Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

I think he did explain it to you, firstly with this,

then secondly with this similar example,

The fact that you choose to ignore his points doesn't make them invalid, or indeed irrelevant.

 

Stick to your guns.

The Anders Eklund argument is one of the most anti-Dempsey I have ever heard, as it implies that Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, and even perhaps Tunney were not worthy contenders. Why an alleged pro-Dempsey poster would make this argument is challenging, to say the least.

As for Greb not ranking from 1919 to 1923, there were no rankings at all. No one at all ranked, actually.

Fleischer and Rickard invented the idea in 1924, or so Fleischer always claimed.

Aside--a poll has been used as evidence. But scientific polling was invented by Dr. George Gallup in the 1930's, so it is hard to believe this was in any way a scientific poll. How a question is asked usually determines the answer. Was it an open question? Or were potential answers given to the respondents? Makes all the difference.

I looked up this poll and got referred to an article which said,

"In early 1922, a national poll placed Harry Wills as the most preferred challenger for Dempsey, just edging out contenders Tommy Gibbons and Bill Brennan."

If this writer is right, the two guys behind Wills were men Greb had defeated or would defeat.

 

There were no scientific polls back in 1922. The poll we do have shows the lay sports fan at the time did not consider Greb a serious challenger for Dempseys title. Every leading contender was mentioned but not Greb. Not a single mention. Now this might have changed the next day after Greb beat Gibbons but up until that time at least Greb was not on the horizon. Certainly he was mentioned in articles but for the lay fan he was not a serious contented up to the date of that poll.

 

Where is the poll posted? Where was it held? Who took part (boxing fans is obvious, but which boxing fans in what area?) What question was asked? Were they given a list to choose from?

Without knowing the answer to these and other questions about this poll, this is an all but worthless bit of information.

If you post info on how to get at the original article on the poll, I will study it.

 

Not only that, both men's bodies are moving rapidly, so we are not only blocked from seeing where the punch landed, but can't really judge how the two men's shifting positions and to some extent posture might have caused a blow which would have landed low, but not that low--like the second right--to now land to the groin.

Slowing it frame by frame on a HD television screen, the one thing which stood out to me is that Sharkey had no facial reaction to the first two body blows, but has for about two to four frames a look of-my interpretation--shock and pain from the third blow which is delivered with Dempsey's back to us blocking our view.

One might argue that Sharkey was acting, but I question whether anyone could "act" a facial expression for something like 2-4/18ths of a second.

This seemed to be an unconscious reaction implying a jolt of pain. Could the pain have come from a blow above the groin? Possibly, I suppose. But it seems more likely the opposite is true.

 

Watching in slow motion I'm inclined to believe any low blows didn't originate from Dempsey but in fact came from the grassy knoll.

 

He was hit three consecutive times in the same spot by one of Boxings hardest punchers. Singular blows just like these knocked Firpo down in 1923. Absolutely no sign that any of the three were low.

The poll was published the very day Greb beat Gibbons so more than likely before the public knew of the winner. As of that day however Greb was not mentioned.

 

"He was hit three consecutive times in the same spot"

"Absolutely no sign that any of the three were low."

The second blow on my film did not touch flesh. In other words that punch landed on Sharkey's trunks. I don't think that punch was to the groin.

Where the third punch landed is not clear on the film

and endlessly repeating that you know where it landed isn't going to change anyone's mind who views the film and concludes otherwise.

 

Just an aside,

I agree with Seamus,

whatever, Dempsey got away with it and boxing isn't ladies' croquet,

Sharkey blew it by not defending himself, so this is a legit victory, and an impressive one, for Dempsey.

 

Mc, methinks Dempsey's "weird" fans exist solely to protect him
from" HIS WEIRD CRITICS". After all Mc ninety years after Dempsey fought have such biased "critics" emerged on mainly
one boxing site. Are we to believe that these modern critics know more about Dempsey and his times, then the vast multitudes
of boxing people who saw him and his rivals the past 9 decades ?
I think not. cheers...

 

You were repeating unfounded lies by a proven liar along with the other unfounded lies that he pimped his wife, and had plaster of paris on his hands.Which by the way was proven to be useless when BI experimented with it on the hands of Cleveland Williams
Kearns made some of those accusations when he was in the middle of suing Dempsey and also when his autobiography came out. Dempsey sued Sports Illustrated and was awarded undisclosed damages.


Jack Kearns died on July 7, 1963. Shortly before his death, he approved the final draft of his memoirs, The Million Dollar Gate, and secured a deal with Sports Illustrated to publish two excerpts from the book. In one of the of excerpts, "He Didn’t Know The Gloves Were Loaded," Kearns claimed that Dempsey's hand wraps were treated with plaster of Paris. It was published in the January 13, 1964 issue of Sports Illustrated. "I've been trying for almost 45 years to get the story printed, but nobody would believe me," Willard said. "They thought it was just a sore loser complaining. I'm glad Kearns has finally admitted it. My jaw is still caved in from the beating that fellow gave me with cement on his hands." Dempsey denied that his gloves were loaded and sued Time Inc., publishers of Sports Illustrated, for $3 million. In September of 1965, they settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Dempsey was said to be happy with the terms, which provided a statement by Sports Illustrated "wholeheartedly accepting Dempsey's denial of the charge of the late Jack Kearns."


The point is you didn't care if they were true or not , because you hate Dempsey you were happy to repeat them. I find that truly despicable and would feel the same on behalf of any other human being who was libelled without a shred of truth.
You are now trying to weasel your way out of a **** pot of your own making.

Frankly I would have more respect for you if you had the ***** to say I hate f*cking Dempsey and I'll do and say anything that can damage his reputation. No doubt you couldn't care less about my opinion of you. But for the record, though we often disagreed I have always found you a fine poster and I had respect for you. . Not any more.

Dempsey was a better man than you will ever be.


After the world-famous Louis-Schmeling fight, Dempsey stated he was glad he never had to face Joe Louis in the ring. When Louis eventually fell on hard times financially, Dempsey served as honorary chairman of a relief fund to assist him.

 

No he didn't actually. He just declared that Greb wasn't a heavyweight contender, despite him beating numerous top heavyweights, fighting in a heavyweight title eliminator, being touted as a Dempsey opponent etc.

The Ring rankings didn't even start until 1924 and they only ranked fighters in one division. Since Greb was middleweight champion, that's where they put him. I guess that means Greb was never a light-heavy contender either despite spending most of his career weighing between 160 and 175 and beating numerous top fighters in that division.

Bringing up Tangstad and Ecklund is a ridiculous example. Ecklund never beat a top heavyweight in his life and Tangstad was one of the softest heavyweight challengers ever. Ferguson's title fight with Bowe was also seven years after his loss to Ecklund. Greb had recent wins over several of Dempsey's challengers.

But if some people want to put Dempsey's challengers on a par with Steffan Tangstad that's up to them.

 

Does anyone one here know how to box? In the ring punches that land on the trunks are NOT considered low unless they are BELOW the belt line. The beltline IS NOT the beltline of the trunks. It's an imaginary line that joins the hips. Punches have to be below that line to be low. None of those punches were below that line. Furthermore as I have posted it was generally concluded during the watching of the film of that bout in the days after the fight in 1927 that Sharkey wore his trunks higher than Dempsey Making punches appear to be low when in fact they were above the hip bones.