BoxRec

so for the sake of argument, lets say Jack Sharkey had gone on and defended the HW title against Max Baer in October 1933.
They would have had almost the same number of pro fights going in (aprox. 45)
Baer would have had an 5 in. reach advantage.(76 in to 81 in)
a 2.5 in. height advantage
and about a 5 pound weight advantage.
Baer was almost 7 and half years younger then Sharkey.

Jack Sharkey was believed to have reached his peak when he fought Phil Scott in 1930.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Caractacus wrote:- 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?

FYO Jack Sharkey had
ankle 10 and one-fourth in.
(compared to 9 and one-half in. ankle) of Max Baer.
Does that answer your question sir ?

Caractacus wrote:so for the sake of argument, lets say Jack Sharkey had gone on and defended the HW title against Max Baer in October 1933.
They would have had almost the same number of pro fights going in (aprox. 45)
Baer would have had an 5 in. reach advantage.(76 in to 81 in)
a 2.5 in. height advantage
and about a 5 pound weight advantage.
Baer was almost 7 and half years younger then Sharkey.

Jack Sharkey was believed to have reached his peak when he fought Phil Scott in 1930.

In October of 1933, Baer would have won almost for sure. Sharky was never the same after losing to Carnera. He would be coming off of a 3 fight losing streak in October of 1933. He even lost to King Levinsky.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Caractacus wrote:so for the sake of argument, lets say Jack Sharkey had gone on and defended the HW title against Max Baer in October 1933.
They would have had almost the same number of pro fights going in (aprox. 45)
Baer would have had an 5 in. reach advantage.(76 in to 81 in)
a 2.5 in. height advantage
and about a 5 pound weight advantage.
Baer was almost 7 and half years younger then Sharkey.

Jack Sharkey was believed to have reached his peak when he fought Phil Scott in 1930.

In October of 1933, Baer would have won almost for sure. Sharky was never the same after losing to Carnera. He would be coming off of a 3 fight losing streak in October of 1933. He even lost to King Levinsky.

Not that Carnera bothered him one iota. But his sense of shame probably scarred him for life.

Please give that a rest.

Just think how streamlined heavyweight champion history would have been if after Gene Tunney retired in 1928 ,
there was a box-off tournament and won by Jack Sharkey in 1929 who keeps the belt until
he fights Max Baer in the Fall of 1933.
Max Baer decides he wants to be taken serious as a heavyweight champion
trains like a Shaolin monk for all his defenses and then agrees to give Joe Louis a shot at the title
in 1936.
Who wins ?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Please give that a rest.

Not on your life......someone has to carry the water on this. Or people might forget.

You can't handle the truth!

I see that fight as Sharkey was "shot shopping"....And Carnera waiting an awful long time, with too many missed opportunities before he figured out that there was a fire sale going on. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer that big palooka. You know I'm not alone on this belief, though I know and respect that you hold firm to a different opinion.

Ever see the movie "My cousin Vinnie"?

Just like Joe Pesci, I suggest thicker glasses.