Jack Sharkey vrs Max Baer-WHAT IF?

[Caractacus]

Anyone know why these two heavyweight fighters had never stepped into the ring together?
Only about 6 years of age in difference.
There careers overlaped in the 1930's.
Did they ever spar together?

[HomicideHenry]

Anyone know why these two heavyweight fighters had never stepped into the ring together?
Only about 6 years of age in difference.
There careers overlaped in the 1930's.
Did they ever spar together?

You would think they were on a collision course, considering a return bout with Schmeling was in the works (granted if Schmeling got passed Max Baer, which he didnt). Why Sharkey didn't face Baer, and opted for Carnera is anyone's guess. This is where history and fantasy collide, because this is when rumors of the mob pressuring Sharkey allegedly comes in to defend against Primo. However, I don't believe any of it. I think Sharkey figured it was easy money cus he had already beat Carnera via fifteen round decision some years prior. Baer would have been a high risk fight. Sharkey just didn't take into account that this time around, Carnera was better and willing to do whatever it took to win (he pushed Sharkey into the ropes, and when Sharkey tried to get away he landed an uppercut square on the chin).

[Caractacus]

From what I remember reading somewhere.
Had Jack Sharkey succesfully defended his belt against Carnera (June 1933),
Max Baer was to have been Sharkey's next defense.
Also after Sharkey lost to Carnera,there was still talk of Sharkey facing Baer
for a return at Carnera.
But at that point Nat Fleisher had thought Sharkey was 'passed it".

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah, it probably would have been Sharkey's next defense. Their careers overlapped some and they did have several common opponents. However, the window for this fight happening was actually pretty small.

[klompton]

I think Baer would have stopped him.

[Ambling Alp II]

I could see that happening. I'm really on the fence with this one.

[klompton]

I see this as similar fight to Baer Schmeling except i think Schmeling was better than Sharkey, smarter, tougher, and more composed. I think Baer would overpower him and eventually stop him. His awkward style wouldnt do sharkey any favors either.

[BoxBuzz]

I would agree, which should all give us pause that these opinions can only increase Braddock's stock.

Braddock and his modern counterpart Douglas are both under rated. Yet I wonder how many would give Braddock the edge over Sharkey. In Douglas's case, his peak was quick, and he faded fast but he had great skills while they lasted. As did Braddock, when he was focused and his various injuries were not getting the better of him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Sharkey and Baer were both inconsistent. At their best, they would beat Braddock. On a given day, Braddcok could beat either, and obviously did beat Baer.

[klompton]

I dont think braddock is underrated at all. He was a pathetic champion who got lucky catching an unfocused baer. Even then that fight is much closer than history remembers. If anything braddock is overrated based on his fairytale story. Chalking up all of his losses to injuries is disenginuous. His filmed performance against Loughran had nothing to do with his hands and everything to do with the fact that he looked like he had never laced on a glove. Its one of the most inept filmed performances of a contender/future champ you will see.

[BoxBuzz]

I dont think braddock is underrated at all. He was a pathetic champion who got lucky catching an unfocused baer. Even then that fight is much closer than history remembers. If anything braddock is overrated based on his fairytale story. Chalking up all of his losses to injuries is disenginuous. His filmed performance against Loughran had nothing to do with his hands and everything to do with the fact that he looked like he had never laced on a glove. Its one of the most inept filmed performances of a contender/future champ you will see.

Klompton....tell us what you really think.

And of course, I disagree with you on this. He was not pathetic, he was rather inspirational. And injuries did have their part to play. And of course he had a nice round with Joe Louis.


On the other hand and much to your credit....there's not much about Harry Greb you don't know.

[Ambling Alp II]

It really depends on the context that you are in. If you are talking about heavyweight champions (not WBS titleholders), then yes Braddock was one of the worst.

However, of course most fighters are never ranked in the top 10. Most of those that were ever ranked in the top 10 never became the champion.
When he looked like he was washed up, he scored a few decent wins, and was able to get a title shot, and then upset Baer. What Braddock was able to do has to count for something.

[Caractacus]

- Tale of the Tape-

-Jack Sharkey-
(in 1931)

height 6 ft.
wt. 198 lbs

reach 73 in.
bicep 15 in.
forearm 12.5 in
wrist 8 in.

neck 16.5 in.
chest 44 in
chest 48 in. (expanded)
waist 36 in.
thigh 22 in
calf 14 in.

[Caractacus]

-The Tale of the Tape-

Max Baer (in 1934)

height 6 ft 2.5 "
wt. 208 lbs

reach 81 in.
biceps 15 in.
forearm 13 in.
wrist 8 in.

neck 17 in.
chest 42 in ( normal)
chest 46 in. (expanded)
waist 32 in.
thigh 23 in.
calf 15 in.
ankle 9.5

[BoxBuzz]

It really depends on the context that you are in. If you are talking about heavyweight champions (not WBS titleholders), then yes Braddock was one of the worst.

However, of course most fighters are never ranked in the top 10. Most of those that were ever ranked in the top 10 never became the champion.
When he looked like he was washed up, he scored a few decent wins, and was able to get a title shot, and then upset Baer. What Braddock was able to do has to count for something.

....and though he won the HW crown, I think he should always be rated as a LHW, regardless of the fact that he had his best win as a HW.


And he belongs quite high in that LHW list........

I mean Bob Foster fought HW's, but he's never rated as a HW....because he never beat a HW champion like Braddock did.

[BoxBuzz]

- Tale of the Tape-

-Jack Sharkey-
(in 1931)

height 6 ft.
wt. 198 lbs

reach 73 in.
bicep 15 in.
forearm 12.5 in
wrist 8 in.

neck 16.5 in.
chest 44 in
chest 48 in. (expanded)
waist 36 in.
thigh 22 in
calf 14 in.

So did Sharkey fight without the benefit of ankles?

[Caractacus]

Perhaps they didnt start listing ankle circumference for fighters in the Tale of the Tape prior to 1934 ?
If you are aware of Jack Sharkey's ankle circumference feel free to post it here
BTW I dont even wanna know what other body part member measurements of the two boxers that maybe you were hopeing
to see listed here as well when you noticed the Sharkey ankle omission)
speaking of measurements,I noticed sometimes in various tales of the tape
some measurements differ of the same fighter from year to year.
For example,five years later in 1939 Max Baer's
neck got bigger at 17.5 in.
also bigger in 1939 were Max Baer's forearm (14 in.)
and chest measurements
44 in. normal
47.5 (expanded)
However curiously his bicep got smaller (14.5 in)
and also his thigh (21 in.)

[Ambling Alp II]

It really depends on the context that you are in. If you are talking about heavyweight champions (not WBS titleholders), then yes Braddock was one of the worst.

However, of course most fighters are never ranked in the top 10. Most of those that were ever ranked in the top 10 never became the champion.
When he looked like he was washed up, he scored a few decent wins, and was able to get a title shot, and then upset Baer. What Braddock was able to do has to count for something.

....and though he won the HW crown, I think he should always be rated as a LHW, regardless of the fact that he had his best win as a HW.


And he belongs quite high in that LHW list........

I mean Bob Foster fought HW's, but he's never rated as a HW....because he never beat a HW champion like Braddock did.

I think Braddock's situation was different than Foster. Foster was really a light heavy who would occasionally step up and fight a heavyweight.

Braddock started out at light heavy, but got bigger. In the 2nd half of his career, he was really a heavyweight, albiet a small one. In the last half of his career he was weighing in the 180s and fighting a lot of heavyweights.

I think Foster should really be rated just as a light heavy.
Braddock can be rated at both light heavy and heavweight.

[klompton]

You braddock nuthuggers can bitch and moan about my criticisms of nraddock all you want but if you really think he lost 1/3 of his fights be ause of injuries your nuts. Ive heard of making excuses but isnt it a bit funny that braddock lost 1/3 of his fights AND just happens to look like hes got two left feet, slow (physically and mentally), uninspired, bad defense, and generally poorly skilled? But hey, none of that is to blame for his losses it was his bad hands... I get that everybody loves a good inspirational feel good story but lets get the facts straight while we are at it. The guy was piss poor. He lost at every point in his career to journeymen and tomatoe cans. Go watch his legendary performance against baer. His career best performance. Not the hls but the whole thing and tell me honestly by what margin braddock won against a baer that everyone agreed did little and fought one of his worst bouts. If you are honest you will admit it was a hairline decision which has been overstated largely on braddocks underdog status. After winning the title the guy shamefully ducked his #1 contender because he, like everyone else, knew that he loses the title in his first fight, so what does he do? He sells it to the highest bidder mike jacobs and gets knocked out. Then he wins a gift decision in his last fight and retires. This story of good fortune is responsible for his reputation not his skill or ability. Dozens and i mean DOZENS of heavyweights, light heavyweights, and even middleweights, from greats to mediocre would beat the best braddock (and did btw).

[BoxBuzz]

You braddock nuthuggers can bitch and moan about my criticisms of nraddock all you want but if you really think he lost 1/3 of his fights be ause of injuries your nuts. Ive heard of making excuses but isnt it a bit funny that braddock lost 1/3 of his fights AND just happens to look like hes got two left feet, slow (physically and mentally), uninspired, bad defense, and generally poorly skilled? But hey, none of that is to blame for his losses it was his bad hands... I get that everybody loves a good inspirational feel good story but lets get the facts straight while we are at it. The guy was piss poor. He lost at every point in his career to journeymen and tomatoe cans. Go watch his legendary performance against baer. His career best performance. Not the hls but the whole thing and tell me honestly by what margin braddock won against a baer that everyone agreed did little and fought one of his worst bouts. If you are honest you will admit it was a hairline decision which has been overstated largely on braddocks underdog status. After winning the title the guy shamefully ducked his #1 contender because he, like everyone else, knew that he loses the title in his first fight, so what does he do? He sells it to the highest bidder mike jacobs and gets knocked out. Then he wins a gift decision in his last fight and retires. This story of good fortune is responsible for his reputation not his skill or ability. Dozens and i mean DOZENS of heavyweights, light heavyweights, and even middleweights, from greats to mediocre would beat the best braddock (and did btw).

I appreciate your confidence in your opinion....so just because he's an inspiration maybe he's just not that good.

I'm not sayin I'm buyin' it, but you're not intimidated by the story, in terms of letting it allowing it to influence your assessment.



How about Jersey Joe Walcott, who lost MORE than 1/3 of his fights? AT HW, He really only persevered over a fading Ezzard after being beat by him before the fade fully set in. Then being flattened by Rocky.

He did some pretty good work on other LHW's of the time beating Maxim and Johnson. What's your opinion of him? How would he have fared against the LHW likes of Maxie Rosenbloom, Braddock Loughran.....and let's say Archie Moore and Harry Greb?

By the way what was Harry's GENUINE weight class?

[Caractacus]

hey Dudes, this thread is the Sharkey vrs Max Baer-WHAT IF ?
not the Braddock vrs Sharkey thread,that topic has its own thread
so why dont you guys go there instead of screwing up this thread
with your idiotic thoughts and moronic observations.

[BoxBuzz]

hey Dudes, this thread is the Sharkey vrs Max Baer-WHAT IF ?
not the Braddock vrs Sharkey thread,that topic has its own thread
so why dont you guys go there instead of screwing up this thread
with your idiotic thoughts and moronic observations.

Yes yes yes, quite so regarding the topic.....however...conversations tend to have a live quality about them, and have been known to morph, blend, and devolve and evolve. You may have given this thread it's birth, but then you sort of have to let go, and see how it grows up.

Besides, where else is there a better place, other than in a thread you have created, for idiotic thoughts and moronic observations? No place..that's where.

Now let your matriarchal passion go, and just let your thread grow up and live it's own life.

Stop being so clingy.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is understandable that people don't like a thread hijacked and turned into something else. It is rude. In this case, however it was almost a month after the thread was first started that Braddock was mentioned.

Having said that, I will start a thread regarding Walcott and Braddock. Buzz, Klompton, anyone else can discuss them on that.

OK, lets get back to Sharkey and Baer on this thread. Sharkey was a talented fighter. He could box, and was tough. He did habve some impressive wins. Other times he seemed to find ways to lose.
Baer also looked impressive at times. He also had some listless performances.
It probably goes down to which version of Sharkey and which version of Baer shows up. Both at thier best would have been a really good fight.

[BoxBuzz]

Jack is underated his skills are far better than his ethics. IMHO. Had he applied himself without reservation, I think his name would be far more iconic.

I think he compromised.....as many of us do. But it's that compromising that may have left him in both better physical condition at careers end, and less successful than he had a right to be. So maybe it had it's place.

I don't think he was the sort to leave it all in the ring, like many of his contemporaries.


Here is a wiki blurb about his post boxing life.....

Sharkey saved most of the money he earned in the ring and, in retirement, owned a bar, worked as a boxing and wrestling referee in the United States and Canada, often earned money from personal appearances, and entertained troops in North Africa during World War II. He also pursued his love of fly fishing, and teamed and toured with baseball great Ted Williams in fly fishing promotions. He was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1994 and died a few months later, on August 17, age 91, due to respiratory arrest.

While demonstrating fly fishing at the New York Sportsman Show in 1965, he was asked if he preferred fly fishing to boxing. "It doesn't pay as much," he replied, "but then the fish don't hit back."


Fly fishing is all about keeping a quiet mind, and allowing the fish, (who's number is up, and being selected by nature to meet it's destiny at the end of your hook ) to come easily, and gently your way.

[Ambling Alp II]

Sharkey was one of the better boxers to hold the heavyweight title.

Baer got a boxing lesson from master boxer Tommy Loughran.

Jimmy Braddock gave Baer a boxing lesson to win the heavyweight title.
Braddock said he learned how to beat Baer by seeing how Tommy Loughran handled him with a straight left jab.

Baer lost to well schooled boxers.

Sharkey would have done the same.

Maybe. However, Sharkey lost to several fighters not as good as Baer.