Tom Sharkey like you never seen him before! A quality carrer review

[Slugfester]

Tommy had one hell of a body.

[mattdonnellon]

That's cool. I was not degrading his opinion I degrade every opinion.

I take them all, kick them all over town and then see what I think.

I was looking for the 'more information' you provided.

So he was making a prime to prime match-up like our fantasy fights. That's interesting.

Anyway, it's not a personal attack on this man, I challenge every source and I always go looking for the POSSIBLE biases.

I wasn't t necessarily saying he was, I was saying Was he?

There is a difference.

It's not degrading the fighter, or anyone for that matter, to question a historical source.

EVERYBODY gets the same treatment, from presidents to peasants. It's the rule.

Good stuff, we need more like you! I too, question every source.

[Ivich]

"He(Mick Dooley) says that the best man he ever engaged was Peter Jackson.'Do you think that Peter in his prime,would beat the Jack Johnson of today? he was asked.Mick became emphatic. 'Fighting under the present interpretation of the rules, I do not think that Jackson would have a chance. I have seen both men fight, and I think I should be in a position to judge. Mind you, I did not see Johnson extended when he fought Burns; that fight was similar to the spectacle of a master thrashing his pupil. From what I did see of his skill, however, I should say that Jackson, with his out-fighting, would be easily Johnson's superior, but when the in-fighting came into vogue it would be 'Good-bye, Peter'. Johnson, with his powerful kidney and stomach punches, and his terrific uppercuts, would have ultimately sent poor old Peter to by-bye land. I do not think that Peter's physical make-up would have permitted him to stand the puninshment incidental and peculiar to infighting."
You don't have to agree with this opinion to see that it is well thought out. I cannot fathom posters denegrating Dooley's opinion. He was actually the first person to school Peter in boxing when he came to Sydney. Forget the seven or so listed contests, most were, as correctly pointed out, gloryfied exhibitions. The first 3 fights, especially the 1886 contest were in earnest, a lot of money on Dooley, especially by Larry Foley. Dooley fought Fitz, Slavin, Goddard, Choynski, Hall, O'Donnell, Felix among others and was a boxing instructor, trainer, promoter, cornerman and general enthusiast all his life. Jackson was his friend, he had no axe to grind, he would be as well equiped to give an opinion as any referee, reporter or indeed boxer who had seen both fighters. For balance, Parson Davies and Eugene Corrie chose Jackson over Johnson, lots of good opinions on either side out there if you do the ground work. Personally, it's a tough pick. Peter's weakness was the tough, aggresive fighter, a la Farnan, Goddard but Johnson was not that type. For sure, Jack never met as good a boxer as Jackson and I actually think Dooley has hit it on the head, could Johnson impose his infighting ability on Peter? fascinating senario and without film on Jackson I find it impossible to make a pick.

Fine post from a fine poster!

On Sharkey , in 1897 Tom was said to be scheduled to fight Jackson , but in late December of 1897 the San Francisco Daily Report dismissed this ,saying at 216lbs Jackson was "too fat to be able to train it was said ,he was an old has- been a heavy drinker.and the public would have none of it."
Page 148." I Fought Them All".

[Willie Pep 229]

Fine post from a fine poster!

On Sharkey , in 1897 Tom was said to be scheduled to fight Jackson , but in late December of 1897 the San Francisco Daily Report dismissed this ,saying at 216lbs Jackson was "too fat to be able to train it was said ,he was an old has- been a heavy drinker.and the public would have none of it."
Page 148." I Fought Them All".

Sorry for sounding cynical but I guess there is a double standard for white champions.

The bold sounds like The Great John L Sullivan before the Corbett fight.

[JAB5239]

Sorry for sounding cynical but I guess there is a double standard for white champions.

The bold sounds like The Great John L Sullivan before the Corbett fight.

Lol, gotta agree with this all the way.

[billeau2]

That's cool. I was not degrading his opinion I degrade every opinion.

I take them all, kick them all over town and then see what I think.

I was looking for the 'more information' you provided.

So he was making a prime to prime match-up like our fantasy fights. That's interesting.

Anyway, it's not a personal attack on this man, I challenge every source and I always go looking for the POSSIBLE biases.

I wasn't t necessarily saying he was, I was saying Was he?

There is a difference.

It's not degrading the fighter, or anyone for that matter, to question a historical source.

EVERYBODY gets the same treatment, from presidents to peasants. It's the rule.

Scientific literacy and thinking about information at a level where people all understand the topic as experts is something that has still not hit the masses. If one had to put the scientific method in only ONE sentence it might be: "Falsify the conclusion." Sometimes our love for our art, for another, gets entangled with our feelings of empathy. For example, I want to know if this technique for fighting works... Therefore as my dear friend, concerned for my safety (If I have to use the technique), and my reputation as an innovator, you must, not agree, support me...Rather, you now must attempt to thrash me like an angry Mike Tyson.

But one of the ironies of skill and learning is how often enough the simplest things take the most practice to learn. Kendo has only about 10 basic/intermediatte techniches, yet it is considered to be the hardest art to master... Many string theory dabblers could not answer basic questions about how Einsteins Physics correlates with Quantum Mechanics... Many are not aware that any future technologies for travel involve finding the value and a way to control gravity...

[Willie Pep 229]

Scientific literacy and thinking about information at a level where people all understand the topic as experts is something that has still not hit the masses. If one had to put the scientific method in only ONE sentence it might be: "Falsify the conclusion." Sometimes our love for our art, for another, gets entangled with our feelings of empathy. For example, I want to know if this technique for fighting works... Therefore as my dear friend, concerned for my safety (If I have to use the technique), and my reputation as an innovator, you must, not agree, support me...Rather, you now must attempt to thrash me like an angry Mike Tyson.

But one of the ironies of skill and learning is how often enough the simplest things take the most practice to learn. Kendo has only about 10 basic/intermediatte techniches, yet it is considered to be the hardest art to master... Many string theory dabblers could not answer basic questions about how Einsteins Physics correlates with Quantum Mechanics... Many are not aware that any future technologies for travel involve finding the value and a way to control gravity...

Excuse the digression please.

Re Bold: This is why I am never impressed with Elon Musk. He is a 20th Century visionary, not a 21st Century man.

Rocketry will never cover the vast distances of space. Manipulation of gravity it the future.

Even his electric car is just old 20th Century technology, electricity. In the end he made a golf cart go really fast. But that electricity still burns fossil fuel in the end.

The man is not an innovator he is merely an entrepreneur. Very successful one no doubt. But he is a Carnegie not a Bessemer; a Rockefeller not a Drake; an Edison not a Tesla.

[billeau2]

Excuse the digression please.

Re Bold: This is why I am never impressed with Elon Musk. He is a 20th Century visionary, not a 21st Century man.

Rocketry will never cover the vast distances of space. Manipulation of gravity it the future.

Even his electric car is just old 20th Century technology, electricity. In the end he made a golf cart go really fast. But that electricity still burns fossil fuel in the end.

The man is not an innovator he is merely an entrepreneur. Very successful one no doubt. But he is a Carnegie not a Bessemer; a Rockefeller not a Drake; an Edison not a Tesla.

Could not agree more. Frankly I often wonder why Joe Rogan, who I adore, thinks so highly of Elan entitled idiot Musky. I have many problems with the twit: First of all, If you were positioned to change a fundamental industry, one that could see a legitimate revolution for the betterment of human kind, or a testosterone laden industry with little implications for the world, which one would you choose?

Cars are shiat. They mean nothing because they are not better but have become like cartons of milk with definite expiration dates... Electric cars forego the rich and varied role of the car mechanic who keeps great cars running forever. Now? you take all those repairs and buy a battery for the sum total of them after 5 or so years... what an advance! And self driving cars? Only will work if all cars are self driving... One idiot destroys the equation. And if we really want self drivers, just put in magnetic rails on the roads, you can have cars with no moving parts, no emmissions... but alas, that would deprive the thiefs that benefit from carbon burning technologies and we can't do that can we? unless we let them guage us for another product... enter Musky the visionary.

The thing is: If he had pursued with the same enthusiasm, his vanguard position regarding solar, we could have people off the grid in a few years... The technology is there, it just has to be more cost effective and even so would make the vanguard producers much richer than cars! But this eludes Musk because at the end of the day solar is not sexy... and it truly cuts off the heads of an industry that is destructive to the world. People could run incredible solar systems... the stuff Musk produces could be made to scale for almost a price point any home could afford... Hes a dimwit

[Ivich]

Sorry for sounding cynical but I guess there is a double standard for white champions.

The bold sounds like The Great John L Sullivan before the Corbett fight.

I agree but the difference ,and it is crucial is thatSullivan was still the reigning champion.
Corbett had no choice but to fight Sullivan if he wanted to be champ.
In1898 A year after a proposed Sharkey v Jackson fight was abandoned.
Jim Jeffries picked over the carcass of the alcoholic,consumptive Jackson.Sharkey commented ,"I would be ashamed to do it Jackson is a physical wreck."
Because Jeffries in his idol,Dr Z will tell you that Jackson had regained his old form and his optimum weiqht.
Facts
NB
1.Jackson had not fought for 6 years!
2. Neither Jeffries or Jackson weighed in.

[Ivich]

Sorry for sounding cynical but I guess there is a double standard for white champions.

The bold sounds like The Great John L Sullivan before the Corbett fight.

I don't know how many know this, but the Sullivan v Corbett fight was fought on a turf flooring.
Corbett said he was doubtful if he would be able to move well on it, but found it to be no handicap.