Was Jack Dempsey The Dirtiest Heavyweight Champion?

Ed you're an idiot.

You were talking about Dempsey standing over Willard now that you can't defend that position you switch to iron bars in Dempseys gloves. By the way nobody believes Dempseys gloves were loaded.

Again the question is that Dempsey had 75-80 bouts and no DQs. Not a question of murders done in the dark of night without witnesses. Every major Dempsey bout there were assigned officials and he was never DQed by any of them.

Again for those like you who are very slow learners:

The ref stated none of the three final right uppercuts to Sharkeys body were low.

The ref stated that BOTH fighters were guilty of hitting low but none of the low blows were purposeful nor flagrant.

The ref stated that neither Sharkey nor his corner complained about low blows prior to the ko.

The doctor assigned to the fight examined Sharkeys after the bout and he saw no signs of injury caused by low blows.

The definition of low blow at that time was any blow BELOW an imaginary line from hip bone to hip bone. As such a low blow was NOT decided by where it landed on the trunks.

Take a look at those final blows with the above definition in mind. If you still think they were low get yourself a new pair of glasses or take your head out of your a..

 

Perfect example of the prof nitpicking demonstrating his agenda, why not put our cards on the table, the real reason you went through the trouble to produce a vid and start a thread saying the "the brilliant things" which you cherry pick to fit your biased pov. C'mon prof admit the real reason you have an obsession to pull down an ICON? I posted two clips, one of saint Sharkey deliberately socking Dempsey way after the bell ending the 6th rd and another clip on saint Sharkey deliberately massaging the nuts of schmeling and showing what damage a real low blow does and the after effects. I know you'll come up with one of your brilliant observations, such as, "saint Sharkey was tired of getting hit low". Sharkey was a rough guy, fighting another rough guy who did what they did to win a fight. Ever hear the expression "Mess with the sword, you get the blade". Greb, messed with the sword and got the blade, with Norfolk, that's just the way it was. Greb paid the the price for messing with the sword, he lost an eye.

 

Perry

"The definition of a low blow at that time was any blow BELOW an imaginary line from hip bone to hip bone."

And what is the hip bone? It is term for three bones, the ilium, the ischium, and the pubis, which go all the way down to the groin.

And so what did this guy mean? I assume he meant the upper ridge of the top bone or ilium, called the iliac crest. This definition only makes sense if he is talking about the upper ridge of the hip bones.

So where is the iliac crest on a male. Here is the factual comment:

"The belly button should be at the same level as the highest point of the iliac crest."

The normal beltline for most men would be at the top of the iliac crest. It is for me.

I stopped the film clip when Sharkey was facing the camera and his belly button is visible right above his trunks. So this imaginary line is at his beltline.

So any punch hitting his trunks is below this imaginary line. Whether it is a "flagrant" foul is left to the discretion of the referee.

Unless you want to argue that it is not the upper ridge of the hip bone but somewhere down it, which of course is no clear distinction at all.

 

To be fair, Greb's dirtier tactics emerged full fledged after the Kid Norfolk affair in which he was thumbed and suffered his eye injury and thus a lost a lot of his depth perception. By that time, he was also getting a bit more shopworn in other ways one would imagine. A change in styles to suit his limitations.

In regards to "nuthugging" or "cherry-picking", have you even read his book? It is an exhaustive, extremely well researched and thoroughly cited work on Greb's career. Outside of Pollack's books, there has been little on the market to challenge it in those regards. Folks sitting on the sidelines and casting out sophomoric barbs just can't be taken seriously. If you really want to challenge such works, you need to publish something of substance, either critical or research-based. That's the way it works in the real world at least.

 

Perry

"The referee stated that neither Sharkey nor his corner complained about low blows prior to the knockout."

Sharkey obviously turned to the referee to complain. What argument is the ref making? If Dempsey didn't foul Sharkey for the first six rounds, he didn't foul him in the seventh either?

"But nobody believes Dempsey's gloves were loaded."

Willard did. I am only quoting him, not everybody or nobody. You quoted Willard as being okay with Dempsey's tactics.

"The ref stated that none of the three final right uppercuts to the body were low."

For me, this is a circular argument. The ref counted Sharkey out. One has to assume he didn't see what he considered a "flagrant" foul. Doesn't disprove what the film shows,

although I would say the film is not clear about how low, and therefore flagrant, the blows were.

Bottom line--Sharkey didn't protect himself at all times and so lost it. Tough.

 

I find myself in sympathy with this position.

 

Ed....you're an idiot.

The ref is the deciding official. He said the three blows that were complained about were not low. He stated BOTH men were throwing unintentionally low blows. He stated Sharkey nor his corner complained about low blows at any time during the fight. End of story. Keep making things up as you go along.

You stated Dempsey fouled Willard by standing over him. For such a flagrant foul Jess never complained about it. Why? It was not considered a foul. If you read Willards comments the days after the bout he praised Dempseys punching power. He did not mention loaded gloves or an iron bar. The idea Dempseys gloves were loaded was disproved many decades ago.

 

Oh. If you know boxing, which you do not, you would know that it is NEVER the case that punches on the trunks are low. Just the most idiotic comment written on these boards in a longggg time.

 

The answer is no I havent, and I dont intend to, I can get just about all the insight into that era by going online and reading articles and reports from that era without being told what to believe. I can fill up a book with articles and reports from that era by going on the freebie sites and looking up anything I want to. About nut hugging that's the prof's favorite word plus fanboy and other choice words to somebody who might not know as much as he does. Why not come on here like Stonehands, Apollack, Moyle and others do and not with "choice" words and explain his POV or not post at all. "casting out sophomoric barbs just can't be taken seriously.", couldn't have it better myself about the prof. I dont care to challenge his 800+pgs, I challenge the posts he makes, which if you are fair and impartial will see he is a cherry picker, shows his bias, shows his pettiness when he attacks someone who cos they dare to go against his agendas. I dont want to write a book, I am a fan, even of Greb. I object to his one-sided views, he doesnt seem to know the business end of boxing and instead puts those views down. Now tell me why I should read his book. If you want to believe what the prof says fine, if you want to read his book fine, it probably is well researched. But apart from that, if you being fair you would have to say that some of his posts are informative and some are full of his "sophomoric barbs" rants and just can't be taken seriously. In the real world the prof would get his a ss kicked for some of the things he says and his arrogance. You noticed I didnt take offense to your post and come back at you with sophomoric barbs. This is a forum to exchange ideas and discuss all things boxing. Last but not least I have caught him in more than a few misinterpretations.
Just for you, you dont have to be a well researched historian to challenge somebodies elses posts or assertions and you have to accept that some will come on here criticize whatever is posted, if it bothers you dont post, see it's that simple, nothing complicated. Oh, I like your term, sophomoric barbs fits the prof to a "T", same could be said of me and other posters.

 

Dempsey was pretty dirty. Ali held behind the head a lot- I'd argue he was one of the most consistently dirty heavyweight because that was one if his main defenses in the inside (at least until Wlad turned into alexander karelin ). Lewis really loved holding and hitting.

Surely though Tyson and Holyfield are the guys. Holy should've been forced to wear a glove on his head and Tyson bit a dudes ear off.

 

And you cannot see Sharkeys "belly button" during the four punch ko sequence. It is hidden by his trunks. Since the hip bones are located below the belly button the line of demarcation for a legal body blow is at a point on his trunks.

You can see clearly the first two body punches ESPECIALLY the second blow. These are very clearly not low blows. Craptons claim that these blows hit Sharkey in the balls is a completely false statement to say the least.

 

For years Jack Dempsey was over rated, and some glaring flaws in his resume were never criticised.

This resulted in a historical corection, which turned into an overcorrection.

Some of the criticisms of Dempsey became excesive.

This now seems to have resulted in an overcorection in the other direction, where the people who pointed out the flaws in Dempseys resume are being vilified.

 

Agreed.
I think Marciano gets it the worst with this effect.

 

Everyone here knows Dempsey was a dirty fighter. Was he the dirtiest heavyweight champion ? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think there's an answer to that, even if we had all the information it would come down largely to subjective judgments.

I was merely asking whether you knew for a fact that all those "fouls" in the video were in fact fouls. I have my doubts as to whether the rabbit punches and kidney punches in the Gibbons fight were illegal.
It seems you don't know.
Worse, it seems you don't care.

For someone who claims to be so concerned with rigorous research and historical accuracy, I would have thought it would have been beneath you to get details like that incorrect.
Certainly, to leave them uncorrected.

But your claim to be an impartial and rigorous historian is mostly just posturing. As you prove time and time again.