klompton2 said: ↑ Then by all means, make your own video. I wonder if you would protest so much if I were to make a video showing Dempsey bobbing and weaving and talking about his awsome defense? Are you bothered that I made a video highlighting Dempsey's dirty tactics? Why? Are you really going to argue Dempsey wasnt dirty? The video, whether you think its nitpicking or not, illustrates that beyond question. So it seems you just have a problem with the fact that theyve been highlighted and nothing else. Dont shoot the messenger, Im not the one committing all of those fouls. klompton2 said: ↑ Duh! I did say in a post more Dempsey vid is good, I am sure you could do the same with a lot of guys where that much tape exists, that he was dirty ok, so was many other fighters thru out history who fought in that manner. Be thankful that tape on Greb doesnt exist cos everybody and their mothers would see Dempsey as a saint compared to the master of dirty fighting, Greb. Why do I bring up Greb cos of your agenda to pyss on anything Dempsey. The difference between the two is Dempsey is still spoken about in good terms, and Greb, gets Greb who? By the average fan. If you want to be fair and balanced then you have to also show the good, and the good outweighs the bad, but of course not you. The silliest statement is this one that you, "Dont shoot the messenger, Im not the one committing all of those fouls." Admit the real reason you went to that much trouble. Pure and adulterated bias and spinning on your part, who do you think you are fooling? The question posed doesnt require me to do anything. If you feel the video was lacking or that you dont know enough about other HW champs from other eras to be able to make a sound judgement then you should solicite someone to you make you videos on them. I merely asked a question and illustrated why that question begged to be asked. Yes the question begged to be asked, by you with an agenda, there are quite a few who gave you valid answer of course you ignore them. Why? Cos it dont fit your agenda lmao
On kidney punches being illegal. In his autobiography, Max Schmeling comments when pressed by a German govt official to claim he was fouled in his second fight with Joe Louis. "I explained to him that according to American rules any punch above the beltline was legal." Perry's definition of a low blow seems to be different than Schmeling's understanding, or why bring up the beltline? The hips are pretty far down there and such a nebulous idea as a line drawn across the hips would leave a referee high and dry to figure out what is actually a low blow. The film does show in my opinion that Sharkey was wearing his trunks in a normal manner. They were not high. And Dempsey clearly hit him low quite a few times. The low blows at the time of the knockout are less clear because of the position of Dempsey's body, but the first right looked low to me. As for what the newspapermen wrote when they viewed the film, it is back to the old adage, "are you going to believe your lying eyes or what you are told to believe."
Schmeling is incorrect. The Kidney Punch (and Im not saying he was hit with one) had been outlawed in New York by 1920 and was banned several times in New York prior to that with various laws and governing bodies.
The definition of a low blow I found via a 1930 quote from the the NY State boxing commissioner. He was asked to define a low blow and he responded regarding the "imaginary line adjoining the hip bones" as his definition of the demarcation line. Numerous newspaper accounts attest that Sharkey wore his trunks high to better protect his body from Dempseys punches. The visual "beltline" via the location of a boxers trunks can never be used as a definitive marker for whether a body blow is legal as the trunks can be adjusted up or down readily thus changing the position of body punch legality. Once again taking the definition as above two of those three last body blows were NOT below an "imaginary line that joins the hip bones". There is absolutely no reason to believe that the third blow was anything different from the first two. It was three very quick very hard and consecutive punches to the stomach. Paralyzing punches from Dempsey similar to the blows used to fell Firpo several times during their bout in 1923.
I believe if a boxer turns his back during a bout and in process a punch to the kidney lands it's the fault of the fighter who turned his back.
The ref in charge of the bout stated none of those three blows were legal. He stated that both men were guilty in landing wayward low punches but none were significant or intentional. More significant is that the ref stated that at no time up until the bouts end did Sharkey or his corner complain about low blows.
Dempsey was a rough character .. no questions about .. he certainly falls in there w Marciano, Holyfield, Tyson and might be t the head of the class .. is it true that the final blow that finished Brennen in the rematch was a nasty rabbit punch as he was starting to go down from the stomach shot ?
Perry "The visual 'beltline' via the location of the boxer's trunks can never be used as a definitive marker for whether a body blow is legal as the trunks can be adjusted up or down." Yes, and it is the referee's job to see the trunks are not worn excessively high. But the beltline is a real thing which can be seen with the eye even with fast moving bodies. An "imaginary line" between the hips. Check a skeleton. In my judgment such a line would pass across the pubic hair on most males. Or was this guy actually referring to the pelvic girdle. Whatever. By this imaginary line definition the ref could call almost anything a fair punch.
SRR was very adept at throwing Kidney punches, he clearly did it in his overseas tour and in the states it seemed to be one of his favorite punches. Also seems legal or illegal fighters threw them and some got away with it.
Perry you can keep saying "people said Sharkey wore his trunks high" but we have photos and film of the contest. Its obvious his trunks werent high. Furthermore the ref actually said that the right hand preceding the knockout was low but then said that Dempsey landed a double left hook, one to the body which hurt sharkey, followed by one to the jaw. Problem is that the ref was on Dempsey's right hand side and couldnt have seen the fact that Dempsey did not land a left hook to the preceding the left to the jaw. Which means that if Sharkey was hurt preceding the knockout it came from the low blow which the ref saw. This means in fact that the ref admits that the damaging punch was the low blow. Why you invent these stories about the ref saying the three punches were legal illustrates your bias. Your bull**** about checking anatomy etc is just that. The punches were low and its obvious. When you can see the guys cup and trunks jumping up on impact of the blows thats a low blow. No legal punch is going to cause his trunks to ripple and rise up like that. Apologist.
The ref described the last three right hands quite accurately. He stated both fighters were landing low blows but none were flagrant nor intentional. He stated neither Sharkey or his corner complained about any low blows up until the fights end. The doctor in charge of the fight examined Sharkeys groin after the bout and found no injuries or evidence that any low blows were struck. Definition of a low blow in those days was any blow below an imaginary line adjoining the hip bones. Using that definition the first two body blows were not illegal punches. More than likely the third body blow was also the same as they were three very quick very hard blows landed in rapid succession. Crapton has stated for years Dempsey hit Sharkey in the balls with those three punches. Never has more of a lie ever been stated on these boards. This is a man who claims to be a historian yet he obviously lies through his teeth again and again. That's the problem when a salesman poses as a historian.
I don't know if he was the dirtest fighter or not...but marvelous footage and sure enjoyed watching! Would 'double like it' if I could!
Then lets see this quote, because immediately after the fight he described a low right, a fair left to the body (which never happened) and the hook to the chin. Post yours and ill post mine, otherwise we can just assume its nore bull**** and lies by a dempsey nuthugger.
Surely whether or not a guy is fighting "dirty" in any particular fight depends on the rules of the day and the referee allowing dirty tactics to continue. I can recall many Ali fights in which he leaned on the head of boxers, until Padilla in Manila stopped him from leaning on Frazier. Of course the worst display of this tactic was Wlad-Povetkin. Holyfields' headbutting was constant and disgraceful. Only got a warning once in a while.
