who are the better crop of heavyweights?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Jul 2006, 16:32

schmeling, baer, sharkey,

or

charles, patterson, walcott?

my vote goes to charles, patterson, walcott

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 30 Jul 2006, 17:22

who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 30 Jul 2006, 17:30

In their primes? I like prime Charles and Walcott and Patterson had great natural ability but he was just too fragile. And Baer and Sharkey were both very in-consistent. I guess in their primes, I'd go with Charles, Walcott and Patterson, although it's very close.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 30 Jul 2006, 17:36

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?

Why? Are you going Brocky beat them? I will guess that isn't the response you want to hear?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jul 2006, 00:28

The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?
Why? Are you going Brocky beat them? I will guess that isn't the response you want to hear?

i wanted to hear there reasoning

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Jul 2006, 09:34

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?

Me, of course.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jul 2006, 18:48

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?
Me, of course.

please wheres ur reasoning?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Jul 2006, 18:57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:who voted for schmeling, baer, sharkey?
Me, of course.

please wheres ur reasoning?

We had that already when we discussed the relative merits of the 1930s vs. the 1950s.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Jul 2006, 19:12

im talking about only THREE heavyweights of the 1930s and THREE heavyweights of the 1940s-50s.

so please why is baer, schmeling, sharkey superior to walcott, charles, patterson?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Jul 2006, 19:18

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:im talking about only THREE heavyweights of the 1930s and THREE heavyweights of the 1940s-50s.

so please why is baer, schmeling, sharkey superior to walcott, charles, patterson?

To be honest: I have better things to do than going through this again.

Maybe tomorrow.
P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:25

This is a close call. You can point out some big positives and negatives of all 6 fighters. I have to lean toward Walcott, Charles, and Patterson.

Decagon makes a good point about sharkey fighting a lot of good fighters. However, it seems that he lost a little much. He lost to 6 of these guys and also lost to King Levinsky. Walcott, Charles, or Patterson would have gone undefeated against Sharkey's, but they probably wouldn't have lost 7 times.

It is very close, you could rank these 6 guys in any order and make a legitimate arguement for it. However, it seems to me that Charles, Walcott, and Patterson's careers were marginally better than Sharkey, Baer, and Schmeling.

Btw, I have never thought of Patterson in the same "crop" as Walcott and Charles. By the time Patterson was on top, Walcott was retired and Charles wasn't a contender anymore.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 00:38

walcott beat better HW competition than sharkey did

wins over

joe louis 1947
ezzard charles
lee Q murray
elmer ray
harold johnson
jimmy bivins
willie reddish
joey maxim
joe baksi
lee oma
tommy gomez
hatchetman sheppard
lorenzo pack
omelio agramonte

this is a better win resume than sharkey has but not by much, sharkey has an oustanding resume too. im not gonna lie.

its just sharkey never really proved himself against an ATG like walcott did or had that ATG preformance, then again tunney didnt seem to want a part of him i cant blame him. sharkey would have given jack a very tough fight. my father when he went fishing with jack sharkey, sharkey said tunney ducked him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 00:39

Yeah, Walcott wouldn't have lost seven times. Heck, he lost 18 times against much worse competition.

sharkey lost more times in his prime than walcott did, walcott dominated more in his prime and cleaned out his division prior to his title shot unlike sharkey, and walcott had ATG preformances in his prime unlike sharkey.

btw IMO sharkey did not look as good on film as walcott IMO

i was more impressed with schmeling then i was sharkey

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 00:40

decagon u did fairly well playing devils advocate but some of the stuff was blantant bias BS. you could have done some things differently. i will try it tommorow!

good work

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Aug 2006, 05:57

Decagon wrote:Throughout his career, Joe Walcott often appeared rather flabby.

Walcott flabby? My memory must be fading, but I don't remember him as being flabby.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Aug 2006, 06:39

I know Patterson is a much loved fighter with a lot of talent but I think Schmeling and Baer had simply too much power for him. The Sharkey fight would be closer.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:05

I perosnally think it's REALLY, REALLY close...

BUT

I'm gonna go for, Patterson, Walcott and Charles.

But it is really close...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:09

Decagon wrote:You keep talking about Walcott being "in his prime" from 1947 to 1953, but he won (realistically) 9 out of 15 in that era. Jack Sharkey had a much better winning percentage in his prime.

Oh, and let's not forget that Max Schmeling beat Joe Louis, a better fighter than Walcott, Charles or Patterson ever did.

yes but one can make an aruement that schmeling did not beat a prime joe louis, therefore walcotts win over joe louis in 1947 is equal to schmelings win over louis in 36.

i said walcotts prime was 1947-52. NOT 53. walcott was done after 1952.

walcott did something sharkey never did, walcott CLEANED OUT THE DIVISION FIRMLY ESTABLIUSHING HIMSELF THE # 1 CONTENDER. WALCOTT DID ALL OF THIS IN 3 YEARS 1945-47.

during these years walcott beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders......

elmer ray- # 1 rated 1947
jimmy bivins- # 1 rated 1946
lee q murray- # 2 rated 1945
tommy gomez- top 10 rated
lee oma- top 10 rated
joe baksi- # 4 rated
joey maxim- top 10 rated
hatchetman sheppard- # 9 rated

walcott completley cleaned out all the top contenders. he firmly established himself the # 1 contender in 1947. thats why i have to laugh when they say that walcott was thought so little of they wanted to make the joe louis fight an exhibiiton. how was walcott thought so little of when he was the # 1 contender and had beaten all the top contenders in the HW divisiion including elmer ray and jimmy bivins?

sharkey never cleaned out the division and firmly established himself a title shot the way walcott did 1945-47

also walcotts title reign was better............

he won his title by a incredible one punch knockout over ATG ezzard charles. in comparison sharkey won his title with a very controversial decision over jack sharkey in a fight most think schmeling won.

- walcott then had one title defense a points win over ezzard charles.

- sharkey had no title defenses and lost his title on a one punch KO to primo FREAKIN carnera, one of the worst HW champs of all time

-walcott lost his title to ATG rocky marciano after being up on the scorecards after 13 rounds and nearly beating rock

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:20

For my money, in the ring, they had more skill, guile and than Baer, Sharkey and Schmeling (Max S gets points for a tactical win over Louis but it was put into focus in fight II). They also had more developed styles and greater athleticism, although Baer was a great physical specimin he did, at times, come across as fairly one-dimensional and reliant on his right hand

agree

i think these guys are a step lower than walcott, charles, patterson

floyd would kill max baer. max baer was incredibly crude, wild, no defense. floyd was one of the best technicial and schooled boxers ever. he also had blazing handspeed and very good power. he would box max baers ears off. max baers wide punches would not find there range on floyd and max baer didnt cover up after he threw punches expect floyd to completley fornicate max baer up when he fires counterpunches.

floyd 15 unanimous baer
floyd TKO 8 max schmeling

i think floyds combination of speed and power is too much for schmeling

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:23

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
For my money, in the ring, they had more skill, guile and than Baer, Sharkey and Schmeling (Max S gets points for a tactical win over Louis but it was put into focus in fight II). They also had more developed styles and greater athleticism, although Baer was a great physical specimin he did, at times, come across as fairly one-dimensional and reliant on his right hand
agree i think these guys are a step lower than walcott, charles, patterson

floyd would kill max baer. max baer was incredibly crude, wild, no defense. floyd was one of the best technicial and schooled boxers ever. he also had blazing handspeed and very good power. he would box max baers ears off. max baers wide punches would not find there range on floyd and max baer didnt cover up after he threw punches expect floyd to completley smeg max baer up when he fires counterpunches.

floyd 15 unanimous baer
floyd TKO 8 max schmeling

i think floyds combination of speed and power is too much for schmeling

I think Schmeling would KO Patterson in the mid rounds. he had a very measured right and it would be too potent for Floyd.

I think he could outbox Baer but over 15 rounds he'd get hit on the button enough to be stopped.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:24

jersey joe walcott flabby?

jack sharkey was a lot softer than jersey joe walcott.

walcott was chizzled! had one of the best builds of all time

http://www.kontaktrunde.de/boxing/walcott.jpg

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:40

1930s:

The 1928-30 Sharkey was outstandingly gifted. Baer on his day was exceptionally dangerous. Schmeling was one of the most methodical, disciplines heavyweights in the history of boxing, a fine defensive fighter with a couple of extraordinary offensive weapons.

Now how do I see the 1950s do against them:

1930 Sharkey vs. 1950 Charles
Charles was a superb light-heavyweight, but never quite the fighter at HV that he was at L-H. I lean towards Charles, but only by the narrowest of margins. I would expect a great fight

1930 Sharkey vs. 1951 Walcott
Walcott could become champ only because Charles was on the decline and Marciano wasn't up there yet. Sharkey

1930 Sharkey vs. 1958 Patterson
Patterson was vulnerable to big punchers, Sharkey wasn't one of them. But prime Sharkey was on an even level with Patterson skill-wise -- split evenly

1932 Schmeling vs. 1950 Charles
Very interesting, and too close to call. Split evenly.

1932 Schmeling vs. 1951 Walcott
Schmeling in a controlling performance

1932 Schmeling vs. 1958 Patterson
Schmeling in a controlling performance.

1935 Baer vs. 1950 Charles
Charles outboxes Baer

1935 Baer vs. 1951 Walcott
Close and difficult call, perhaps Walcott slickness could give him the win if he avoids Baer's big punches.

1935 Baer vs. 1958 Patterson.
If Floyd Patterson fell to "Thor's hammer"; I wonder what Baer's hammer would have done to him. Baer by KO.

So I have it 4-3-2 for the 1930s fighters.

Add in prime Joe Louis in the 1930s and prime Rocky Marciano in the 1950s, and I have little doubt which was the better decade.

P

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:45

1930 Sharkey vs. 1951 Walcott
Walcott could become champ only because Charles was on the decline and Marciano wasn't up there yet. Sharkey

wut are u talking about?

charles WAS NOT ON THE DECLINE. in 1951, charles was undefeated heavyweight champion he hadnt lost in 4 years and he was 29 years old.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW CHARLES WAS IN DECLINE IN 1951 WHEN WALCOTT BEAT HIM? please provide ur source?

walcott was the better heavyweight than charles IMO.

a 1947 walcott beats a 1948 charles IMHO

marciano wasnt up there yet?

marciano was at his peak when he fought walcott. really pundit ur starting to worry me with these outrageous accusations

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:47

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
1930 Sharkey vs. 1951 Walcott
Walcott could become champ only because Charles was on the decline and Marciano wasn't up there yet. Sharkey
wut are u talking about?

charles WAS NOT ON THE DECLINE. in 1951, charles was undefeated heavyweight champion he hadnt lost in 4 years and he was 29 years old.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW CHARLES WAS IN DECLINE IN 1951 WHEN WALCOTT BEAT HIM? please provide ur source?

walcott was the better heavyweight than charles IMO.

a 1947 walcott beats a 1948 charles IMHO

marciano wasnt up there yet?

marciano was at his peak when he fought walcott. really pundit ur starting to worry me with these outrageous accusations

I meant Walcott hadn't fought Marcinao yet.

I pick a pre-1951 Charles over any version of Walcott.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:48

jack sharkey vs ezzard charles- charles wide unanimous decision

jack sharkey vs jersey joe walcott- walcott 15 split decision

jack sharkey vs floyd patterson- patterson 15 unanimous decision

max schmeling vs floyd patterson- patterson TKO 8 schmeling

max schmeling vs ezzard charles- charles 15 unanimous decision

max schmeling vs jersey joe walcott walcott 15 split decision

max baer vs floyd patterson- baer KO early or patterson dec

max baer vs ezzard charles- Charles TKO 14

max baer vs jersey joe walcott- walcott 15 unanimous