Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[HOUDINI563]

Washington Times writer says he saw all blows to the body preceding the ko blow and they were not foul.

Doctors examined Sharkey and found no evidence of a foul. Also stated Sharkey would have gone down immediately if indeed he had been hit with a flagrant low blow.

Referee states the punches were not low.

Mixed opinion regarding who saw low blows and who did not.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...e=range&page=1

[HOUDINI563]

Referees quote mid page

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...e=range&page=2

[HOUDINI563]

Bottom center. Films of fight show body blows we’re fair:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...e=range&page=2

[HOUDINI563]

Numerous quotes can be seen regarding Sharkey wearing his trunks high. Here is one in reference to watching the slow motion film of the bouts the day after the fight:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...e=range&page=3

[HOUDINI563]

The bottom line is the idea that it was conclusive that Dempsey hit Sharkey low is completely bogus. Some say they saw a foul with those final three body blows and some did not. The referee did not and the doctor assigned to the fight raised doubts as well. Watching the film you can see the first two on the beltline. No evidence that the third was any different. Three very fast very short right uppercuts thrown at close quarters all to the body.

[HOUDINI563]

I completed this research some ten years ago. One article I found was a short “interview” with the referee where he expressed dismay over he being misquoted. He stated that from the very end of the fight his comments were regarding the three right uppercuts being the final three body blows and they were fair with the right to Sharkeys leg being an earlier blow in round seven.

Again if you watch the fight he was being very accurate as the final three body blows were indeed three right uppercuts to the body. No where near Sharkeys leg. No left hook to the solar plexus at least in this final sequence.

And of course the ref stated those final body punches were fair. Thus no DQ.

[Willie Pep 229]

You are wrong and I already pointed out that you are wrong about this, and yet you are still saying the same thing.


The ref describe the final three blows. A low blow (he said it hit Sharkey's thigh and traveled up. I never claimed he said it did damage. I believe he said it did not. I'm not sure how he would know, especially when he fvvcked up the call and probably needed glasses), then a left hook to the solar plexus... which was a PHANTOM left hook because if you look at the video, there was no second punch there, then the finishing blow.

THAT was the last three punches the ref saw and he stated that clearly.

When I watch the video, I clearly see Sharkey flinch up when hit low, just when the ref claimed he was hit low. Which makes sense because you can clearly see the ref begin to come in to warn about the low blow. Just like the ref said.


How can you keep claiming it wasn't low when you can see clearly that the referee comes in to break the action right at that moment. You also clearly see Sharkey's damn eyes pop out of his head when he was hit low.
KEnm9L.png

So Let's say Sharkey is hit low and flinched.

In 1927 kidney/protective belts were illegal in NY and would stay so until 1931.

So Sharkey is only wearing a jock and a cup, no protection belt.

You stated (via the ref) that the low blow made him flinch, yet he doesn't double over, nor does he go down.

He instead is annoyed with yet another one of Dempsey (often) low blows*** and being the complainer he was known to be, he turns his head away to complain and gets blindsided by a hook.

So the low blow (if landed low) didn't cause the result of the fight, Sharkey's complaining did.

So why are you two arguing about something that did not effect the outcome. I.e. Protect yourself at all times.

*** Before the allowance of protective belts, the low blow rule was quite simple. Hit the guy hard enough and you get DQed. Hit the guy just hard enough to piss him off, or throw off his timing, and then get chewed out by the ref or booed by the crowd for it.

It was an effective tactic but had to be deployed sparingly and with just the right amount of force. (So long as you don't put the guy on the canvas you're OK.

Dempsey was masterful at that 'low blow' - just enough but not too much, delivering it with just the right amount of force to get the effect without the DQ.

Probably learned how to in the early bar fights where the rules tended to get a bit brutal.

[travestyny]

So Let's say Sharkey is hit low and flinched.

In 1927 kidney/protective belts were illegal in NY and would stay so until 1931.

So Sharkey is only wearing a jock and a cup, no protection belt.

You stated (via the ref) that the low blow made him flinch, yet he doesn't double over, nor does he go down.

He instead is annoyed with yet another one of Dempsey (often) low blows*** and being the complainer he was known to be, he turns his head away to complain and gets blindsided by a hook.

So the low blow (if landed low) didn't cause the result of the fight, Sharkey's complaining did.

So why are you two arguing about something that did not effect the outcome. I.e. Protect yourself at all times.

*** Before the allowance of protective belts, the low blow rule was quite simple. Hit the guy hard enough and you get DQed. Hit the guy just hard enough to piss him off, or throw off his timing, and then get chewed out by the ref or booed by the crowd for it.

It was an effective tactic but had to be deployed sparingly and with just the right amount of force. (So long as you don't put the guy on the canvas you're OK.

Dempsey was masterful at that 'low blow' - just enough but not too much, delivering it with just the right amount of force to get the effect without the DQ.

Probably learned how to in the early bar fights where the rules tended to get a bit brutal.

It's not my job to say how effective the low blow was. I don't think anyone here can say. As a person with balls, I know that there can be a delayed reaction with pain from being hit in the balls. Looks like he got hit in the balls and reacted immediately to that, which is normal, then got clocked with a hook, but when he was down he seemed more bothered by the groin shot. Only he knows for sure how much pain he was in from the shot.


The referee did a terrible job. He started to come in to break the fighters and then allowed another blow. Yes, protect yourself at all times, but the referee obviously messed up here. He thought he saw a left to the solarplexus after the low blow, and there was none. Just a low blow then a punch to the jaw.

[Willie Pep 229]

It's not my job to say how effective the low blow was. I don't think anyone here can say. As a person with balls, I know that there can be a delayed reaction with pain from being hit in the balls. Looks like he got hit in the balls and reacted immediately to that, which is normal, then got clocked with a hook, but when he was down he seemed more bothered by the groin shot. Only he knows for sure how much pain he was in from the shot.


The referee did a terrible job. He started to come in to break the fighters and then allowed another blow. Yes, protect yourself at all times, but the referee obviously messed up here. He thought he saw a left to the solarplexus after the low blow, and there was none. Just a low blow then a punch to the jaw.

A delayed reaction to being hit in the balls?

Yours must be different than mine!

[travestyny]

A delayed reaction to being hit in the balls?

Yours must be different than mine!

I guess so. If you've never been hit in the balls and had the pain come on more intensely in time, you must not have balls. lol


Just to show that I'm not making this up out of thin air. I wouldn't think I'd have to show this to another man, but so be it.

Why does getting hit in the testicles have a delayed response before the pain sets in?

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...ticles_have_a/