How much credit should Dempsey get for his controversial victory over Jack Sharkey?

I am really continually amazed that people feel Dempsey fouled Sharkey with the three right uppercuts to the body prior to the KO blow. The fight is readily available on YouTube AND if you look hard enough you can find a bright and clear copy. What you will see is Dempsey pumping two right uppercuts into Sharkeys body that are unquestionably ABOVE the area that is considered below the belt (imaginary line from hip bone to hip bone). The third right hand you can't see but quite obviously Dempsey does not dip his shoulder or change his positioning. It's just three consecutive very hard right hands to the belly. So rather than debate really a non issue watch the ending of the fight and see for yourself. I like the previous poster have been watching this bout since the early 70s.

 

You can't judge the officiating by today's standards.

A lot of referees of the period let fighters get on with it, if they were both mutually intent on fouling each other.

Either way, unless the foul in question was enough to cause a DQ in and of itself, there would be nothing to argue about regarding the rest of the fight.

 

Great find Edward. It does appear to give Sharkey more credit for trying to rise. I had never seen that angle. Good stuff.

 

If Dempsey hit Sharkey low, then he was wrong to do it, but it is hard to argue that he should have been DQd solely based on such a foul.

Taking it from there, he was right to hit Sharkey, even if he was complaining to the referee.

It's a knockout, plain and simple.

 

J, how dare you tell the truth that has been generally accepted by the referee and boxing media lo these many years, that Jack Dempsey kod Jack Sharkey July 21, 1927.? After all J, this is ESB...Home of many honorable Dempsey haters...Repent...atsch

 

What people need to understand, is that the low blow and the knockout punch, would be two separate events.

You either think that Dempsey should have been DQd prior to the knockout punch, or you think that he knocked Sharkey out.

If your position is the former, then you have to say at what point he should have been DQd, and why.

 

Kind of like a more recent fight in Torres vs Holt. Ricardo Torres was actually knocked out by a headbutt then got smashed by a big punch and crumpled to the canvas, but the ref didn't call the headbutt so it didn't matter.

Same with the low blow I guess, ref didn't call it so doesn't matter. However I wouldn't put too much credit behind the win in this case, a wins a win however

 

The three blows just before the Ko blow were not low.

 

"Protect yourself at all times!!!"...Sharkey didn't...Dempsey wins by KO...nuff said

 

I agree with you.

The "foul" posters all seem to be assuming facts not in evidence, as they say in a courtroom.

I am not saying there couldn't have been a blatant foul. I am only saying I have never seen it,

and have asked for those who see the foul to point out where it is. No one has yet. I don't think those last three rights to the body were clearly low off the film.

 

full credit, sharkey didn't protect himself at all times.

he also got starched by carnera not paying attention.

 

Actually if you read the newspaper accounts the days after the bout there are headlines that read......."Film of fight shows blows to body were legal"
What you had here as in any bout from that time were a boxing crowd and ringside reporters that did not have the luxury of instant replays. Some saw the blows as fair some saw them as low. Both could not be correct. It all depends on where they were seated, angles from ringside etc which determined what THEY THOUGHT they saw. The REALITY is on the film. Then as now upon looking at the film the only conclusion that can be drawn is that those three body blows were not below the belt. Please look for yourself before posting that they were low.