If Dempsey Had Defended Against Wills,Godfrey & Norfolk?

[Slugfester]

Dempsey had not intention of fighting Wills in 1922 or anytime for that matter. He simply could have picked another state it you really use that excuse. Dempsey ducked Greb, and didn't face Godfrey or Norfolk either. Not a bad slip and duck defense, right?

When he finally fight a top contender, he fouled Sharkey in the shameful KO, and got beaten down at age 32 by Tunney losing 18 or 19 of 20 rounds. If either fight was 15 rounds, Tunney would have knocked him out. After the final bell in the 10th round Dempsey asked his cornerman man to help him find Tunney because he could not see well. Dempsey wanted to shake his hand. What if this fight had been 15 rounds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpmv_zOa0k

Dempsey didn't foul Sharkey, ******. Did Mayweather foul Vioctor Ortiz? No.

[Willie Pep 229]

Dempsey didn't foul Sharkey, ******. Did Mayweather foul Vioctor Ortiz? No.

Dempsey probably did hit Sharkey low. Dempsey like trading low blows and by his own admission always tried a couple to see what kind of reaction he got back.

But it is important to remember this was pre kidney belt days, (which were not allowed until 1930, after the Schmeling-Sharkey and Godfrey-Carnera messes of early 1930.)

Dempsey-Sharkey were wearing nothing but a jock strap and a cup.

So Dempsey always measured his low blows. He had a powerful body shot that could put a great fighter on the canvas, but he knew if he fell his opponent with a low blow he would be DQed.

By his own admission Dempsey always tried to test his opponent's resolve by throwing a few low, but yet he never once was DQed in his career. He had mastered the low blow. Seriously!

In this light watch Sharkey. He turns to the ref to complain and Dempsey puts him down with a viscous left hook.

We're suppose to believe that Sharkey couldn't get up because of the low blow? That makes no sense.

The low blow didn't put him down to begin with, why would it keep him down for a ten count?

This is just another boxing legend, this one curiosity of Jack Sharkey; it was all post fight Sharkey gob!

Common sense: Sharkey took a low blow and stood there long enought to speak to the referee and catch a left hook, but it was the low blow that kept him down? I don't think so. That's not common sense.

[Dr. Z]

Dempsey didn't foul Sharkey, ******. Did Mayweather foul Vioctor Ortiz? No.

Sure he did not hit him low and strike Sharkey when talking about it to the referee. Sure he diid not do that! Dempsey was behind in the fight when it happened. Film does not lie.

[Ivich]

Sure he did not hit him low and strike Sharkey when talking about it to the referee. Sure he diid not do that! Dempsey was behind in the fight when it happened. Film does not lie.

The referee called the punch fair.Any reason why Dempsey should not hit Sharkey while he was talking to the referee?
Ever heard of;
"Protect yourself at all times?"

ps Sharkey was involved in 2 fights which featured low blows, he was the guilty party. and he lost his title because of one of those blows. Film does not lie ,but you do!

[Slugfester]

Dempsey probably did hit Sharkey low. Dempsey like trading low blows and by his own admission always tried a couple to see what kind of reaction he got back.

But it is important to remember this was pre kidney belt days, (which were not allowed until 1930, after the Schmeling-Sharkey and Godfrey-Carnera messes of early 1930.)

Dempsey-Sharkey were wearing nothing but a jock strap and a cup.

So Dempsey always measured his low blows. He had a powerful body shot that could put a great fighter on the canvas, but he knew if he fell his opponent with a low blow he would be DQed.

By his own admission Dempsey always tried to test his opponent's resolve by throwing a few low, but yet he never once was DQed in his career. He had mastered the low blow. Seriously!

In this light watch Sharkey. He turns to the ref to complain and Dempsey puts him down with a viscous left hook.

We're suppose to believe that Sharkey couldn't get up because of the low blow? That makes no sense.

The low blow didn't put him down to begin with, why would it keep him down for a ten count?

This is just another boxing legend, this one curiosity of Jack Sharkey; it was all post fight Sharkey gob!

Common sense: Sharkey took a low blow and stood there long enought to speak to the referee and catch a left hook, but it was the low blow that kept him down? I don't think so. That's not common sense.

To me, any man with eyes can see that Dempsey hit him slightly below the belt line, nothing flagrant or purposeful at all so, young fella, I really don't know what the Mother Teresa you are talking about. When you get hit low, the simplest of principles is that your freaking trunks move. Sharkey's didn't. The two previous punches were not low either. Watch the evidence of the clip and maybe lay aside for now the general remark of Dempsey's, made who knows when, as if it matters, unless he was specifically talking about the Sharkey incident. The action was a sequence. Dempsey was in the middle of action, and the referee was only on his way at that point. Sharkey didn't protect himself at all times. Look where his arms were. No one's fault but his own. Dempsey not at fault. Furthermore, it was a light punch, an arm punch Dempsey did not dig in at all. Guess what, people get hit low all the time in boxing, if he even did. I believe Sharkey was trying to Hopkins his way into the title fight with Tunney. He was wearing down from Dempsey's constant body attack, so of course this is what he complained about, figuring a warning might slow down the body shots..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMwMqRBDss

[GhostofDempsey]

Dempsey simply couldn't pick another State. Wills' people were not much interested in 1922 in staging the fight anywhere except New York.

There was no point in Farley and Tammany investing time and money in making Wills a champion if the fight was to happen elsewhere. The whole damn push was to make money and garner Negro votes. What good would a fight in Reno or New Orleans going to do?

P.S. The fight was doable in New York once racist Maldoon was put in his place by Farley and Tammany. The venue wasn't the problem it was Kearns who didn't want any fight where Rickard could be involved.

In early 1922, when Harry Frazee made an offer of $350K just for Dempsey's end, Kearns agreed. Frazee tried to make the fight in Boston, NY and New Jersey, none of those states or commissions would approve it. Other states either would not have the drawing power to pull in a crowd of 100K or they didn't have a venue large enough. Rickard was quoted $200K to build a 100K seat outdoor arena to stage the fight in NY which was a huge financial risk if the fight was somehow derailed. Wills was having difficultly getting a promoter to promote his end of it.

June 29th Dempsey and Kearns announced to the NY commission they accepted Wills' challenge. They wanted to schedule a meeting to establish a date and announce it to the public. A couple of months after Muldoon put restrictions on ticket sale prices which would only amount to a $550K gate. Far less than the million plus Kearns was banking on. Muldoon effectively killed the fight without having to say he was against it. It was also Muldoon back in 1892 who drew the color line and insisted there should be no interracial HW title fights. Quietly he never wanted it, but publicly he had no other way out. Muldoon was not a fan of Dempsey either. He refused to allow him a third fight with Brennan, insisting Brennan would need to beat a top opponent before he considered it. In early 1923 he put the final nail in the coffin that year when he said the fight would not be held in NY because the sport had become too commercialized, laying blame on promoters and managers.

[Willie Pep 229]

In early 1922, when Harry Frazee made an offer of $350K just for Dempsey's end, Kearns agreed. Frazee tried to make the fight in Boston, NY and New Jersey, none of those states or commissions would approve it. Other states either would not have the drawing power to pull in a crowd of 100K or they didn't have a venue large enough. Rickard was quoted $200K to build a 100K seat outdoor arena to stage the fight in NY which was a huge financial risk if the fight was somehow derailed. Wills was having difficultly getting a promoter to promote his end of it.

June 29th Dempsey and Kearns announced to the NY commission they accepted Wills' challenge. They wanted to schedule a meeting to establish a date and announce it to the public. A couple of months after Muldoon put restrictions on ticket sale prices which would only amount to a $550K gate. Far less than the million plus Kearns was banking on. Muldoon effectively killed the fight without having to say he was against it. It was also Muldoon back in 1892 who drew the color line and insisted there should be no interracial HW title fights. Quietly he never wanted it, but publicly he had no other way out. Muldoon was not a fan of Dempsey either. He refused to allow him a third fight with Brennan, insisting Brennan would need to beat a top opponent before he considered it. In early 1923 he put the final nail in the coffin that year when he said the fight would not be held in NY because the sport had become too commercialized, laying blame on promoters and managers.

I agree about Muldoon with one exception. The ticket price limitation was a Tammany Hall (********ic) regulation, I believe. They controlled the City Counicl (we know it was Jimmy Walker who created the NYSAC in 1920.)

Tammany's controll of New York was always a political gain for the lower class who often found themseleves priced out of big events.

So I suspect that Muldoon used the regulation, but doubt he had the authority to create it. I doubt that was in his power. But I'm also sure he used it to his racist advantage to fend off promoters.

But we also have to recognize it was a negotiation that could be dealt with and was the very next year when Dempsey met Firpo in the Polo Grounds, 1923. So it obviously was not a deal breaker in 1922, it could have been worked around, as it was in 1923 (where only a seating section was subject to the price restrictuon.)

Tammany could do whatever it wanted with the City and often did.

In regards to the three venue problem, yes all three said no at first, but New Jersey (for political reasons) saw the governor publicly overrule his own (New Jersey) Athletic Commission and announce that New Jersey was avaiable for mixed fights. Nothing came of it.

Boston stayed closed.

Also you have to factor in the arrival of James Farley. Farley was a Tammany Hall vote getter who would rise to becoming FDR's cheif New York political adviser. (The 1932 ********ic Nominating Convention was in MSG, 1932)

Farley is credited as a major player in bringing the nomination to FDR.

He rose through the ranks of Tammany in 1920s by bringing in Negro votes, helping to create Tammany's first political inroads into Uptown via Harlem.

Jimmy Walker rewarded Farley with a seat on the NYSAC. It was Farley who changed the course of the NYSAC's attiute towards black fighters.

Farley reduced Muldoon to a figure head and then they ousted him.

With Farley's NYSAC the fight was doable in New York but Dempsey had by then slipped away.

Also I don't believe Doc Kearns would have taken the fight even if the Polo Grounds issue had been resolved. It you look close, Kearns never actually makes a legal commitment to any fight. Just public statements of intent.

The closest I have been able to find (maybe you can show me different) is Kearns signing papers promising to negotiate in good faith and then he just watched it fall apart while he continued to work on his (Rickard free) western adventure.

[travestyny]

Dempsey simply couldn't pick another State. Wills' people were not much interested in 1922 in staging the fight anywhere except New York.

There was no point in Farley and Tammany investing time and money in making Wills a champion if the fight was to happen elsewhere. The whole damn push was to make money and garner Negro votes. What good would a fight in Reno or New Orleans going to do?

P.S. The fight was doable in New York once racist Maldoon was put in his place by Farley and Tammany. The venue wasn't the problem it was Kearns who didn't want any fight where Rickard could be involved.

That's not true. The Montreal offer that Dempsey declined was in 1922. Wills' people were for it.

Dempsey did not want this fight. Neither did Kearns. Rickard at one point early on seemed like he was down for it, but Dempsey wasn't with it.

[travestyny]

Dempsey had not intention of fighting Wills in 1922 or anytime for that matter. He simply could have picked another state it you really use that excuse. Dempsey ducked Greb, and didn't face Godfrey or Norfolk either. Not a bad slip and duck defense, right?

When he finally fight a top contender, he fouled Sharkey in the shameful KO, and got beaten down at age 32 by Tunney losing 18 or 19 of 20 rounds. If either fight was 15 rounds, Tunney would have knocked him out. After the final bell in the 10th round Dempsey asked his cornerman man to help him find Tunney because he could not see well. Dempsey wanted to shake his hand. What if this fight had been 15 rounds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpmv_zOa0k

I can't argue against this, except the Greb "duck" is debatable. I don't think Dempsey took it seriously because of Greb's size. Maybe the sparring sessions made him doubt he'd catch the rabbit, too.

[travestyny]

Dempsey probably did hit Sharkey low. Dempsey like trading low blows and by his own admission always tried a couple to see what kind of reaction he got back.

But it is important to remember this was pre kidney belt days, (which were not allowed until 1930, after the Schmeling-Sharkey and Godfrey-Carnera messes of early 1930.)

Dempsey-Sharkey were wearing nothing but a jock strap and a cup.

So Dempsey always measured his low blows. He had a powerful body shot that could put a great fighter on the canvas, but he knew if he fell his opponent with a low blow he would be DQed.

By his own admission Dempsey always tried to test his opponent's resolve by throwing a few low, but yet he never once was DQed in his career. He had mastered the low blow. Seriously!

In this light watch Sharkey. He turns to the ref to complain and Dempsey puts him down with a viscous left hook.

We're suppose to believe that Sharkey couldn't get up because of the low blow? That makes no sense.

The low blow didn't put him down to begin with, why would it keep him down for a ten count?

This is just another boxing legend, this one curiosity of Jack Sharkey; it was all post fight Sharkey gob!

Common sense: Sharkey took a low blow and stood there long enought to speak to the referee and catch a left hook, but it was the low blow that kept him down? I don't think so. That's not common sense.

Have you ever been hit in the balls? Serious question.