I've just watched this 6 times and I'm none the wiser. The only clear foul, and its of the petulant rather that das****ly variety is Sharkey clipping Dempsey after the end of rd 6. Inconclusive imo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0RLqeVfxo8
Just for fun's sake, I rewatched on my DVD, with the super slow function... I have zero doubt that all three blows were low. I don't think Sharkey is hurt so much as ****ed off that the ref isn't stopping them. Still, he was a dumb*ass to lower his guard and complain. Here's a better copy for those playing this game at home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So4fmOwRxqA
Clearer copy without doubt. After viewing it the probability is they were low imo. One thing that jumps out at you here is Sharkey is fighting Dempsey's fight.
The first two looked arguable. It's impossible to be sure about the third because Dempsey's torso is in the way.
Sharkey was an idiot here. Ive always felt he lost the fight because he was trying to milk the dq, not because of the hook to the jaw. Grabbing his crotch on the canvas points to level of clarity and calculation that kod man doesnt have. I just found his post fight interview and basically admits this. He says he was on the canvas and aware of the count but didnt get up because he thought surely they would dq dempsey. He was amazed when they ruled him knocked out. Sharkey was an idiot.
Quitting in extreme sports is a complex process, from a psychological standpoint. You scream at yourself mentally not to do it, but the quit in your brain starts to stealthily look for an honourable way out. Eventually you would be having thoughts like, what if that blow went a bit low, and I got DQd? At this stage you might even be working out in your head how to sell it to your friends, if god forbid it happened, which you are subconsciously trying to achieve at this point. From there you start to rationalize quitting, because you have a family, the sport is not worth killing yourself for etc. Beyond that the ultimate prize is being forced to quit by the reff, because that saves you some honour, and you can rant about it later. I suspect that a few of these thoughts went through Sharkeys mind!
That was the copy I have been watching and it's very obvious none of the lows are low. Do you understand to be a low blow a punch has to be below the belt line. Beltline is an imaginary line that connects the hip bones. None of those blows were below the belt line. Secondly there were many headlines after the bout that viewing of the fight film vindicated Dempseys victory and the concensus of opinion was the blows were not low. This was 90 years ago. I already posted the info from one account. There are many others. You are a very dishonest poster.
Pictures disprove Sharkeys claim" Blows that contributed to Dempseys victory apparently Fair slow movie shows The official slow motion pictures of the Dempsey Sharkey fight were shown at Yankee stadium last night showing the milling in the seventh round. This revealed that the disputed blow which contributed to Dempseys victory was fair. The film was only shown to newspaper reporters. The film was run three times to permit the newspapermen to compare there judgements. The slow motion of the fighters show that Dempsey struck three hard rights to the stomach of Sharkey before delivering the left hook that knocked out his opponent. The pictures showed that Sharkey was wearing his trunks higher than Dempsey which led the newspapermen to conclude this fact may have contributed to the confusion of the bouts end. Rickard watching the film leaned intently forward in his chair. There is the right hand it lands in the pit of the stomach. Now the left to the jaw. That's the knockout. All very clear. The pictures showed a great majority of Dempseys blows were to the body. They were short vicious jabs and hooks to the ribs or pit of the stomach. The continual raining of these blows caused Sharkey to slow up after round 4. When the final blows were delivered the fighters were at a slight angle. Dempseys heavy upper thrusts appeared just on the beltline of Sharkeys trunks. Some of the observers thought these blows were close to the line. A FEW OF THE NEWSPAPER CRITICS STILL CLAIM THE DISPUTED BLOW WAS LOW BUT THE MAJORITY AGREED THE PUNCHES WERE FAIR.
It's impossible to tell where the third punch is concerned that it definitively was not low. This doesn't seem to be true. I've posted two accounts of the reports that followed the viewing of the film by the press. These articles describe an opinion just as divided as the ones that evolved at ringside.
So we have three accounts from newspapers following the viewing of film by press. I've posted one that says that a slight majority thought they were low. One that says they were equally divided. And you've posted one (assuming it is real - there's no source) which says "the majority" though the punches were fair. This is NOT exoneration. This is conflicting information that indicates a confused situation with differing opinions, EXACTLY what happened at ringside, EXACTLY what is occurring in this thread. Seems pretty clear that it's unclear, really.
"To the MAJORITY at ringside it appeared to be a fair blow. The crowd entertained no doubt as to the fairness of Dempseys victory. " The Republican Journal.
The Republic Journal Ogdensburg NY Comeback victory against Sailor stamps Dempsey as worlds mightiest fighter. Ex champ kos Sharkey in 7th by terrific attack A terrific right to the pit of the stomach doubled Sharkey up and a crashing left brought the Boston giant down for the count. Dempsey fought and won because he refused to be beaten back or balked
One can post on a bulletin board a hundred times that it was not low. I'll take an ATG fighter who was at ringside.