On this day 98 years ago Dempsey fought Carpentier it was the first million dollar gate

Discretion being the better part of valor, it would be wise of me not to get in the middle of this, but I don't feel wise today, so,

The film clearly shows that Sharkey was not wearing his trunks high in his fight with Dempsey, which seems to me is all that is relevant concerning the fight with Dempsey. A newspaper claiming otherwise only shows that the newspaper was biased. I go by my own eyes on this sort of issue when film is available and the best evidence.

As for Carpentier being considered an ATG, he was by some over the decades, but this seems to me to be an irrelevant issue concerning how he was viewed in 1921 when the fight was made and staged. He was clearly considered one of the outstanding fighters in the world and a worthy challenger. Off newspaper articles, he went in a 2 to 1 underdog, less of an underdog to Dempsey than Conn was to Louis or Moore to Marciano.

Whether Carpentier should be viewed as an ATG from the vantage point of the 21st century is a separate issue. What matters is he had a record which was viewed as outstanding when he stepped into the ring with Dempsey. It is worthy of note that the relatively close odds between Carpentier and Dempsey versus Conn-Louis or Moore-Marciano might be due less to Carpentier having a better rep going in than Conn or Moore than to Dempsey having a lesser rep in 1921 than Louis or Marciano. This is a subject worthy of debate, though.

I have watched a lot of film over the last few days of Carpentier. I can't think of any non-heavyweight champion prior to 1950 who was filmed anything like this much. It contrasts with no surviving film at all of Greb. On you-tube they have Carpentier with Klaus, Papke, Beckett (2), Grundhoven, D Smith, Cook, Nilles, Lewis, Dempsey, Siki, and Tunney. The guy had a great right both as a cross and as an uppercut which was capable of taking a man out with one punch.

An issue I would raise is was this a no-decision fight? The prelims which went the distance were newspaper decisions. If so, Carpentier because of his punch, had a much better chance of upsetting Dempsey than Greb, or Gibbons, would have. It is a stretch to imagine either knocking Dempsey out. Carpentier? Well, he was on paper at least as dangerous a puncher as Jim Flynn who had flattened Dempsey in the first.

 

There were many multiple first hand from ringside reports stating Sharkey wore his trunks high. Nothing anyone can say or do can discount these observations seen live from ringside.

Sharkey was KNOWN to wear his trunks high more than likely to try to avoid a body attack.

 

There are multiple first hand accounts from ringside reports stating that Dempsey punched Sharkey low but you seem willing to discount those completely...

 

This is a bit of a twilight zone argument. We have an excellent film so we can see for ourselves.

This boils down to saying are you going to trust your lying eyes or accept the "truth" the media sells you.

Also, even the issue of Sharkey's trunks being "high" begs the issue of whether Dempsey hit him in the balls. Wearing your trunks high doesn't justify a really low blow.

By the way, I have no problem with Dempsey's victory. I think he won fair and square, but don't ask me to believe something I can see isn't true.

 

The three body punches leading to the KO blow did not land on Sharkeys balls. Belt-line as defined as an imaginary line that crosses from hip bone to hip bone...yes.

There is a mountain of first hand reports that state Sharkey wore his trunks high.

 

WATCH THE FILM!

 

Great objective post! BTW I have no problem with Dempsey's victory either! Even if the punches were low which is far from clear,Sharkey broke the cardinal rule ,"protect yourself at all times!" The left hook that flattened him whilst his attention was on the referee was NOT LOW!

 

The statement lends itself to a response of....do you know where your balls are located?

 

Lucky I'm not eating or drinking or my keyboard and screen would be covered in debris!

 

We've seen no evidence that you possess a pair so far!