Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

I'm not here during NFL football season, but Jack sharkey got hit in the ***** by Jack Dempsey. No doubt.

 

:good: thank you

 

What if the New York State Athletic Commission ceased to recognize Jack Dempsey as the world heavyweight champion during the early 1920s due to his failure to fight Harry Wills or Harry Greb? For a time during the early 20s, the New York commission ceased to recognize Mickey Walker as the world welterweight champion because of his failure to give Dave Shade a shot at the title.

- Chuck Johnston

 

My problem with you is your statements that Dempsey was a white slaver ,pimp and a breaker in of virgins in brothels .Your quoting of Jack Kearns, a serial liar who made some of those allegations is why I mentioned Kearns allegation that he doctored Dempsey's hands with plaster of paris which has been proven to not work. We know Kearns was a liar but that didn't stop you repeating his sh*t.
You took the p*ss out of your self no one else,because, by repeating those lies ,and lies you knew them to be, you forfeited your credibility here.

I am an unabashed Dempsey fan , but not so blinkered I discount the possibility,even the probability that some of his shots landed low on Sharkey and I've said so.
Sharkey himself was a serial low puncher in fights and in the Dempsey one deliberately hit the Mauler after the bell.
Anyone ever see Dempsey complain about fouls committed on him?

Dempsey went into a ring to fight , no quarter was asked or given by him , he never winged or whined he took his lumps and if beaten went out on his shield.
For an anonymous typist like yourself to traduce his name from the safety of the internet stinks ,and so imo do you.
Now I've made my opinion known of Kearns and you, that is sufficient . Let posters get back to arguing the merits of the Sharkey ko and other aspects of Dempsey's career.

 

"all the accounts of the fight say Sharkey slipped at the bell ending round three."

That is exactly what the film shows. Sharkey is stepping back and his foot slips on the water spot in his corner.

Frankly, I didn't see Dempsey landing anything but another one of his body punches, of which he landed hundreds during the fight, and even then none after Sharkey was moving away.

If Dempsey thought he knocked Sharkey down, that is just a mistake by a fighter in the heat of battle.

Why someone viewing the film would come up with that interpretation is more about the poster and his bias than the fight.

 

Perry

"Dempsey's heart won the battle and Sharkey's lack of heart lost it."

This I agree with.

 

Well, not addressed to me, but this is what the referee is quoted as saying:

"Before the solar plexus blow was delivered and after the right landed on Sharkey's left leg, I was stepping in toward the men saying 'Watch your punches, Jack.' Then realizing here were two Jacks, I said, 'I mean you, Dempsey.' Then Dempsey hit the solar plexus blow. Sharkey dropped his right hand and Dempsey hit him on the jaw."

It appears to me he was referring to one of the first two right hands landing low but aside the groin. However, the time lapse is so quick (I will get to that on another post) that he might have been referring to an earlier punch.

But "solar plexus"--the second punch hit trunk, low in the abdomen. Even by your argument about Dempsey not shifting his shoulder, how did the third punch land so much higher?

*My take is the referee appears on the film to be back and slightly behind the left shoulder of Sharkey. I am not certain he had a good view of the third punch.

 

Much has been made about what the reporters at ringside thought or about how the crowd reacted.

I think neither matters. If there is a bank robbery and it is disputed if the robber had a gun, but the film from the overhead camera shows he had a gun, the "majority" of eyewitnesses means nothing.

The film is by far the best evidence.

The interesting thing to me is how quickly all this happened.

Watching the clear version narrated by Marty Glickman (the 7th round was posted by Seamus) and watching the whole film slowed frame by frame,

at 9:45 the two men are turning and Dempsey is throwing a left to the body. It is still at 9:45 when Dempsey throws the first right to the body, our view obscured by Sharkey's right arm. At 9:46 Dempsey throws the second right which hits Sharkey's trunks. It is about the turn to 9:47 when the third right lands (blocked from view by Dempsey's body) and Sharkey reacts facially. He turns to the referee and back by 9:48 and the left to the jaw lands at 9:48 and Sharkey hits the canvas still within the 9:48 frames.

The count is finished at 10:03

So at most four seconds goes by from the time of the first right to Sharkey being on the canvas, with the three rights being delivered within two seconds.

For the folks at ringside this was two seconds that came and went with the two men spinning about.

Their judgment is to me nothing like the judgment of someone who can watch and study the film, including frame by frame.

The only newspaper or "majority" opinions which carry much weight with me, given these facts, is those of the reporters who later saw the film, but there is no reason to think they could see more than we can today,

and as McGrain has pointed out, the disagreements remained.

"the crowd"

The official attendance was either 72,000 or 75,000 depending on the source, so with gratis and attendants there were probably about 80,000 at the Yankee Stadium. Most were hundreds of feet from the ring, some in nosebleed seats in the third deck.

The cheering at the end to me doesn't prove anything about whether a low blow landed, only that the crowd was heavily pro-Dempsey.

This in the end also undercuts crowd "majority" opinion of whatever value it might have had. We all know that home town sporting crowds cheer any official rulings favoring the home team and boo the decisions favoring the visitors.

*bottom line--the best evidence is the film, by far. I would argue it is the only good evidence.

 

:rofl :rofl :yep:rofl

 

This is great! The number of pages devoted if there was a low blow or not. The ****ysis of what the crowd thought, but newspaperman thought, with newspaperman thought you saw the film footage, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Indian the only thing that we know for certain is that Jack Sharkey did not follow the principal rule "PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES "!

 

There is no possibility or probability needed! Dempsey went low, period, end of sentence, end of the paragraph, close the book!

By saying Possibly or probability, you leave it open that he did not.

It's also rather curious when he went low as Sharkey was pounding on him.

 

That is your opinion and I'm sure everyone here will give it the consideration it deserves.

 

Tunney superior to Greb? - According to Grantland Rice in "The Tumult and the Shouting" 1956. "1922, in perhaps the bloodiest fight I ever covered - Harry Greb, a great fighter handled Tunney like a butcher hammering a Swiss steak. How Tunney survived 15 rounds, I'll never know. But less than a year later, Tunney won a decision over 15. I scored that fight for Greb, but then Tunney met Greb 4 more times, without defeat. On page 116 Rice refers to "Leonard, a Dempsey man" indicating their friendship, which possibly could have coloured Benny's ringside view of the Sharkey fight - maybe! Rice's only reference to the fight is to describe it as "Jack's hardest victory", being more concerned with covering the 2 Tunney fights