Walcott or Sharkey: Who do you Rate Higher?

[Ambling Alp II]

Here is another interesting one of who should be rated higher. (Not necessarily who would win head to head)
Who do you rate higher between Jersey Joe Walcott and Jack Sharkey?

[DrDuke]

Walcott. His biggest wins were over Charles, against whom he had a tied rivalry. Also, he arguably beat Joe Louis.

Sharkey's biggest win is over Schmeling and it's highly arguable. He tied with Carnera, was KOed by dethroned Dempsey. Walcott's loss to prime Marciano was more honorable.

Apart from that, they had quite equal ups and downs, but Walcott's best achievements are clearly superior.

[cfang]

Exactly

[Ambling Alp II]

I actually thought this is an interesting one because they had similar careers in some ways. They each had a much better career than their win/loss record indicates at first glance.

Sharkey had hand troubles throughout his career which limited his power. Walcott struggled for many years before he got a great trainer in Florio.

Walcott did beat Charles twice, (though the 2nd fight was iffy). He also had the controversial first fight with Louis.
Sharkey had two controversial fights Schmeling.

I think that Walcott does had the clear cut win over Charles, Sharkey had some wins that might be underrated.
The wins over George Godfrey, Tommy Loughran and Young Stribling often get overlooked.

If we could actually see the 2nd Sharkey-Schmeling fight and the first Louis-Walcott fight it would be interesting to see if the judging was really off or not. Contrary to the myth, Louis thought he deserved the decision in the Walcott fight. Not surprisingly Sharkey thought he deserved the decision in the 2nd Schmeling fight.

[bwu]

Walcott. Nothing against Sharkey. When he was good, he was great, but he was so damn inconsistent.

Obviously, as noted, Walcott had his ups and downs as well. But the Florio comment is on the money. When Walcott connected with the right people, he made it to the top. Had that happened earlier in his career, I believe we would have seen a much steadier trajectory.

[Ezzard]

Sharkey gets very underrated today. Had he have beaten Dempsey, as it looked like he was going to, then he would have been in with Tunney next.

Tunney was a great HW of the pre-giants era. Sharkey would have been the best prime fighter at HW he faced.

We could have been viewing Sharkey very differently.

I still go with Walcott though. But it's close.

[Benny The Kid]

In My computer Simulator i made.

I attempt to find the boxer's peer (from a different era) whom they match up with the most closely.

These two are very very close.

In 5 Bouts they came out:

Fight 1: Walcott Ws15 (on split decision)>
Fight 2: Walcott W 15
Fight 3: Draw 15
Fight 4: Draw 15
Fight 5: Walcott W 15

Sharkey is right next to him in ranking.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree that they are very close. That is why I picked these two. Beginning to think Sharkey is underrated. To spin his career in a positive way, he actually had wins over 6 Hall of Famers. Like Walcott, he was much better than he might appear at a glance at his win-loss record.

[mattdonnellon]

The "Sharkey was inconsistent" theme doesn't hold up. In his first pro year, after a limited Naval boxing career, he fought three contenders Floyd Johnson, Weinert and Rojas, the latter two in the first Ring ratings at the end of 1924. From a 1925 loss to Weinert until the Carnera loss in 1933, eight years later, he lost to Bud Gorman(avenged), Risko by split decision, the controversial Dempsey fight and on a foul to Schmeling. The latter two fights he was winning before the end came.
In that run he fought nearly all his 32 contests against top or at least fringe contenders, a whos who that included Loughran, McTigue, Godfrey, Wills, Schmeling, Carnera, Stribling, Walker, Delaney, Risko, Gorman, Maloney, Heeney and Renault without defeat. If anything, a remarkable consistent streak, albeit he had some weaker performances but always at the top level. Also, like Jersey Joe, he looks good on film.

[margaret thatcher]

I agree that they are very close. That is why I picked these two. Beginning to think Sharkey is underrated. To spin his career in a positive way, he actually had wins over 6 Hall of Famers. Like Walcott, he was much better than he might appear at a glance at his win-loss record.

who do you rate higher between walcott and sharkey my man?

[Ambling Alp II]

I went with Sharkey, but it's about as close as you can get.

[elmersalsa]

For me, The great Jersey Joe Walcott should be rated higher. I got him in my top 100 greatest pound per pound boxers ever.

But, Jack Sharkey was very underrated. Probably, the most underrated heavyweight of all-time. I don't think that Sharkey makes the top 20 list all-time greatest heavyweights.

At least I rate Sharkey pound per pound better than a lot of fighters, including Oscar De La Hoya