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

No, I don't like that end at all RC. Duran was largely dominating and hence it was a great performance but it was a disgusting way for the fight to end

 

You can make a case that Dempsey should have been disqualified, but the referee was well within his discretion not to disqualify him.

You certainly can't disqualify him retrospectively.

Dempsey was right to hit Sharkey when he turned to complain to the referee, he was simply following boxing logic.

In order to have a case, you would have to argue that the officiating was so bad, that it was not defensible withing the practices of the period.

 

You could not be more incorrect. No chance the punches were to the b...s and quite obviously they were in the legal above the beltline area.

 

Some of these posts are truly mindboggling. Some people are really calling this a great KO and that Dempsey should be given credit for it.. "he seized the opportunity" "he showed he still had a great punch" ...if the ref doesn't see it.. too bad and yay for Dempsey... I mean I honestly expected better than this. Why are people acting like Dempsey used catlike reflexes and timing to KO a dude NOT EVEN LOOKING AT HIM... why you say? .. BECAUSE OF A DELIBERATE LOW BLOW. It looks simply ridiculous to even claim some of the things being said in the thread. He deserves very little credit imo. Nothing is particularly impressive about KOing a guy not looking at you because you hit him low. To even suggest this is somewhat impressive hilarious. Sure, it should he could still whack I suppose.. yet did it really? Punches always hurt more that you don't see.. so even his power isn't shown by such a punch. Many of this forum have way more boxing knowledge than me, which I why I frequent the site. Which is why when I saw some of these responses I'm like WTFFFFFFf

 

Kurupt....suggest you watch the fight. If you really feel that the last three body blow were in the b...s or were even low then your name reflects your mentality. Look before you leap.

 

It is like this.

Sharkey had the talent to potentially beat the ageing Dempsey, but he lost his head and blew it.

On the day Dempsey managed to make it too hot in the kitchen for Sharkey, and his fragile psyche cracked.

I give Dempsey credit for pulling out one last big win

 

I agree with some parts of that Janitor and I respect your knowledge and most of all your patience on here. My issue is with people commenting that it was a great punch... he still had it in him to KO people... what a way to take advantage of the situation... what a pinpoint punch... The guy WASN'T looking.. thus non of that applies and is null and void. That is my issue friend.

 

It was a one punch Ko by a perfectly thrown 6 inch left hook. A punch Dempsey was known for. Take a good look as it's the manner in which a left hook should be thrown.

 

No you're just another Dempsey apologist revisionist making up 'era standards', plenty of DQs in this era such as Harry Wills and Jack Johnson. The rules of the time were the rules.

 

It's a bit of both arguments .. they were wrestling and locking arms , pushing and pulling as they punched .. no doubt to me that in the final sequence Dempsey locked Sharkey's right arm in place with his left, dipped and hit him a bit South but he also fired a lightning fast punch in a fraction of a second as Sharkey began to turn .. it was not a blatant sucker punch to me .. in addition, Sharkey had no problem smacking Dempsey in the face when Jack's hands were down at the end of the previous round .. he should have kept his cool and his hands up if he was going to play cute with that type of monster.

 

Presumably you accept that there was a higher tolerance for rough tactics back then, than there is today?

A lot of referees of the period took a more liberal view of fouls, if both fighters were mutually intent on fouling each other. By fouling Dempsey himself, Sharkey might have given him additional licence to foul.

It is difficult to see what your argument is to be honest.

Do you think that Dempsey should have been disqualified, and at precisely what point?

Do you think that the officiating was favorable to Dempsey, at the expense of Sharkey?

Do you think the officiating was so far off the mark, that it fell outside the contemporary discretion of the referee?

If you cannot make a specific case based on these points, then you should accept the official result.

 

I call them as I see them,

if you don't agree, too bad.

This fight is on film. The film took something like 18 to 24 pictures per second.

All you or anyone else has to do is show a still of the low blow.

I have heard about Sharkey's facial expressions, flexing knees, where his hands are, what he did on the canvas

but no one yet has just said you can see the low blow at such and such a time on the film,

except SuzieQ, except I didn't see it where he said it was visible.

 

No, DQs happened at around the same rate and I've given examples to prove it. You're talking BS because you're nothing more than a Dempsey fanboy without an intellectual honest bone in your body.

My point clearly is Dempsey was fouling/breaking the rules continuously and the ref if he was doing his job would have stopped and warned him when he fouled and then docked points and then DQ'ed him. He did nothing, it was 2 men against 1.

Yes Sharkey should have hit low back, the ref probably would have DQ'ed him against the most protected boxer of all time.

I suppose you think Golota beat Bowe by KO too, right?

 

I don't have to show a still of a low blow, it's obvious to anyone with eyes who isn't massively biased. The blows were landing on and below the line.

The only hope for you as a human being is that you don't understand what a 'low blow' is. You realise a low blow is anything that lands on the shorts on and below the belt, yes or no?

 

The film shows that the referee had a better view of the alleged low blows than the camera gives us,

and he did nothing but count out Sharkey.