Shame on Sharkey for being affected by a punch to the balls. It looks like he could've gotten up but the agony was too much. I can imagine why some here lack sympathy because they wouldn't have been affected by such a punch.
If it was in the balls it would hurt like hell and sharkey would have dropped like a stone. sharkey had lost focus. If you have the upper hand in a fight and you get fouled you suck it up and keep going for the win. nothing will stop you. If it was a foul then Foul back, take a knee-then complain. If it is not enough to take you off your feet then you should be looking to retaliate. don’t take your eye off the ball, call to the ref during a fight because it shows weakness. All fighters are encouraged by the other guy complaining. sharkey was feeling sorry for himself, he could not find answers so he whined to the ref and was KOd by a legit chin shot because he was not protecting himself when he should have.
Sharkey was already falling to the ground from the ball shot when Dempsey hit him with the hook. You can't really blame him for not protecting himself when he was already dropping to the floor. Mayweather-Ortiz is a bad comparison, it'd be more like the referee counting Agbeko out after he went down from the 30th low blow or so. The ref already started to pull Dempsey away after seeing the low blow. Not even talking about the result, there's no doubt that it was very poor refereeing.
He turned to complain to the ref mid combo and got nailed. I don't even see how it's worth debating, the footage is there and everyone can see what happens.
In Dempsey's defense, Sharkey had belted Dempsey pretty good after the bell in a blatant show of disrespect for the champion. It was still a low blow though and he landed low throughout the fight. You don't get much points from me for setting a guy up for a KO by hitting him below the belt. Dempsey came out wanting to kill him that round and Sharkey should have known it however. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0RLqeVfxo8[/ame] 2:50
saying Liston beats everyone willing to trade in the pocket with him is an opinion I have. It is no more credible than choklab saying Liston loses to every great fighter he faces. despite what some of us love to believe in our quest to be as objective as possible, empirical evidence can only, at most, support a matchup. I could use Liston's destruction of Patterson as supporting evidence that his destructive nature will wipe out anyone in front of him. By the same stretch his capitulation to Ali could be used to support the idea that his mental fortitude was horribly lacking. The same can be said in most matchups: Frazier v ali met once when both were prime imo and joe emerged victorious and I'd expect a prime Joe to beat a prime ali. Someone could point to the overall trilogy to refute that claim. Same with Duran (always deserves a mention) v Leonard. The two met when both at the peak of their powers and roberto took the decision, a seemingly less hungry duran lost the subsequent rematches. any number of conclusions could be drawn from that. IMHO no "h2h pick" has any more validity than any other