Mike McTigue and Jack Sharkey

[granberry]

Mike McTigue fought a great, brave fight against Jack Sharkey.

Sharkey, with his excellent boxing ability, was the wrong opponent for lightheavyweights trying to move up into the heavyweight division.
The one advantage they might hope to have, that of better boxing ability than their stronger, heavier hitting, more rugged heavyweight opponents was negated when they met Sharkey because of his excellent boxing skills.

Jack Delaney and Tommy Loughran both found that out.

Jack Sharkey knocked out Loughran in three rounds.

Sharkey knocked out Jack Delaney in one round.

In contrast, Mike McTigue gave Sharkey a real fight. McTique's right hand shots were dangerous to the bigger Sharkey throughout, and Sharkey was unable to hurt McTigue like he did Loughran and Delaney in knocking them out.

The fight went into the twelth and final round, and had a doubtful ending where the referee stopped the fight with little time left because a bad cut suffered by the brave McTigue.

McTigue did himself proud in that fight.

McTigue's showing against the bigger Sharkey was light years superior to that of his fellow lightheavyweight champions Loughran and Delaney, who were both knocked out early by Sharkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdjZg_CK ... L&index=50

[SaadOffTheDeck]

What about when Loughran beat Sharkey?

[Dingleberry]

I am friends with McTigue's great great granddaughter. Her grandad used to tell her stories about Mike training by having other men jumping off tables and chairs onto his stomach, to train the muscles there.

[granberry]

Here is the boxrec writeup of Loughran's later "win" over Sharkey:

After a "drab fight" one judge had it 7-4-4 for Loughran,

the other 7-6-2 for Sharkey while

the referee had it a draw (6-6-3) but, as the rules then allowed, gave his decision for Loughran.

[dempseyfire]

Here is the boxrec writeup of Loughran's later "win" over Sharkey:

After a "drab fight" one judge had it 7-4-4 for Loughran,

the other 7-6-2 for Sharkey while

the referee had it a draw (6-6-3) but, as the rules then allowed, gave his decision for Loughran.

That doesn't say anything as to who deserved to win, so why are you putting Loughran's "win" in quotes? All it shows is that it was a close fight and there were differing opinions among those 3 among who deserved the victory. Apparently 2 of the 3 thought Tommy did.

[granberry]

Loughran was going great guns as he moved into the heavyweight division and was written up by Nat Fleischer as the possible next heavyweight champion.

That is---until he was knocked out in three rounds with a single right hand by Jack Sharkey.

That derailed Loughran completely.

Their later fight was of no significance as compared to that.

[klompton]

Loughran was going great guns as he moved into the heavyweight division and was written up by Nat Fleischer as the possible next heavyweight champion.

That is---until he was knocked out in three rounds with a single right hand by Jack Sharkey.

That derailed Loughran completely.

Their later fight was of no significance as compared to that.

No significance other than the fact that he managed to notch a win over Sharkey which McTigue couldnt do. In fact look at the LONG list of opponents that Loughran beat that McTigue never could. That tells you all you need to know. Regardless it doesnt change these three facts: 1. McTigue was a paper champion who is only remembered today because of his belt, which was stolen from Siki and given to him. Like Al McCoy (with whom he shared much in common) without his championship nobody would know him today. The only difference is McCoy won his title legitimately on a knockout, McTigue was handed his after running for about 16 of 20 rounds. 2. He was stopped by Sharkey while behind on the scorecards after an uncharacteristically valiant fight (a fight which for McTigue was the exception, not the rule). 3. Loughran was not only the better fighter but sports a better record and had a better overall career.

[granberry]

Klompton's irrational dislike of Mike McTigue

cannot change the fact that

McTigue gave a great performance against heavyweight Jack Sharkey

while the same Jack Sharkey knocked out Jack Delaney IN THE FIRST ROUND

and the same Jack Sharkey knocked Tommy Loughran IN THE THIRD ROUND.

[klompton]

Both of whom beat McTigue...

[raylawpc]

Loughran was going great guns as he moved into the heavyweight division and was written up by Nat Fleischer as the possible next heavyweight champion.

That is---until he was knocked out in three rounds with a single right hand by Jack Sharkey.

That derailed Loughran completely.

Their later fight was of no significance as compared to that.

No significance other than the fact that he managed to notch a win over Sharkey which McTigue couldnt do. In fact look at the LONG list of opponents that Loughran beat that McTigue never could. That tells you all you need to know. Regardless it doesnt change these three facts: 1. McTigue was a paper champion who is only remembered today because of his belt, which was stolen from Siki and given to him. Like Al McCoy (with whom he shared much in common) without his championship nobody would know him today. The only difference is McCoy won his title legitimately on a knockout, McTigue was handed his after running for about 16 of 20 rounds. 2. He was stopped by Sharkey while behind on the scorecards after an uncharacteristically valiant fight (a fight which for McTigue was the exception, not the rule). 3. Loughran was not only the better fighter but sports a better record and had a better overall career.

If memory serves, didn't Loughran's win over Sharkey set him up for his title shot against Primo Carnera six months later? I think the win was pretty significant for Loughran.

[granberry]

Lightheavyweight Loughran had amassed an impressive winning record against heavyweights, causing Nat Fleischer to write an article suggesting that it might be possible with his boxing skills for Loughran to win the heavyweight title.

The problem for lightheavys like Loughran and Delaney was that despite the fact they had maybe better boxing skills than heavyweights

they DID NOT have better boxing skills than heavyweight Jack Sharkey.

They found that out emphatically when Jack Sharkey knocked Loughran out with a single right hand in the third round

and and when Sharkey knocked out excellent boxer Jack Delaney in the FIRST round.

Delaney was considered a master boxer and had a big frame which possibly, it was thought, might help him in becoming a heavyweight after his holding the lightheavyweight title.

Sharkey destroyed both Loughran and Delaney, showing a good big man beats a good smaller man.

In comparison, Mike McTigue fought a great fight against Sharkey.

McTigue boxed excellently, constantly frustrating Sharkey, reading from moment to moment what Sharkey had in mind and thwarting him by where he stepped and when he did.
In addition to the superiority of McTigue's demonstration of boxing skills greater than Delaney and Loughran in handling the bigger Sharkey,

McTigue also very bravely and aggressively used his right hand, which was terrific in this fight--and very dangerous to Sharkey.

McTigue's right hand offered danger to Sharkey right up to the very end of the fight.

McTigue's performance against Sharkey put Loughran and Delaney to shame.

[klompton]

If McTigue was so much greater than Delaney or Loughran why couldnt he beat either one with any consistency? Or any of the other greats he lost to for that matter?