Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

Well I owned it on 8mm in the 1960's. Bought it from Blackhawk Films.

I have never heard anyone at all on this board or any other board mention that Sharkey tapping Dempsey on the snout after the sixth round was a response to Dempsey tapping him first. It is hard to see at regular speed. Perhaps others noticed Dempsey's tap right away but I don't remember anyone ever commenting on it.

I have examined it many times, but I always reexamine a film if I can before commenting on it. Memory is faulty.

 

You watched it many times yet you held to the faulty belief that those right uppercuts (not a straight right hand. No straight right hands to the body were thrown during that three punch to the body sequence) were low? Strange don't you think? I concluded in 1972 that those blows were not low so what were you looking at?

For the third time for those with low comprehension......after any event since at that time no replays existed opinions would vary as to what exactly occurred. You could bring a blue elephant onto a huge stage parade it around and then ask everyone what they saw....opinions will vary in terms of color, size, etc etc etc. this is human nature and would depend on where they were seated and how closely they were looking or if they were indeed looking.

Right after this bout you can find every opinion under the sun BUT look weeks later after the film of the bout was examined. Again the headlines read "film of bout shows body blows were legal". Add to this that the doctor found no sign that Sharkey was hit low! Don't you think if Jack Dempsey hit anyone with three consecutive blows to the groin full force there would be some signs of it having occurred? Do a google search of a photo of a mans groin after it was punched. Not a pleasant looking sight.

Dempsey exonerated 90 years ago. Sounds just like Dempsey Wills don't you think?

 

Anyone who looks at any newspaper from that time will read a variety of conclusions. Ref and the doctor Concur in all accounts. Audience opinion varies as would be expected. However weeks later that changed once the film of the bout was examined. Look at the film yourself if you have high speed internet. None of those three body blows were low. It's right there in black and white if you are subjective.

 

The Day. New London. Conn. Ref Sullivan
"The blow that preceded the KO blow which was a left to the jaw was a fairly delivered one. It was a right uppercut that landed right on the waistline but not below. It is true that Dempsey landed several times below the waistline in previous rounds but in no case were the punches injurious or deliberate not was there any protest made by Sharkey previous to that final round."

If you look at the bout on video the final body blow was indeed a right uppercut to the body.

 

Sharkey should have the deciding vote ,after all he was a specialist when it came to low blows, ask Schmeling and Scott.

 

Northern Star. July 25 1927. Doctor who examined Sharkey:
"I examined Sharkey after the bout. I saw no evidence that any low blows had being struck"

"Dempsey won the bout with a terrific left hook to the jaw as Sharkey was sagging making a signal that the previous body blow was low. The victory sent the crowd in a delirious outburst. Sharkey took the count after receiving A RIGHT TO THE PIT OF THE STOMACH AND A CRASHING LEFT TO THE JAW. A doctor examined Sharkey after the fight and stated that there was no evidence that Sharkey had been hit low."

 

Again we have the luxury of being able to watch the bout as many times as we would like in slow motion. As I determined in 1972 and it's the same today none of the three body blows were low. Referee stated as such and the doctor examining Sharkey stated he saw no evidence of any low blows being struck. If Sharkey was indeed struck in the groin by Dempsey where were the signs that these crippling blows were struck?

 

"You watched it many times and yet you held to the faulty belief that those right uppercuts were low?"

In the first place, here is what I actually posted on my post #777

"Bottom line--I would definitely not agree with anyone who uses the film prove Dempsey fouled. It doesn't."

So I don't know what you are even talking about.

"No straight right hands to the body were thrown"

They looked pretty straight to me.

What I said next on post #777 was

"On the other hand, saying it 'exonerates' Dempsey is further than I would go. We are only getting one angle and our view is cut off by the bodies now and then."

I stand by that, and in fact I'll get specific.

I watched a very good copy posted by Sports Legend XIII and narrated by Marty Glickman.

At 9:47 Dempsey throws the third right. We can't see where it landed as his back is to us. The referee appears to be at a poor angle also, slightly behind and to the side of Sharkey's left shoulder.

All we can really tell is that Sharkey who did not react noticeably to the first two rights now reacts instantly and strongly. Look at his face. His mouth drops open. It looks like he is in pain, but that is an assumption and certainly not proof. He quickly turns toward the referee and catches the left hook.

My take is that with Dempsey's back to us we just can't tell where this critical punch landed, and never will?

"The doctor found no sign that Sharkey was hit low."

That is evidence. I don't know enough about medicine to know if it is proof. Would this sort of trauma always show without, for example, an x-ray or other more than mere eyeball inspection.

 

any man knows you can hurt your nuts badly enough to cause a second or two's blinding pain without leaving any visible marks.