...had he not been hit on the break? If memory serves, Sharkey was makin' more than a good account of himself...'n he could crack.
The old and creaky Dempsey was slowly wearing Sharkey down with body shots... No doubt about it...Sharkey was a whiner and complainer, a terrific fighter when his head was in place, but very erratic throughout his career...One moment is worth a thousand pictures it is said. After a round was over Dempsey while walking to his corner with his hands at his side is rapped in the head by Sharkey..Dempsey didn't say a word, his corner didn't complain. Sharkey who was in his absolute prime at age 25,would have been destroyed by the young Dempsey,who at age 32 was coming off a 3 year layoff... Say what you want about the Manassa Mauler ,he NEVER complained, NEVER made excuses, and was one tough son of a ***** in the ring...
"Sure, he hit low. But he never hollered if you hit HIM low!" Watching the entirety of Dempsey-Sharkey, one can see this toll those hammering body shots were taking on Sharkey. That match was scheduled for 15 rounds. Dempsey had trained attentively [taking off over 20 pounds in the process], Sharkey rather indifferently. Dempsey may have had the most to lose by the controversial ending. Had the match continued on to an undisputed result, then Dempsey would have had his stamina beneficially extended enough to be confident of challenging Tunney over 15 instead of ten rounds. Dempsey may have been 32 to Sharkey's 25, but he was also tough as nails, and Sharkey had overexerted himself a bit early. Round seven was barely half a minute old when the knockdown occurred. [There was definitely a right below the belt, as you can see the leg of Sharkey's trunk hitch up on impact. Referee O'Sullivan was in position to see it, and shook his head at Sharkey to indicate no foul. Personally, I do believe that shot was the knockout blow, and he clutches his groin immediately upon hitting the deck. It looks to me that he was already on his way down with his knees buckled when the hook to the head connects.] Does Sharkey reach the final bell getting hammered with those body shots, when he was already beginning to wilt and lose his composure after only six completed rounds, with eight more to go? I just don't see it. Dempsey was not a 38 year old Wills, or a 170 pound 34 year old McTigue [Sharkey's only two wins over a distance longer than ten rounds at this stage]. Although Sharkey was near peak with youth on his side, Dempsey was offsetting that by turning their match into a grueling war of attrition. He had a serious advantage in experience, temperament and composure [as evidenced by his complete non-reaction to Sharkey's sucker cuff in the face at the conclusion of round six]. If fight ending controversy had somehow been avoided between these two, then that avoidance would have extended to a time limit decision. This one would not have gone to the scorecards of O'Sullivan, Flynn and Mathison, because Sharkey would not have been able to weather the hammering Dempsey had undertaken for another eight rounds. The question is, when does that end arrive? Dempsey had put Bill Brennan down for the count with body shots in their 1920 title match, so he had the history of necessary established late round knockout power to get this done. During his next match, he would again produce a seventh round knockdown. [Consider that Foreman only produced three career knockdowns beyond round five, all in his second career, against Bigfoot Martin, Coezter and Moorer.] Back in 1923, Tommy Gibbons was also fading when the final bell sounded, and likely wouldn't have made it in a 20 rounder. Dempsey didn't have occasion to do it much, but he was capable of prevailing through attrition when this rare situation presented itself. Even at his peak, Sharkey didn't have the durability of a Tommy Gibbons or Gene Tunney to remain on his feet through 15 complete rounds against that kind of hammering assault.
I think that, at the time of the KO, Sharkey should have been leading on points, but I also think the fight was starting to turn in the 6th round. How the fight would have played out without the KO7 would come down to whether Dempsey gassed or not. If Dempsey tired, the fight may have turned back Sharkey's way. But I think that (Dempsey tiring) would have had to happen very soon. This content is protected This content is protected
This content is protected Do we know what the official scoring was after six rounds? To me, if Sharkey was going to get him outta there, he would have done it during that opening round blitz. After that, I believe he'd need to accumulate an insurmountable lead, then box accordingly. Between the two of them, I'm satisfied that Dempsey's late round win in Brennan II was superior to Sharkey's late round wins over Wills and McTigue. Over the 15 round limit, I would also rate Tommy Gibbons for Dempsey over Carnera I for Sharkey, although Sharkey was more accomplished over the ten round distance. Jim Corbett reported on how Dempsey was attempting to change his style for Sharkey in detail, under the oversight of Leo P. Flynn, and predicted Sharkey might be in for a nasty surprise come fight time. A more conservative approach by Dempsey may have been part of that preparation. Here was a situation where Dempsey's characteristic early aggression was also not in evidence due to Sharkey's opening round barrage, but that forced Dempsey to maintain a reserve for the later rounds. Sharkey didn't take so much of a beating against Dempsey as to explain the all important draw against Heeney costing him a second opportunity for a shot at Tunney. Was he just choking in another huge match? I'd want to scrutinize the footage of that draw again, but there's no way he shouldn't have beaten Heeney decisively. The Dempsey-Heeney-Risko winless streak concerns me greatly when considering Sharkey's chances of prevailing over the distance or in the late rounds against Dempsey. While I do think leaks in Sharkey's facade were beginning to seep after six rounds with the Mauler, there wasn't enough to explain Heeney and Risko. From what I understand of Sharkey's training for Dempsey, he wasn't as focused and committed as he should have been [especially considering he was fighting the man he took his first name from for the ring].
No, he would have ****ed up at another point, or Dempsey would have just gotten to him like he did Tunney in his next bout...without a mistake made by Sharkey. Sharkey just wasn't supposed to beat Jack Dempsey ever, at any time, lol..
Sometimes,, "we are so close to the forrest, we don't see the trees", to use an analogy... We tend to forget that this 32 year old version of Jack Dempsey did not fight for THREE years, and without one tuneup bout foolishly tackled a razor sharp Gene Tunney, prior to this bout with a prime but erratic Jack Sharkey...Dempsey's main advantage over other heavyweights,almost middleweight speed, had deserted him after his three year layoff,and at the age of 32,fighting for about 16 years his performance against the 25 year old Sharkey showed what Jack Dempsey was made of...I hate to repeat the fact that Ray Robinson great as he was, after a 3 year layoff took a sound beating from Tiger Jones, a tough journeyman...An understandable defeat I say, but Jack Dempsey in the same circumstances did better with Sharkey than the great Sugar Ray did with Tiger Jones...Dempsey IMO is not given his due on ESB ,by some posters I truly believe. P.S. I can't think of many or any heavyweights, coming off a 3 year layoff doing as well against the 25 year old Sharkey,as the 32 year old Dempsey did in 1927...
