[1927 article] Sharkey on Dempsey's Power

Dempsey was rusty but rugged & mean as a junkyard dog the Sharkey KO & the Tunney long-count from an inactive rusty JD tells me his power was still there but his legs needed oil - Jacks power was elite

 

Go get him, Tonto.

To be fair, this is Perry you're asking to show you the source. He can't work out how to use the reply tag let alone copy and paste a link to a youtube video.

Give him your address and he'll post you a video casette. Betamax.

 

Dempsey was a terrific puncher.

 

It must have been O Sullivan the referee then!

 

" and how can this dempsey hit ! No wonder Carl morris and fred Fulton and so many others crumpled up before his blows.... He fell before a man who must be able to hit harder than any man who ever lived. " grantland rice 1919 .......later in life rice and Louis used to play golf together

 

Rice said the punches to Sharkey's body in the 7th round were low.

 

The referee who stood a few feet away described the punches perfectly (he had no instant replays) as three right uppercuts to Sharkeys body and he adamantly stated none of them were low.

 

As many ringsiders who saw the punches, low saw them as legitimate body shots.I don't think the film is conclusive either way, and the referee may have had his vision blocked by one or other man ,it happens.
What there is no doubt about is the left hook that knocked Sharkey out.

 

Some in the crowd who were close enough to see the blows thought low blows were struck. Many others saw no low blows. Problem is there were no instant replays and it’s to be expected that some thought one thing when in fact it was another. However if you mull through all the data and most importantly watch closely the last four punches of the bout it is very more than likely that none of those three right uppercuts that the ref described exactly (without instant replays) were low. Sharkey insisted those punches were to his groin. Those blows no way came close to Sharkeys groin.

If you consider Dempsey’s camp main concern was Sharkey claiming a foul as he was Known TO DO SO.

What you find is the public was undecided over these claims but what has filtered through over the many years is..Dempsey hit him low, Sharkey turned to the ref to complain and Dempsey knocked him out with one blow.

What actually occurred was Dempsey had Sharkey in agony over his body work which was brutal (When Dempsey hits you to the body it feels as if his fist is coming out your back). Those three body blows pushed Sharkey over the edge, he could not take another body blow so he was attempting to foul out.

 

Sharkey to my knowledge, never claimed he was hit low in any other fight.His corner claimed he was hit low in ONE OTHER FIGHT. Ths one below.
[url]1925-06-05[/url] 183 [url]Jim Maloney[/url]
16 1 0
194 16 1 0
Braves Field, Boston
W
DQ
9/10
9/10
referee: [url]Johnny Brassil[/url]
Sharkey led on points for six rounds and gave Maloney a terrific beating, but Jim came back strong in the seventh and in the eighth he knocked Sharkey to the canvas five times, once for the count of nine. Sharkey's corner claimed a foul when Maloney put him down again in the 9th "
Bud Gorman was slung out in the 1st round for a blatant low blow in their 2nd fight.Sharkey had no need to prompt the referee to dsq him in that one.


You have repeatedly said Sharkey had a long history of claiming low punches.
I'm asking you now to name these fights in which he did so?

When it comes to landing low punches it was actually Sharkey who had the history of doing so! He also hit Dempsey after the ,and Homer Smith whilst he was on the canvas.Sharkey was something of an unpredictable nut case,he tried to leave the ring when the referee stopped counting in the first Carnera fight Carnera had been floored ,got up and gone down again. The referee did not see it,a classic example of the third man being unsighted ,[which I referred to in earlier posts].

Posters repeatedly ask you for the provenance of your assertions yet you never provide them.Bald statements without primary sourced proof are worthless and wriggling out of providing that proof by saying," do some research," just doesn't cut it.
You make a statement, the onus is on you to provide proof of it! Not us to provide proof you are wrong!

Some of the questions you have repeatedly failed to answer.
"Carpentier hadn't beaten a good heavyweight for 7 years and he won that one on a controversial foul !
Show me whom Carpentier beat to justify a heavyweight title shot?"
Asked for the sources of the claims you made below you did not respond.
"A few years ago I found an article from a local newspaper in the 50's that interviewed Jack Sharkey. Several very interesting points he made:

1). Dempsey punchfor punch hit harder than Joe Louis. Louis was the better combination puncher.

2). Regarding getting hit by Dempsey...."I never thought anyone could hit that hard".

3). Elaborating further concerning Dempsey punching power..."When Dempsey hit you on the shoulder he broke your shoulder. When he hit you to the body it felt as if his fist came out your back. When he hit you on the hip he dislocated your hip".

I always heard that Sharkey never picked Dempsey or Louis over one another in terms of punching power BUT in this interview he was very clear who he felt was the more powerful puncher."
When asked to produce the provenance ofr them you stated,you didn't retain the article..

 

If you look up the newspaper accounts the day before/morning of the fight it’s there in black and white. I’m not saying Sharkey had a tendency to claim foul it was Dempsey’s people back in 1927 who mentioned that they were concerned over Sharkey claiming foul as he had done so in prior bouts.

 

Show me the hwt Foster beat to justify his title shot.

You sorely lack historical perspective. Carp was one of the most famous fighters in the world. Light hwt champion and European hwt champion as well as a laundry list of other titles.

You need to immerse yourself in the times of the day via deep study of those times. You lack any depth whatsoever.

 

No you stated categorically that Sharkey had a long history of claiming foul from low blows.Well guess what he didn't!
In fact he only did it ONCE, in the Dempsey fight!

 

Foster was a great light heavyweight and recognized as such when he challenged Frazier. I never suggested that Frazier defending against him was justified, any more than Frazier defending against two unranked scrubs was justified.
Foster at188lbs was 20lbs heavier that Carpentier BTW!

Your attempt to muddy the waters with an example of a great lightheavyweight who made numerous title defenses and Carpentier who made one successful defense against an overstuffed welter weight who weighed 157lbs, and was then beaten up by a journeyman nobody in a fixed fight is just errant tosh!
Carpentier had not beaten a world class fighter anywhere near his own weight for 7 years when he fought Dempsey.Both the promoter Rickard and Carpentier's manager Deschamps knew it was a palpable mismatch.
Deschamps had Carpentier train behind closed doors because at 168lbs he looked too puny to make a credible match with Dempsey.
Rickard was so concerned Dempsey would blow the Frenchman out in the opening round he visited Dempsey's dressing room just prior to the fight and asked him to take it easy for a few rounds to give the public a run for their money.

I'm up to speed with these events and bought this fight as part of a Dempsey collection in the 60's, it included the Willard,Firpo,Sharkey,and both Tunney fights.I bought the Gibbons one a couple of years later.
All this waffle about historical context is a pathetic attempt at an escape route. Earlier you said there was historical precedence for light champs to challenge heavyweight champs which is BS, there wasn't!

The Dempsey v Carpentier fight was a triumph of hyped bally hoo over substance and cold facts.
How famous a man is, and what he may have done in the war ,what third rate European fighters he may have defeated to win titles ,titles that at world level meant nothing,how popular he was with Gaby Deslys and Mistinguette ,and the fact that he photographed well with an orchid in his buttonhole ,all of this is irrelevant guff.
ALL OF WHICH DID NOT QUALIFY HIM FOR A TITLE SHOT WITH JACK DEMPSEY.