Jack Dempsey vs. Jack Sharkey

Said the child who came here to engage with me, not talk about boxing. The space I occupy in your head is nice and roomy. please be sure to let us know when your “film” gets picked up and released and you are actually able to sell more copies than youve given away

 

"Sharkey shouldn't have showed he was in pain."

I don't think Dempsey saw the expression on his face. As you yourself noted, his head was down and against Sharkey's chest. All this happened within a second. Dempsey followed up the low blow with a blow to the chin because that is what you do. The dropping of the hands if hit in the groin is an automatic response, like your hands going out to catch you if you suddenly stumble and fall. You don't think about it and don't have the time or ability to think about not doing it. It is an instantaneous response to an injury or the danger of an injury. Instinctive.

The reason I look at it this way is because I read an article by Fritzie Zivic on dirty fighting many years ago in which he laid out the tricks of the trade. Like how to butt and make certain you get away with it by covering the butt with a punch to the same eye, making it impossible to know what caused the wound. In Fritzie's time boxers wore cups. He mentioned he didn't hit low to disable his opponent. He hit low to cause that momentary dropping the hands reaction to open the opponent for a shot to the chin. Like Fritzie, Dempsey was a polished dirty fighter.

"the boxer has to stay composed"

He can't compose himself to avoid an instinctive reaction. It is like asking him not to have his knees buckle if he is hit on the chin. Of course it is better for the knees not to buckle, but the fighter does not have control over it.

"Sharkey gave more than his fair share of low blows"

Okay. I don't exactly see the relevance to Dempsey doing it. In both cases, it ain't a problem if you get away with it. It is if you don't. Dempsey got away with it.

"I have no idea what the referee said"

I can't know what he said either, but we can make an educated guess considering the circumstances. Your position is Dempsey didn't hear what he said and didn't notice his grabbing Dempsey's arm. Okay. You might even be right. The right to the groin and follow up left to the chin was a practiced maneuver which took less than a second. Once started, I don't know if anything the ref did could have stopped it.

I suppose an issue which bothers some is if this was fair. For me, it is easier to believe in bigfoot than in fairness. At least some people claim to have seen a bigfoot. In eighty years I have never seen fairness. It is like God. Many believe in it, but it has to be taken on faith because life and the world around us sure aren't fair.

 

Still waiting on you to show me my post where I mentioned Dempsey at all...

 

Your (lack of) books are yet another sore spot I see .. so easy to push your buttons. I'll write this slow so you can comprehend it .. I am engaging you .. exposing you as a narcissistic, belligerent hack who deflects fury from his journeyman life by consistently attacking others as to compensate .. This guy Will is bringing positive energy to the forum with his take and your menstrual cycle mode has to surface .. rather than engage like a human being you go to your default , venomous child .. Here's your legacy; you're known as the most miserable soul in the history of boxing forums. Well done.

Again, when is the Wills book release date in 2021 ?

 

Im just glad you have me to post about, otherwise we wouldnt be blessed by your sterling personality and keen boxing observations.

 

We were hoping we wouldn't have yours but as a true last word freak you can't help yourself.

 

Will, you've brought your own perspective and energy here .. so much better than creepy, aging, miserable pirate hacks .. keep it coming .. HE.

 

And youve brought your own unique perspective and energy here as well. Every bit as soft and flabby as your feminine face. Please continue. We all get a laugh at your asinine observations, like Jim Flynn being on the verge of beating Jack Johnson. Its no wonder you pander to a child just getting interested in the hobby who thinks Tunney-Dempsey 1 was a close fight. You guys should get a room together and you can both completely miss whatever fights you guys choose to "analyze." In the meantime Ill be here waiting on your next historical documentary from the great self styled "historian" and "film maker". You know, something on Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather. Something that took a lot of research, digging, and in depth analysis from multiple sources. I just hope this time you are able to actually sell more copies than you give away for free.

 

Battling Nelson toughest man who ever lived.... Who was the best fighter you ever saw? ..."What gans didnt know about boxing you could put in your eye and Not know anything about boxing . no fighter has been as great since except maybe jack Dempsey. Dempsey could hit like a trip hammer and annilate you real quick and he was as tough as a whale bone ."
1953.

 

Keep writing .. no one needs to rebut you .. your own words do the job.

 

I’ve watched the fight several times. In my eyes Dempsey was trailing, he lost the first two rounds big and was hurt in the opening round. However he seems to be improving slowly round by round. Sharkey appears to be frustrated by his inability to keep Dempsey off of him imo by the 6th and 7th rounds. Were the blows low, possibly- I think the last one was low but borderline. Sharkey turns to complain and eats a hook. Than writhes around on the canvas holding is crotch. That reaction doesn’t jive with his initial reaction to complain- I think after the hook he tried to use it to get jack disqualified. A cynical but allowable strategy that didn’t work. A muddy ending to what imo was becoming a competitive fight. Dempsey was coming on

 

Everyone trusts their own eyes on this one, and we have all seen the same film. So to each opinion respect.

But I do have a question about what is bothering me about this. Sharkey on the color film gets hit with the left hook at 9:48. At 9:49 he goes down to his knees and flops forward. At 9:51 he is grabbing his groin with his right hand.

This seems to be an instinctive reaction to pain in the groin.

If your interpretation is correct, that hook had very little effect on Sharkey as within three seconds of being hit and two seconds of going down he had the mental capacity to go into a cynical act.

Also, Dempsey might have been coming on some, but I think most who watch this film have Sharkey still ahead, possibly comfortably ahead as I do. It seems very foolish to risk everything on the referee disqualifying Dempsey. And risking everything concerning punches you maintain aren't even that low.

 

Sharkey turns to complain, the left lands he gets lifted up and goes down. Most low blows that incur the response Sharkey appears to give on the ground, show an immediate effect. Like Schmeling’s that happened in his bout with Sharkey.
All I can go by is what I see, nearly 100 years after the event occured. I don’t believe the left hook was a KO blow. I don’t think Sharkey would of been grabbing his private parts had it been. Sharkey was a highly emotional fighter and I think in the moment he lost his head, and didn’t care that he was up or feared he couldn’t last the remainder of the bout. Whatever his reasoning I don’t think he thought it through.
I clearly also have Sharkey up, at the end of the fight. But I thought Dempsey fared very well in the 6th and was doing well for as much of the 7th as it lasted. He to me, was doing better and in far less danger than he had been early on in the fight.
It’s a fight that will be endlessly debated. I just think that while Dempsey was losing the fight - it was still a competitive fight and one where he seemed to be improving In my eyes.