Was Jack Dempsey The Dirtiest Heavyweight Champion?

To make it clear again :

YES, I BELIEVE DEMPSEY WAS A DIRTY FIGHTER.

Secondly, I don't think it comes as news to many around here that Dempsey was a dirty fighter.

 

Perry

"You stated Dempsey fouled Willard by standing over him."

No. I didn't. Klompton2 holds that position. I merely said that this tactic was controversial which led to rules making it illegal in later years, and if considering Dempsey as a finisher, having the advantage of getting on an opponent before he is really up and ready is a tremendous advantage.

Watching films of the era, most fighters are pushed away by the ref and don't stand directly over an opponent or launch an attack before the fallen man is fully on his feet. An exception is the Johnson-Jeffries fight in which Johnson hits Jeff with a left hook before he was really ready. But Rickard was not an experienced referee.

All I can say is that the refs in the Willard and Firpo fights made little effort to keep Dempsey away and allowed him to even stand behind an opponent in Willard's case.

I wouldn't claim anything is illegal if the referee allowed it. What I did write is that I wonder what line there is to cross if you could stand behind an opponent and hit him the instant his gloves leave the floor.

The boxing mores of the time obviously allowed a fighter to hover near a fallen opponent although the better refs on film kept them away until the man is up and can defend himself. Watch Corbett-Fitz or Burns-Squires.


I don't know why the rules were so lax. Here is rule 4 of the Queensbury rules.

"Rule 4--If either man falls through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, 10 seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner, and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired."

The bit about the other man returning to his corner was honored in the breach in the early years of the 20th century.

Bottom line--Dempsey pushed the envelope on rules which were already lax. I see nothing wrong with that per se except it probably offended many fans' sense of sportsmanship and led to rule changes.

 

Perry

"It is NEVER the case that punches on the trunks are low."

Where else but the trunks would a low blow land? Do you have to hit him on the knee. The problem with your definition is that it is no definition at all. Do you actually mean that not all blows which land on the trunks are low enough to be considered a low blow or a foul? But where on the trunks would this line be?

Your hip bone definition is no definition as the hip bone goes all the way down to the groin, as the hip bone includes the pubis. So what place on the hip bone are you talking about to begin your imaginary line? If it is the upper ridge--the iliac crest--you are up at the waist.

 

Perry

"You cannot see Sharkey's 'belly button' during the four punch sequence."

I can. After the left hook to the chin Sharkey straightens before falling. His belly button is clearly visible above his beltline.

"Since the hip bones are located below the belly button."

Do you know what the definition of hip bone is?

According to medical dictionaries the hip bone is the ilium, ischium, and pubis as a unit. Also known as the innominate bone. There is a good drawing of the hip bone under "anterior abdominal wall" on the University of Utah online anatomy class.

Bottom line is that the hip bone goes all the way from the waist to the groin. I think the guy you quoted meant the upper ridge of the hip bone which is called the iliac crest. That is at the level of the belly button on a normal male.

A good question is what did the rules say? The Queensbury rules referred back to the London Prize Ring rules on questions it didn't cover, which included what a low blow was. The London Prize Ring rules definition:

"That a blow struck below the waistband shall be deemed a foul."

Again we are back to the beltline. But you have a good point in that the referee did not enforce the beltline as a "flagrant" foul (nor would I want him to) and so the question of low blows by Dempsey against Sharkey is a gray area.

"neither Sharkey nor his corner complained about low blows at any time during the fight."

On film Sharkey turns to say something to the referee an instant before the left hook lands. Do you think he was inquiring how the ref's kid was doing in his algebra class? Every newspaper source I have ever read says he was complaining about being hit low.

Bottom line--Sharkey lost his head and didn't defend himself. Tough luck.

I am actually on your side of this debate. I don't think calling Dempsey a "dirty fighter" is very useful. He was rough in a rough era.

 

Excellent point. It was not only with boxing. I remember sportswriters complaining about how far backward baseball had gone since the glory days of the first third of the century. The "golden era" cliché eventually led to a reaction and a counter-reaction.

Marciano has been mentioned by others. In his case it went in the opposite direction. He was mainly put down in his own time in comparison to the heroes of the golden age. As a youth I bought into that. I would have had no doubts that Dempsey was better than Marciano. It was only when I had the chance to watch films and actually see the opponents they were fighting that it dawned how unfair the whole comparison had been. The man who fought the best and had a perfect record had been automatically judged inferior to a man whose achievements didn't match up.