Jack Dempsey vs. Jack Sharkey

Protect yourself at all times. End of.

This content is protected

 

How can you say Dempsey didn't look like he punched after the bell intentionally? He was already walking to his corner when he threw his punch. Sharkey only returned the compliment in kind to show Dempsey he wasn't taking any of his krap.

If you can't see Sharkey grabbing his balls when he's down then you are definitely blind. That fact also shows clearly that it was the punch to the balls which incapacitated him and not the left hook to the head. If he had been kayoed by the head punch, he wouldn't have been writhing on the canvas holding his nuts. He wouldn't have had the presence of mind. To me, Dempsey looked like he was punching as hard as he could from in close. And anyway, how hard does a punch to the balls have to be to leave a person in agony? I don't know about you, but a direct shot doesn't take that much force to cause me exquisite pain. The precursor of the modern-day groin protector, the Taylor No-Foul Protector would not be introduced until after the first Sharkey-Schmeling fight in 1930.

 

So, fighters back then wore no kind of groin protection?!? Or are you saying that maybe they had a more crude and less effective model before the invention of the type you mentioned above?

Seems like that would be among the first pieces of equipment developed in such a sport. I was a catcher when I played baseball. I forgot my cup one day at practice, so stuffed my out-field glove down my trousers in case I got nailed by a foul-tip. Didn't even cross my mind to get behind the plate without something protecting the goods.

 

To the first question, honestly, no. If you didn't notice Sharkey hitting Dempsey with two strong left hooks in the first round and then driving him to the ropes with a series of punches and so ask someone else which round was Dempsey "hurt" in, you aren't really seeing the fight. That Dempsey was "hurt" or "rocked" should not be in dispute. Now both are not precise terms. Dempsey didn't go down. He wasn't reduced to helplessness. To his credit he bounced back. But he was hurt and I can't see calling this an even round.

As for the 3rd round when Sharkey goes down. The water in the corner is clear. Sharkey steps on it and goes down to one knee. It sure looks like a slip to me. I can't see judging this a knockdown if watched on a decent, even if incomplete, film. It is complete during this sequence, though.

And judging if the punches in the 7th were low is certainly easier on a good print. I think it is necessary in this case to see a good print.

I did watch also the cloudy complete version. In fact, watched it first. I then watched the colorized version so I could see what the hell was happening in the fight.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree, as it will be difficult to convince me that my eyes are lying to me.

By the way, I think the question "Why did Sharkey turn to the referee if not because of a low blow?" is a pointed one.

 

Well, we have to agree to disagree on whether the punches were low. The first two looked to me to land on the trunks. but the third one, partially obscured by Dempsey's body, looks to have landed lower and this is the one Sharkey reacts to.

"it's clear that the punches Dempsey threw downstairs were not hard at all,"

I can't help finding this amusing. I hope you forgive me. But a Dempsey punch to the balls is no big deal? Okay.

A question I would ask, as has been asked. Sharkey was hit in the body all night. Why did he now turn away from Dempsey and leave himself unprotected to complain if these are just more legal punches and "not hard at all" as you maintain. You are saying no real reason?

As for Sharkey clutching his groin. That could be going for an Oscar. Or real. Hard to tell.

 

I didn't mean to imply he wasn't fouled. I thought the last three rights to the body in the 7th were low with the last one to the groin. My point was that Sharkey won a lot of fights on fouls for one reason or another. These foul outs were pretty common in those days. Thanks for the info on the Mahoney and Gorman fights.

As for Dempsey, I agree with you. He was a polished dirty fighter. Still, his "pull" has to have something to do with it, as the referees always seemed to be not seeing what was going on.

 

I think that there was no standard piece of equipment available beyond a "cod piece" or a jockstrap. Fighters and their trainers were left to their own devices. A previous forum post on the subject can be found at https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/history-of-foul-protectors.262521/

 

or just ask him about what he thinks of Cleveland Williams.

 

Name me one ****ing thing that Ive lied about you moronic pissant. Meanwhile you continue to masquerade as a historian and a filmmaker.

 

Comical, a ridiculously apologetic post (the second in a day) gets called out using what we can all see and somehow Im a liar. Jesus boxing fans are ridiculous. Criticize their heroes with facts and they whine like children. If you cant be intellectually honest about what you are watching then stick to fairytales and Fox News. If He, Swag, and William are so in love with the myth of Dempsey then by all means pretend you cant see that Sharkey slipped in his corner, was hit after the bell before retaliating, and was fouled NUMEROUS times against Dempsey.

As for Williams I will continue to reiterate the basic fact that the two highest rated wins on his record were Billy ****ing Daniels and Alex ****ing Miteff which says a lot more about how padded his record is than I ever could.

 

Please show me where I mentioned Dempsey even once in this thread.