to land. In a way its a numbers game really. The puncher needs to guarantee a certain amount of opportunities to capitolize.

I believe Radburn trained Louis as close to perfectly as one can, in that process...using the rounds to set up and make sure that there would be times when the opponent was cornered and hit with combinations and finally with the bigger shots. The Conn fight was an example of that situation, even if it was not Louis' finest hour throughout the fight.

You talk of the complexity of Louis but reduce Tunney...A lot of Tunney's game was in the footwork, setting traps, fighting off the front and back leg, again, he was trained in the old ways and new: Totally different concept of distancing and Tunney could use them as well as brawl.

Regarding Dempsey's condition...ok. No fighter is at their best for long, and Dempsey's style was not conducive towards longevity. I can buy that analysis of Dempsey when he fought Tunney.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Mojo come on! I said it was the heat!

I don't think Louis had slow feet either. I wish I could remember where I saw it, but it was old footage of Louis and he was very fleet footed. It was more his deliberation... What people don't get in my humble opinion is that when boxing became a 12 round affair, they messed up the balance in favor of the boxer, and put the puncher at an extreme disadvantage. Louis trained to fight 15 rounds at the top level and to use every round to set it up so he would get the right amount of times to land. In a way its a numbers game really. The puncher needs to guarantee a certain amount of opportunities to capitolize.

I believe Radburn trained Louis as close to perfectly as one can, in that process...using the rounds to set up and make sure that there would be times when the opponent was cornered and hit with combinations and finally with the bigger shots. The Conn fight was an example of that situation, even if it was not Louis' finest hour throughout the fight.

You talk of the complexity of Louis but reduce Tunney...A lot of Tunney's game was in the footwork, setting traps, fighting off the front and back leg, again, he was trained in the old ways and new: Totally different concept of distancing and Tunney could use them as well as brawl.

Regarding Dempsey's condition...ok. No fighter is at their best for long, and Dempsey's style was not conducive towards longevity. I can buy that analysis of Dempsey when he fought Tunney.

I feel like we agree on essentially every aspect of the analysis of the skills, strengths, and weaknesses of these fighters. The part where we diverge is as to whether or not if Louis would have enough time to take Tunney out. Had Tunney fought 2 perfect fights instead of just one I would probably agree with you that Tunney would be favored against Louis. My main concern arises from the long count. Dempsey was able to catch Tunney even if he wasn't able to capitalize on it. I think a prime Joe (and Dempsey for that matter) would be able to catch Tunney sooner and that jab of Louis imo makes the difference here.

[ShoulderRoll]

I believe Radburn trained Louis as close to perfectly as one can, in that process...using the rounds to set up and make sure that there would be times when the opponent was cornered and hit with combinations and finally with the bigger shots.

Who is Radburn?

[The Old LefHook]

Who is Radburn?

Jack Blackburn.