Biggest underachievers in heavyweight history

[dmt]

Riddick Bowe
Max Baer
Ike Ibeaubuchi
David Tua

[SteveO]

Leon Spinks
Audley Harrison

[Beeston Brawler]

Ibeabuchi is a fair call

[brownpimp88]

bowe
ibeabuchi
witherspoon

All 3 of them could have been ATGs.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Jerry Quarry. Lost the 'big one' regularly.

[PbP Bacon]

Mike Tyson .... seriously

I know, I know he is an ATG, no discussion on that. But I have always felt that regardless his impressive achievements, Tyson could have been even greater.

A focused and disciplinated Tyson, with D'Amato alive, without all the behavioural and law troubles ... who knows how far he could have gone?

So, weird as it sounds, I have always felt that Tyson was a "underachiever"

[janitor]

Riddick Bowe
Max Baer
Ike Ibeaubuchi
David Tua

All solid shouts.

I could add Luther McCarthy though it wasnt his fault.

Henry Flakes is another possible call.

Andrew Golotta (obviously)

[janitor]

Mike Tyson .... seriously

I know, I know he is an ATG, no discussion on that. But I have always felt that regardless his impressive achievements, Tyson could have been even greater.

A focused and disciplinated Tyson, with D'Amato alive, without all the behavioural and law troubles ... who knows how far he could have gone?

So, weird as it sounds, I have always felt that Tyson was a "underachiever"

You are absolutely right.

I would add that the same might be said to a lesser extent of other dominant champions such as Sullivan and Dempsey who also significantly shortened their primes.

[ramalinga]

Jerry Quarry. Lost the 'big one' regularly.

He just wasn't good enough to win the big one. He had neither exceptional skills nor physical attributes.

Golota anyone?

[ChrisPontius]

I'm not sold on Max Baer being an underachiever. To be at the top you need more than power and a great chin. Might just as well call Shannon Briggs an underachiever, too, then.

[janitor]

I'm not sold on Max Baer being an underachiever. To be at the top you need more than power and a great chin. Might just as well call Shannon Briggs an underachiever, too, then.

Well he proved that he had the tools to beat anybody around except Louis so he should have gone a lot further on that basis alone.

I also doubt that his resume could have been anything but better given superior training habbits and willingnes to comit when an oponent was hurt.

[McGrain]

Out of the greats, Jack Dempsey possibly.

[ChrisPontius]

Well he proved that he had the tools to beat anybody around except Louis so he should have gone a lot further on that basis alone.

I also doubt that his resume could have been anything but better given superior training habbits and willingnes to comit when an oponent was hurt.

Well he didn't prove to have the tools to beat James fucking Braddock. Focus or not, his skillset was garbage and his defence was non-existent. No boxer is going to get far that way, even with the biggest physical assets.

[McGrain]

Well he didn't prove to have the tools to beat James fucking Braddock.

I understand why you said this, but I do feel Baer gets too much criticism for losing to Braddock. James was a different fighter by the time he took on Max and had proven it.

[Mendoza]

Max Baer, Corrie Sanders, George Godfrey, Andrew Golota, Ed Sanders, Ike Ibeabuchi, Nino Valdes. Too many to name. There are lots of guys who could have been better if they took boxing more seriously and had better focus in and out of the ring.

[DamonD]

Hmm...Ray Mercer?
Guy blew so hot and cold in his career, he should've been able to achieve more. Heavy jab, great chin, good power, good technique and lots of experience, amateur and pro.

Morrison, Holyfield, Lewis, Witherspoon...but also Holmes, Ferguson twice and Wilson.
Life was like a box o' chocolates with Ray.

[janitor]

Well he didn't prove to have the tools to beat James fucking Braddock. Focus or not, his skillset was garbage and his defence was non-existent. No boxer is going to get far that way, even with the biggest physical assets.

If he could go through Schmeling then he ought to have been able to go through Braddock or for that matter any other heavyweight of the early-mid 30s.

If his skillset was good enough to do that then it was good enough to take him as far as he wanted untill Louis imposed himself upon the scene.

It is all verry well saying he was never going to get far but apart from Louis who exactly was going to stop him if he had consistantly turned up as he did for the Schmeling fight?

[Beeston Brawler]

Hmm...Ray Mercer?
Guy blew so hot and cold in his career, he should've been able to achieve more. Heavy jab, great chin, good power, good technique and lots of experience, amateur and pro.

Morrison, Holyfield, Lewis, Witherspoon...but also Holmes, Ferguson twice and Wilson.
Life was like a box o' chocolates with Ray.

Mercer definitely.

He should have beaten Lewis but just couldn't pull it out of the bag.

[EireFightFan]

Buster Douglas - Should have beaten Tony Tucker before fighting the fight of his life against Tyson, then coming in at a flabby 245 lbs to lose to Holyfield.

[teeto]

Buster Douglas - Should have beaten Tony Tucker before fighting the fight of his life against Tyson, then coming in at a flabby 245 lbs to lose to Holyfield.
Wow i got to the end of the thread thinking 'yessssss, noone's mentioned Douglas yet',
Then you broke my dreams

[OLD FOGEY]

In the sense that his reputation outruns his accomplishments--possibly not all through his own fault--I might go with George Godfrey. It could be racism and wearing the cuffs, or it could just be that he ate himself out of his career.

[EireFightFan]

Wow i got to the end of the thread thinking 'yessssss, noone's mentioned Douglas yet',
Then you broke my dreams


:rofl:rofl:rofl

[Rourke]

I don't know if Big George Foreman exactly fits the bill here, as he whooped Norton and Frazier with relative ease, but lost to the greatest of them all... It just stings that he retired his first career when he did, I would have loved to have seen something like Foreman/Holmes, but still, Foreman achieved a hell of a lot in his first career and the comeback is quite an amazing feat, maybe I'm pissing in the wind a bit here :D

I agree what the poster on page one said about Mike Tyson, I feel very much that way also. Ibeabuchi and Bowe are great picks, and I'm more familiar with them than the old-timers.

[ChrisPontius]

If he could go through Schmeling then he ought to have been able to go through Braddock or for that matter any other heavyweight of the early-mid 30s.


Why? I think that's very much an insult to Braddock. Schmeling had a weak jaw and other assets than did Braddock. And it's not like the Schmeling fight was an easy win for him.



If his skillset was good enough to do that then it was good enough to take him as far as he wanted untill Louis imposed himself upon the scene.


Yep. OR until he runs into Braddock, Nova, Schaaf, Loughran, Risko, Uzcudun, Farr or Davis, and loses.


It is all verry well saying he was never going to get far but apart from Louis who exactly was going to stop him if he had consistantly turned up as he did for the Schmeling fight?

Or you are buying into this magical, unbeatable version of Baer who took advantage of a lesser durable opponent, but still lost tons of times i've pointed out.

I understand why you said this, but I do feel Baer gets too much criticism for losing to Braddock. James was a different fighter by the time he took on Max and had proven it.

Different fighter or not, he wasn't all that. It was a weaker division after the Dempsey/Tunney retirement gap where a former journeyman LHW could climb up to win the title against a highly respected champion.

[PbP Bacon]

I don't know if Big George Foreman exactly fits the bill here, as he whooped Norton and Frazier with relative ease, but lost to the greatest of them all... It just stings that he retired his first career when he did, I would have loved to have seen something like Foreman/Holmes, but still, Foreman achieved a hell of a lot in his first career and the comeback is quite an amazing feat, maybe I'm pissing in the wind a bit here :D

I agree what the poster on page one said about Mike Tyson, I feel very much that way also. Ibeabuchi and Bowe are great picks, and I'm more familiar with them than the old-timers.

I can agree with that :lol:

Had Foreman stayed permanently retired, he could be considered an "underachiever" because he gave up early in his first run. However Foreman's comeback, regardless the ups and downs, vindicated him and proved that he had the courage and skill of a real ATG.

On the other side, regarding Tyson, as I mentioned, a focused, dedicated Tyson would have been even greater, because in my opinion, at the very minimum:

a) Doesn't lose to Douglas (not taking anything away from Buster, who fought very well)
b) Doesn't miss 3 prime years for going to jail
c) Doesn't lose to Holyfield (However, it is worth noting that without Tyson's trip to the jail the Holyfield fight happens in 1991 and not in 1996)

Anyway, the boxing universe is full of shoulda, woulda, coulda :nono

[Seamus]

Mike Dokes - booger sugar
Ike - crazy
Jess Willard - just didn't like the fighting game

a few that come to mind. the lesson here is that 90% of the game is half mental.

[dmt]

Jack sharkey is a good example, tis is a pretty good article
DON’T UNDERRATE JACK SHARKEY!
By Eric Jorgensen
If Jess Willard isn’t the most underrated heavyweight champion of all-time, then Jack Sharkey surely is. Yes, Sharkey was erratic; ‘twas not for nothing they called him the "The Fighting Fool". Yes, he frequently allowed himself to get out of shape (188 v. Jack Dempsey; 201 v. Primo Carnera the 2nd time). Yes, he sometimes fought with less than 100% effort — sometimes far less, as in his draw with Mickey Walker. Yet, notwithstanding all of that, when Sharkey was "on", as he was against Harry Wills, George Godfrey, Jack Delaney, Max Schmeling, Tommy Loughran the 1st time, Carnera the 1st time, and even Dempsey, he was a truly great fighter — he could move, box and bang — the whole package. Too many people have forgotten that.
The reason why is easily discernable. In the minds of a great number of pundits, Sharkey permanently vacated his place in the all-time pantheon by 2 profoundly discreditable performances: his 15-round draw with middleweight champion Walker and his knockout loss to Carnera. For a variety of reasons, however, I suggest that these fights are indicative only of Sharkey’s inconsistent temperament, not of his true ability, and that to focus on them alone is to do Sharkey a great injustice.
First, the Walker fight. Of course, I have heard the arguments (in fact, I used to make them myself). They go[Only registered and activated users can see links] something like this: "Look, the fact that Sharkey couldn’t beat a middleweight — no matter how great — proves he was a ham-and-egger, period. After all, could anyone imagine Marvin Hagler securing a draw with Larry Holmes?" But, there is more to it than that. The first point that should be made about that fight is that Sharkey probably did "win" it, in the sense that he deserved the decision. Contemporary accounts typically referenced Walker’s gallant effort and Sharkey’s half-hearted one, but also typically stated that the draw was "sentimental". Nowadays, you hear a lot of people getting carried away, particularly when writing adoring blurbs on the popular Walker, by implying Walker deserved the nod. If anyone who actually saw the fight had that impression, I am unaware of it. At the same time, though, I concede that that’s not the whole point. That the fight was close at all is indeed embarrassing from Sharkey’s standpoint and so must be addressed.
At bottom, the explanation for that performance is that Sharkey just did not give it his best; for whatever reason, he simply didn’t try. It happens sometimes. [Remember Eddie Gregory sleep-walking against Victor Galindez? Howard Davis Jr. against Jim Watt? Same thing.] That sounds like an excuse from an advocate rather than an assessment from an analyst, I know, but the films absolutely bear this out. You cannot watch that fight and tell me that Sharkey looks like he’s interested in winning it: he didn’t throw any punches. One look will tell you that that is not the same Sharkey who fought Dempsey & Wills; not even close. Perhaps the same mob connections that bought Tiger Flowers’s middleweight crown for Walker also bought him an evening without left hooks against Sharkey, or perhaps Sharkey just wasn’t in the mood that night. Again, I fully acknowledge he was erratic. Nevertheless, that was not vintage Sharkey and this fight should not be accorded much consideration when assessing how Sharkey, at his best, compares with the other champions.
Okay, now Carnera. Nobody disputes that Sharkey beat him easily the first time around — knocked him down and pitched a near-shutout. By the time of the rematch, Sharkey was an old 32, was coming off 1-year lay-off, and was about 10 lbs. overweight. So, he was (1) rusty, (2) past his prime, and (3) out of shape. In other words, Sharkey was no longer remotely the fighter he had once been. In addition, Carnera himself has been severely underrated. True, he got hammered by Joe Louis & Max Baer, but so did Schmeling, and nobody laughs at him. Plus, he beat legitimate first-raters in Paolino Uzcuden, Ernie Schaaf and Tommy Loughran (all 3 of whom tattooed Baer at his best, recall). Despite all that, after 5 rounds, the fight was arguably 5-0 Sharkey.
Then came the much-debated 6th. Sharkey was cruising merrily along when Carnera pushed him to the ropes and threw an uppercut that looks like it was mostly "arm". Sharkey reared back dramatically and dropped "senseless" to the canvas. Cynics said the fight was an obvious tank. Until his dying day, Sharkey passionately disputed that characterization. His story was that he suddenly became overwhelmed by visions of his close friend and protégé Ernie Schaaf and just froze (or "choked", to use the modern parlance). Films are inconclusive (no matter what anyone tells you).
For my money, the answer does not much matter for purposes of evaluating the in-prime Sharkey’s place in history. Though I actually tend to favor the "dive" explanation (Sharkey did seem to encounter fighters with "ties" to the mob with alarming frequency: Stribling, Carnera, Walker, etc.), Sharkey’s version may be plausible. Occasionally fighters gain reputations — auras of invincibility — that they do not deserve, and fighters who could beat them do not because they don’t believe they can. I have no doubt, for example, Michael Spinks would have performed better against Mike Tyson had he seen the Buster Douglas debacle beforehand. Similarly, I think Floyd Patterson would have performed better against Sonny Liston had he foreseen how Liston would come apart against Muhammad Ali. So, maybe the Schaaf fight had Sharkey thinking Carnera was invincible and maybe Sharkey did choke. Maybe as his lack of conditioning began to tell a bit and Sharkey became concerned whereupon his always-fragile psyche really did place Schaaf’s ghost before him. Or, maybe it’s as simple as a washed-up fighter running into one. Regardless, I say that the Sharkey of the Wills & Dempsey fights was Carnera’s clear superior, as their first fight plainly demonstrates. If Sharkey did choke, I think it was a function of his age and deteriorating ability, as well as the emotional scars left by the Schaaf tragedy, that eroded his confidence and left him psychologically vulnerable; a bizarre combination of circumstances not likely to happen twice, and which never would have happened at all had Sharkey been fit, in his prime, and on his game.
Now for what Sharkey did right. For starters, he proved himself a better fighter than Schmeling, whom virtually everyone regards as having been a great fighter. He trounced Schmeling in the first fight, dominating it completely. Regardless of whether he did in fact hit Schmeling low, I am convinced after watching the films that Max stayed down because he would rather have obtained the title that way than get up and get knocked out, which was about to happen. Schmeling got the win, yes, but there is no question that Sharkey was the better fighter that night. As one commentator described the fight:
"This was one of those nights when Sharkey was at his brilliant best. His jabs, hooks, and uppercuts were working to perfection, completely baffling the dark-browed Schmeling. Jack kept throwing leather so fast and accurately that Max could not get set to throw his big gun. . . . Sharkey had the German groggy in the 4th round and was battering him all over the ring. Then, trying to shift inside one of Max's feeble leads, he brought a hook to the body. Instantly, Max doubled up and clutched his groin as if fouled. . . . Referee Jim Crowley had seen no foul and started the count. . . . [¶] Although Max wore a type of protector which had been proved to withstand the hardest blow without harm to the wearer, he went into a grimacing act that would have drawn applause from the Barrymores . . . . [¶] Was Schmeling really fouled? A careful study of the movies by unbiased observers later revealed that the blow was not low. It was on the beltline, close to foul territory perhaps, but certainly not in the groin."

[dmt]

John Durant, The Heavyweight Champions, Hastings House (1976), pp. 87-88.

Sharkey was also better than Schmeling in the rematch, notwithstanding his weird decision to handicap himself by refusing to throw any body punches as some sort of infantile protest against the disqualification in the first fight: "Fifteen long rounds; I never hit him below the chin." Peter Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World champions Tell Their Stories, Da Capo Press (1994 ed.), Jack Sharkey chapter, p. 158. Joe Jacobs yelled "We wuz robbed!" when the decision came down, of course, and many people who did not see the fight jumped on the bandwagon. That made things simple for those preferring to rate Schmeling as an all-timer (after all, he beat Joe Louis), but ignore Sharkey at the same time (after all, he lost to Carnera). But, referee Gunboat Smith’s comments on the decision dispel the all-too-convenient "robbery" explanation:

"From the first til the 10th or 11th, Jack Sharkey win every round. The other fellow did nothing but dance. . . . [Schmeling] got the last 4 rounds, but how could I give him the decision when he won only 4 rounds? . . . I give it to Sharkey. Eleven to 4, I've got to do it."

Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World Champions Tell Their Stories, supra, Gunboat Smith chapter, pp. 44-45. Thus, Sharkey outfought Schmeling 2 out of 2 times, no small feat and one which should be afforded the respect it merits.

Besides Schmeling, Sharkey easily beat the 2 top black fighters of the period, Harry Wills and George Godfrey, who could punch holes in brick walls and whom most white fighters did not want to get anywhere near. [Wills was past his best but still a terrific heavyweight at the time, and Godfrey was in his prime.] He also flattened 2 of the greatest light-heavyweight champions of all-time in Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney, and whipped another top all-time light-heavyweight, Young Stribling, by decision. So, when he was "right", he could handle both speedy boxers (Loughran, Delaney, Stribling) and hard-hitting powerhouses (Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey). Few heavyweights of any era have displayed such versatility. As one author commented:

"Jack’s repertoire of punches was something to behold. When he first started out, his only weakness was a looping right that he’d toss as though he were pegging an indoor baseball. After painstaking study, he developed the short lethal jolt that begins at the chest and travels only a foot.

There are no more than eight real blows in boxing - the left jab, left hook to the head, left rip to the body, right cross to the chin, straight right to the body and right uppercut. If you wish, you might ring in the left and right inside uppercuts. Few heavyweights past or present could deliver them all, and no one but Sharkey could deliver each one with devastating effect.

Jack’s left jab was no flickering thing like Tommy Loughran’s but a solid smash with his whole shoulder behind it. Tunney had it, but he never had Sharkey’s whizzing left hook that could separate a man from his senses as quickly as his right. Sharkey would step in with his right under the heart just like Tunney, but then he’d risk a right cross to the chin, which was not for Gene. Tunney preferred to reach with the punch - it was safer."

John D. McCallum, The World Heavyweight Boxing Championship - A History, Chilton Book Company (1974), pp. 154-155.

Perhaps longtime boxing guru Stanley Weston summed Sharkey up best when he remarked:

"Throughout his career, Jack Sharkey was an enigma. He had everything going for him: dazzling speed, size, the artistic boxing moves of a Jim Corbett and the knockout power of a Bob Fitzsimmons. He also possessed a braggart's confidence. If it lived and breathed, Sharkey was sure he could bust it apart. Most experts would have agreed were it not for one failing: Sharkey’s short temper. . . . f Jack Sharkey had been able to keep his cool under pressure, he would almost certainly be rated among the elite heavyweight champions, with Dempsey, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson."

Stanley Weston, The Heavyweight Champions, Ace Publishing Corporation (1970), pp. 142-143.

[i]So, where does Sharkey rate? No, even I would not put him among the top 10 or 15 heavyweights of all-time. But, after that, his name surfaces pretty quickly; certainly, he makes the top 25. I say he was equal to or better than any of the five men who held the title between Tunney and Louis. As to those who preceded him, I would make him a clear underdog to only 4: Jim Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey & Tunney. As those coming after Jim Braddock, I place him ahead of Ingemar Johansson, Jimmy Ellis, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Buster Douglas and Michael Moorer, even-money against Jersey Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson, and only a slight underdog against Ezzard Charles and Lennox Lewis (an oaf, but a very big oaf). As to the rest, he’s probably a more sizeable underdog. On the right night, however, ya never know. . . .

One thing is for certain, though: Sharkey was too good to be dismissed out of hand as he often is today — far too good!

[SteveO]

I'm going to say James Toney.

He has accomplished a lot but, like the poster before that said Tyson, could have accomplished more.

[dmt]

The overweight Toney couldnt do too much at heavyweight. Maybe if he came in at 210 lbs he could do well but not at his weight

[McGrain]

Different fighter or not, he wasn't all that. It was a weaker division after the Dempsey/Tunney retirement gap where a former journeyman LHW could climb up to win the title against a highly respected champion.

Braddock was no journeyman at LHW, although perhaps you didn't mean that? Anyway, his last fight at 175 was a failed attempt to wrestle away ATG Loughran's title, I think, the journeyman years began at heavyweight, after this.

Before he tangled with Max, as you know, he beat the #1 HW prospect in the world, a top-line LHW stepping up from Braddock's own division, and the type of fighter Braddock had ALWAYS struggled with, whom he was able to outpoint, and then Laskey, who i believe was the #1 contender at that time.

So this is the guy that was taking on Max Baer - I think this guy would have troubled just about any top line HW outside of the super-heavies at this time, and I think he proved that in his brave losing effort to Louis. Ended up with a lot of stitches though:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I'm pretty much satisfied that when he fought Baer he was the best HW in the world outside of Louis, which is saying plenty! As you've said, it's not the strongest of divisions, but the man sat atop it after a nice run. Underated in this incarnation.

[ThinBlack]

Gregory Edward Page, possibly Michael Dokes, or Tim Witherspoon.

[TheIronMan]

Bowe
Ibeaubuchi
Tua
Harrison

Tyson and Dempsey both achieved a lot but could of achieved even more, but i wouldn't call them underachievers.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He just wasn't good enough to win the big one. He had neither exceptional skills nor physical attributes.

Golota anyone?


Well, I'd rate him ahead of Ellis and Terrell, who both owned straps for a short time. He underachieved compared to many of his peers (at least in terms of title(s).

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ray Mercer an underachiever? Shurely shome mishtake.

[Russell]

Oh god, I love how Bowe is mentioned in half of these posts and yet he ran through a prime Holyfield and destroyed any number of undefeated prospects with ease, and blew out fighters like Seldon and Ferguson like no one ever had or ever did.

He didn't acheive 100% of his potential but he hardly floundered like the likes of Leon Spinks or Audely Harrison

[OLD FOGEY]

John Durant, The Heavyweight Champions, Hastings House (1976), pp. 87-88.

Sharkey was also better than Schmeling in the rematch, notwithstanding his weird decision to handicap himself by refusing to throw any body punches as some sort of infantile protest against the disqualification in the first fight: "Fifteen long rounds; I never hit him below the chin." Peter Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World champions Tell Their Stories, Da Capo Press (1994 ed.), Jack Sharkey chapter, p. 158. Joe Jacobs yelled "We wuz robbed!" when the decision came down, of course, and many people who did not see the fight jumped on the bandwagon. That made things simple for those preferring to rate Schmeling as an all-timer (after all, he beat Joe Louis), but ignore Sharkey at the same time (after all, he lost to Carnera). But, referee Gunboat Smith’s comments on the decision dispel the all-too-convenient "robbery" explanation:

"From the first til the 10th or 11th, Jack Sharkey win every round. The other fellow did nothing but dance. . . . [Schmeling] got the last 4 rounds, but how could I give him the decision when he won only 4 rounds? . . . I give it to Sharkey. Eleven to 4, I've got to do it."

Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World Champions Tell Their Stories, supra, Gunboat Smith chapter, pp. 44-45. Thus, Sharkey outfought Schmeling 2 out of 2 times, no small feat and one which should be afforded the respect it merits.

Besides Schmeling, Sharkey easily beat the 2 top black fighters of the period, Harry Wills and George Godfrey, who could punch holes in brick walls and whom most white fighters did not want to get anywhere near. [Wills was past his best but still a terrific heavyweight at the time, and Godfrey was in his prime.] He also flattened 2 of the greatest light-heavyweight champions of all-time in Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney, and whipped another top all-time light-heavyweight, Young Stribling, by decision. So, when he was "right", he could handle both speedy boxers (Loughran, Delaney, Stribling) and hard-hitting powerhouses (Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey). Few heavyweights of any era have displayed such versatility. As one author commented:

"Jack’s repertoire of punches was something to behold. When he first started out, his only weakness was a looping right that he’d toss as though he were pegging an indoor baseball. After painstaking study, he developed the short lethal jolt that begins at the chest and travels only a foot.

There are no more than eight real blows in boxing - the left jab, left hook to the head, left rip to the body, right cross to the chin, straight right to the body and right uppercut. If you wish, you might ring in the left and right inside uppercuts. Few heavyweights past or present could deliver them all, and no one but Sharkey could deliver each one with devastating effect.

Jack’s left jab was no flickering thing like Tommy Loughran’s but a solid smash with his whole shoulder behind it. Tunney had it, but he never had Sharkey’s whizzing left hook that could separate a man from his senses as quickly as his right. Sharkey would step in with his right under the heart just like Tunney, but then he’d risk a right cross to the chin, which was not for Gene. Tunney preferred to reach with the punch - it was safer."

John D. McCallum, The World Heavyweight Boxing Championship - A History, Chilton Book Company (1974), pp. 154-155.

Perhaps longtime boxing guru Stanley Weston summed Sharkey up best when he remarked:

"Throughout his career, Jack Sharkey was an enigma. He had everything going for him: dazzling speed, size, the artistic boxing moves of a Jim Corbett and the knockout power of a Bob Fitzsimmons. He also possessed a braggart's confidence. If it lived and breathed, Sharkey was sure he could bust it apart. Most experts would have agreed were it not for one failing: Sharkey’s short temper. . . . f Jack Sharkey had been able to keep his cool under pressure, he would almost certainly be rated among the elite heavyweight champions, with Dempsey, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson."

Stanley Weston, The Heavyweight Champions, Ace Publishing Corporation (1970), pp. 142-143.

[i]So, where does Sharkey rate? No, even I would not put him among the top 10 or 15 heavyweights of all-time. But, after that, his name surfaces pretty quickly; certainly, he makes the top 25. I say he was equal to or better than any of the five men who held the title between Tunney and Louis. As to those who preceded him, I would make him a clear underdog to only 4: Jim Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey & Tunney. As those coming after Jim Braddock, I place him ahead of Ingemar Johansson, Jimmy Ellis, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Buster Douglas and Michael Moorer, even-money against Jersey Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson, and only a slight underdog against Ezzard Charles and Lennox Lewis (an oaf, but a very big oaf). As to the rest, he’s probably a more sizeable underdog. On the right night, however, ya never know. . . .

One thing is for certain, though: Sharkey was too good to be dismissed out of hand as he often is today — far too good!

On Sharkey, while I agree that he was a good middle-row champion with some talent, these articles are over the top in certain areas.

1. Schmeling wasn't fouled--I just watched the film. It is in slow motion. He was fouled and grossly.

2. Sharkey was better than Schmeling in the second fight--That was in fact not what the majority at ringside thought, according to the New York Times report of June 22, 1932 by James P Dawson:

"There were many, however, who did not agree with the official decision, and boos were mingled with cheers when Sharkey was announced as the winner. Not only did the spectators voice strong disapproval, but a canvass of newspaper experts at the ringside showed the majority believed the German was entitled to the verdict. Radio announcers were also of the opinion that the laurels should have gone to Schmeling."

"An unofficial survey of critics at the ringside disclosed that fourteen out of twenty-two thought Schmeling won. One favored a draw and seven supported the official decision for Sharkey."

"On the Schmeling side was this writer. I gave Schmeling nine rounds, Sharkey five, and one even."

The writer points out not only was Schmeling the aggressor, but "In hitting, Schmeling outscored his rival, as was apparent from Sharkey's battered appearance."

In his autobiography, Schmeling quotes Gene Tunney--"The decision is a scandal. Sharkey was on the defensive for the entire fifteen rounds. No one ever won the title that way. The decision is a disaster for the sport. On my card Schmeling won going away."

Perhaps 14-7-1 is not definitive, but this clearly was a questionable decision to take away a champion's title, and Schmeling was not given a rematch with Sharkey.

3. This description of Sharkey's various punches as "lethal". The facts say otherwise. Sharkey ko'd only 13 of 55 opponents, one of the lowest totals for a heavyweight champion or contender. He clearly was not a particularly dangerous puncher at this level. Of all the contenders I can think of, only powderpuff punching Jimmy Young, with 11 ko's in 56 fights, was less dangerous. The best that can be said for Sharkey is that perhaps he punched harder that his record indicates.

[catasyou]

Max Baer
Andrew Golota
Zab Judah(altough still fighting)

[Russell]

Max Baer
Andrew Golota
Zab Judah(altough still fighting)

Didn't know Zab was so big! :lol:

[ChrisPontius]

Braddock was no journeyman at LHW, although perhaps you didn't mean that? Anyway, his last fight at 175 was a failed attempt to wrestle away ATG Loughran's title, I think, the journeyman years began at heavyweight, after this.

Before he tangled with Max, as you know, he beat the #1 HW prospect in the world, a top-line LHW stepping up from Braddock's own division, and the type of fighter Braddock had ALWAYS struggled with, whom he was able to outpoint, and then Laskey, who i believe was the #1 contender at that time.

So this is the guy that was taking on Max Baer - I think this guy would have troubled just about any top line HW outside of the super-heavies at this time, and I think he proved that in his brave losing effort to Louis. Ended up with a lot of stitches though:





I'm pretty much satisfied that when he fought Baer he was the best HW in the world outside of Louis, which is saying plenty! As you've said, it's not the strongest of divisions, but the man sat atop it after a nice run. Underated in this incarnation.


I'm saying or implying neither that Braddock was not worthy of a shot or the title itself, i'm just saying that he wasn't exactly one of the greatest champs we've seen, in a very erratic time. And whether or not it was his hand injury, his record was of journeyman quality during a while.

[punchy]

I remember watching the Australian open tennis years ago which Boris Becker won, the commentators were saying it was noticeable how Becker's game had lifted when Sampras went out early. I just wonder if this is not the case with Max Baer and Galota and a few others out there when you know you have to face a Louis or a Lewis at some stage it has a the effect of sometimes killing motivation.

[SteveO]

How about Oliver McCall?

[Muchmoore]

Riddick Bowe
Max Baer
Ike Ibeaubuchi
David Tua

Good picks.

The Super Southpaw Freak of Nature is deserving to be mentioned as well.

[DamonD]

How about Oliver McCall?
If he could've quit the coke and had a manager like Steward or similar through his career, maybe so. An amateur career would've helped too. A chin like that is a shame to waste, though hey - how many guys can say they beat both Lewis and Holmes? ;)

[dmt]

OLD fogey,

does any film of schmeling-sharkey 2 exists? I agree that this article is exxagerating his ability but nonetheless id like to know if any reports of this fight exists. If it was such a disputed decision why did Smith say that Sharkey won?

[JohnThomas1]

Greg Page

Mike Dokes, Witherspoon and Douglas also come to mind.

[janitor]

[quote=ChrisPontius;4284681]Why? I think that's very much an insult to Braddock. Schmeling had a weak jaw and other assets than did Braddock. And it's not like the Schmeling fight was an easy win for him.

I wouldnt describe Schmeling as having a weak jaw. The only person apart from Baer who knocked him out anywhere close to his peak was Joe Louis who also knocked out Jimmy Braddock.

I would add that Baer didnt just knock Schmeling out he was even with him on the score cards going into the fatefull round.

Braddock should have been a routine defence for him.


Yep. OR until he runs into Braddock, Nova, Schaaf, Loughran, Risko, Uzcudun, Farr or Davis, and loses.


Lets look at each of these in turn.

There are a 101 scenarios in that era that dont oinvolve Baer defending his title against Jimmy Braddock. The fighters seen as the top three challengers when Baer won the title were Hamas, Lasky and Levinsky. All swarmer types who would have been tailor made for Max. Schaff was dead, Loughran was shot, Risko was out of the picture, Uzcdun was never likley to challenge for the title again and Farr was a couple of years away from being in a position to challenge for the title.

The Davis fight was only an exhibition where the refferre waalowed to award a decision. It is doubtfull that Baer was actualy going all out.

When Baer had won the title he had just defeated the champion (Carnera) and the man who was really the best heavyweight in the world (Schmeling). The rest should just have been a mopping up operation if he had focused on the game.


Or you are buying into this magical, unbeatable version of Baer who took advantage of a lesser durable opponent, but still lost tons of times i've pointed out.


I am not saying that he was magical or unbeatable.

Just capable of beating anybody around if he aplied himself.


Different fighter or not, he wasn't all that. It was a weaker division after the Dempsey/Tunney retirement gap where a former journeyman LHW could climb up to win the title against a highly respected champion.


Whatever you think of the division it was the one he was actualy fighting in.

The question of this thread was not to name great heavyweights but to name heavyweights who were underachievers.

So to be clear, the question is could Baer have done a lot better than he did in the era the was fighting in?

Absolutely.

[mcvey]

All solid shouts.

I could add Luther McCarthy though it wasnt his fault.

Henry Flakes is another possible call.

Andrew Golotta (obviously)

Henry Flakes????

[JIm Broughton]

What about Gerry Cooney and Corrie Sanders?

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD fogey,

does any film of schmeling-sharkey 2 exists? I agree that this article is exxagerating his ability but nonetheless id like to know if any reports of this fight exists. If it was such a disputed decision why did Smith say that Sharkey won?

Smith was the referee who gave this fight to Sharkey. Assuming he is on the up and up, it was obviously the way HE saw it. It is fair to say that most others did not see it that way.

Yes, film does exist. All I have ever seen is a few rounds. They show Schmeling chasing Sharkey (nothing like the first fight) and landing big rights rather convincingly on the retreating Sharkey. But I haven't seen all the fight to make any judgement on the decision other than what I have read.

However one takes this decision, don't you think Schmeling should have been given an immediate rematch rather than being shunted into a fight with Baer while Carnera gets the shot, despite his loss to Gains? Schmeling obviously was not treated fairly in America, a point Gene Tunney once made publicly.

[janitor]

Henry Flakes????

Ibeabuchi of he 1940s.