I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but intend to approach the discrepancies of this fight in the previous thread from a fresh attack at it again. I'm going to try my very best to be factual, objective, and open-minded (which I think should be easy, since I'm not partial to Dempsey as has been indicated). I plan to go at re-watching the fight via two versions, but three more times before coming to a final assessment. It may seem extreme, especially for a fight that wasn't very exciting, but I would like to get some closure and a little more respect on the stance I take on this fight, unless of course I change my mind. This is my upcoming plan for rewatching: A. I plan to re-watch the fight, but in two different versions. The first viewing, which I will do tonight, is the colorized version. This will give me better ability to track with the fight and hopefully give a clearer and less controversial description of the fight. The second version will be the original version of the fight (that is, the one I watched the other night). The first time I watch it, I will do a general watch and determine who won each round. I do this because several of you disagreed with me about how close the fight was. On the second watch, I will watch for fouling from Dempsey, since that was the other main point that a lot of you disagreed with me on. B. I will finish with a final re-assessment, basing it off of the three previous watches of the fight. I'm going to start with just the colorized version tonight.
@KasimirKid, as a someone who disagreed with me, as well as someone on the forum I respect a lot, what do you think of this?
I think this thread is doomed to failure. You are starting out with the premise that is not an exciting fight. I beg to differ. To me, it is one of the most exciting and certainly the most evenly fought heavyweight fights of the '20s which we have on film. My advice is to discard all your previous conceptions and watch a good version of the fight as if it was for your first time. Sharkey has some magnificent moments beginning in the first round when he tears into the great Jack Dempsey LIKE NOBODY ELSE ON FILM. His work in the third round is particulary impressive as well. Let your imagination roam. Can't you hear the crowd through your mind's ears? Can't you feel the excitement as Dempsey moves relentlessly forward in the face of Sharkey's sharp punching? One of his punches in the sixth round almost tears Dempsey's head off. Dempsey keeps the pressure on, but I think Sharkey was deflecting most of the body punches until the seventh round when Dempsey starts to get through. I'm not so sure that the reason for that wasn't a change in strategy by Dempsey to get beneath Sharkey's guard even if it meant going below the belt. By then, he knew he was losing the fight on points. Anyway, I ask you to forget your preconceptions and watch it as if you had never seen it before.
William your'e right on top of it! Thanks for the "Like." I just edited a few words, so you may want to read it again.
You can watch that, but I'd recommend the 11:47 black and white version as well. And then the 25-minute Blackhawk version even if the quality isn't good, just to see the entire fight. I suppose these are the versions you were going to look at anyway.
Ha ha. Good quick editing my friend. Your welcome for the like. I'll try the 11: 47 in black and white. The Blackhawk version was the one I watched originally I believe.
Ha ha. Good quick editing my friend. Your welcome for the like. I think I will take your advice. Besides, I didn't really want to watch it three more times. I can see the pointlessness in the whole thing, since it would be kind of like aggravating a wound by bringing it up again. Also, I don't want to take away from upcoming threads, even tonight's just to overdo the ones on Dempsey-Sharkey.
But why? I have seen this fight once and thought nothing of it outside casual observation, bar the stoppage it was just eh.
