Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Seamus, Aug 4, 2013.


  1. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    Dempsey fought within the rules of that time vs Firpo. None of the body blows were low in that bout either.

    Again for Krapton's low intellect let's do this slowly......

    With any live event being watched by thousands of people many will think they saw one thing or another.

    Sharkey was the favorite by most all sportswriters going into the fight. Claiming Dempsey fouled was a great way for them to still claim they were right. This is well written about after the bout.

    The clearest viewpoint is watching a clear bright video of the bout on YouTube. None of the three body blows were low. If you watch that bout and still say those punches were low you are lying. Low blow is defined as punches below the beltline. The beltline is defined as an imaginary line that connects the hip bones.
     
  2. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    62,593
    47,831
    Feb 11, 2005
    So I guess Benny Leonard either didn't know boxing or didn't know anatomy because it literally happened right in front of him and he had zero doubt the blows were low.

    My point is that I don't care if they were low or not. Boxing is not a clean and tidy sport... Oh, and it's really inadvisable to complain to a ref while still in a powerpuncher's wheelhouse.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    Everyone neutral is saying it's very hard to be sure.

    Most of the Dempsey die-hards are saying they were fair.

    Most of the anti-Dempsey guys are saying they were low.

    And nobody stops to think about that fact.

    My next line was going to be "I think..." but who cares? I've never seen anyone, ever, change their minds on the Sharkey low blows or the Wills disaster.
     
  4. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    The punches were NOT low. Instead of citing testimony that was divided (as one would expect it to be) watch the KO sequence yourself. I've watched it countless times since 1972. My conclusion then as it is now is that none of those three body blows were low.
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    I don't see how anyone can say based upon the film that the last one is definitively not low though. Dempsey's own body is in the way!
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    What about the last one? It's definitively impossible to see it land, isn't it?
     
  7. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    Dempsey does not dip his shoulder or arm. He fires three consecutive blows thrown in the same manner into Sharkeys gut. To land a blow to the ***** a fighter would need to dip shoulder and arm. You do not see this in the film of the bout.
     
  8. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    It's three short inside uppercuts thrown the exact same way.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    He definitely doesn't hit him in the gentiles, if that's what you are writing.

    However, that doesn't mean he didn't hit him low.

    You are saying that you can tell Dempsey DEFINITELY did not hit Sharkey low by the way he shapes himself. I do not find this credible.

    And it's certainly not reasonable to back anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
     
  10. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    It's as clear as the nose on your face. Watch in both slow and regular motion. Three short right uppercuts thrown in quick succession at the same point on Sharkeys stomach. One after another without hesitation. None were low.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's not. You can see AND feel the nose on your face. You CAN'T see or feel that punch.

    Sorry. Pretending that is definitive proof is dishonest.
     
  12. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,677
    27,391
    Feb 15, 2006
    Who do people think was the best available challenger for Larry Holmes’s title, and did he actually fight him?

    On paper it was probably Mike Weaver, but the other candidates would be Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, and Pinklon Thomas.
     
  13. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    Punches were not low. Just because one of three successive blows can't be seen landing does not mean one cannot determine whether it landed low. This can be readily seen in that Dempsey never dips his shoulder or arm to bring the last punch lower. It's three consecutive, very quick right uppercuts to the body. No one got hit in the *****. No one got hit in the groin.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,413
    48,829
    Mar 21, 2007
    You are entitled to hold this opinion and there's nothing wrong with that.

    But your repeated claims that the films vindicated Dempsey "90 years ago" appears to be dishonest.

    Your insistent that the film shows, inarguably, that the punches were no low, seems to be dishonest.

    And your insistance that based on the film, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, is silly.
     
  15. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,853
    29,309
    Jun 2, 2006
    How about the contrary opinion of another
    who says that anyone stating , Dempsey ko'd Sharkey with a left hook to the jaw is," a deluded Dempsey fan boy with his head up Dempsey's a*se?"

    Is that a reasonable stance IYO?


    Just curious:think