Dempsey's stamina

Because HE DIDN'T...

 

it was said in jest burt but from what i've seen, regardless of what came before, it was a low blow. there's visual evidence and multiple, numerous reports saying the same. i'm not saying dempsey wouldn't have won or wasn't wearinng him down but the last punch was low...i can't really say otherwise

 

Borderline is not low N...In those days til the 1940s body punching was HALF of a fighter's arsenal...Dempsey methodically wore down Sharkey with shots at the waistline or borderline shots which DID NOT LAND ON THE NUTS as alleged by silly partisans who have a vested interest in attacking Dempsey...For gosh sakes there were no warnings I believe by the referee, there were no points taking away from Dempsey at ALL. In those days a fighter who was hit square in the balls ,would claim disqualification by showing the DENTED aluminum cup to the officials as HAPPENED in 1930 when Max Schmeling after losing the first 3 rounds to the same Jack Sharkey, fell to the ground holding his groin and refused to continue..Schmeling's manager pulled out the protective cup from Max's
trunks and showed the referee a dented cup...So Max Schmeling was
REWARDED the world heavyweight crown on an apparent shot to the balls...
Sharkey's corner went berserk even though the evidence of a dented cup was on display...But three years earlier he lost to Dempsey by a left-hook to the whiskers, NEVER complained that he was hit in the nuts all those years after...But facts mean nothing to the Dempsey Detracters,
who despise him for reason's they know not...Do these haters utter a protest when the 32 year old rusty Dempsey,slow afoot finally caught up to the prime fleet Tunney and dropped Gene with a barrage of 7 or so shots to the button dropping Tunney in the 7th round and the ref instead of taking up the count, made Dempsey walk to a neutral corner BEFORE counting ONE.
Tunney used that 16-17 seconds to clear his head, get up and scoot out of danger...But in the VERY last round Tunney dropped Dempsey with a right hand on the temple and the referee IMMEDIATELY started the one count whilst Tunney hovered over Dempsey...Was this fair ? No sir..But the Dempsey haters utter nary a word N, so unfair they are to a great fighter who gave no quarters, and asked for no quarters...Dempsey was a MAN, much to the chagrin of his haters on ESB...Cheers N.

 

Tyson actually complained about it on that documentary I put up for you to watch, Burt.

 

burt, while i don't always agree, especially with your views on dempsey you always present reasonable argument. i saw a low blow against sharkey but your points are valid. i personally see sharkey leading and controlling a well past prime dempsey who while working the body with conviction strayed low. the fun of boxing is disagreeing and debating on these issues. i don't think particularly less of dempsey for it but that's what i have seen.

as an aside, your position on the tunney fight is interesting to say the least and bears some thought

 

:good

In fact I've watched this fight a fair few times and I can't say with any certainty that the one-two before the KO was definately low anyway. With the black and white footage I couldn't clearly distinguish between the dark gloves and the dark trunks to tell whether Sharkey was hit in the balls or the stomach so I'm always confused when people talk about the foul like it's fact.

Either way Dempsey was coming on and had pounded Sharkey with numerous legit body shots in the preceeding rounds and as you said you can visibly see Sharkey wearing down.

A great win by Dempsey imo.

 

Tunney was well connected...

 

I'm talking about your emotions in regard to Marciano. It's not romanticizing, it's the opposite. When it comes to other older fighters you could say it's romanticizing on a relative scale (In contrast to Marciano). That's not important, this is a Dempsey thread.

I'll re-watch the fight. However, I already find it funny how you say Sharkey was wearing down no question but that Dempsey's low ball buster is merely an emotion that's not proven. Surely it can't be proven but that's not to say it's purely a emotional response. If a fight were to end in such a similiar manner today people would be outraged I imagine. And while it may not be fair to say Dempsey won merely because he fouled, I think it's visibly apparent from the footage that he finished Sharkey with a foul. And while it can't be proven, I don't think Sharkey went in full blown method acting mode when he was reaching in pain for his balls. And while the left hook to the chin was technically the finishing blow. Sharkey still had enough senses to either act or respond to a rather obvious low blow. Of course, Dempsey could have won regardless. It seems more plausible that Sharkey could have still won then it is for Sharkey to have acted as if Dempsey hit him low. Maybe today you could get away with winning a fight like that but probably not then.

 

PtP,you write"maybe today you can get "away" with winning a fight like that but probably not then "?. So it speaks for itself that the judges and NYState boxing commission agreed with the knockout of Sharkey,otherwise
they would have ruled the bout a disqualification just as they did in 1930 when Schmeling claimed Sharkey hit him in the nuts and the referee agreed and Schmeling won the title on disqualification...

 

You an watch round after round of effective volume punching to determine who was wearing down while the punch in question is a fraction of a second from an inconclusive angle ... that is the difference to me ...

 

Look I do appreciate PTP's point as the whole thing is hard to see but it does not take away from my point and that is that an old Dempsey, with one fight in years , fought possibly the best if not the second best fighter in the world that night and showed exceptional heart, guts and enough remaining ability to take your hat off to the guy ... to me , in many ways the way he fought Sharkey and then Tunney in the rematch were Dempsey's greatest performances ... he fought perhaps his two best opponents from a challenging style wise perspective in their primes, far past his own and showed tremendous shades of what he could have been if he developed to the height of his talents which he did not ... even against Tunney, the famous cry that he lost so many rounds is only half a story ... besides almost knocking Gene out many of the rounds were razor close and if watched in slow motion you see how extremely close Dempsey comes time and again to landing murderous shots .. it is not a stretch to imagine a young Toledo Dempsey , much faster of hand and foot , doing a serious number on a Tunney ..

 

he, you said it all !.Nothing to add to your post. :good

 

Dempsey had great stamina, he attributed it from all the running away he did from Harry Wills and Harry Greb

 

Unparalleled. The Greatest Ever.

 

I watched the full fight film on youtube a couple months ago; the couple rounds (5, 6) leading up to the long-count round were indeed very competitive.