Page 2 of 2

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 16:06
by granberry
BoxBuzz wrote:
I have been told (from a reliable source) that Liston's demise may have occured from just such an anomoly. He was innocently shadowboxing in front of his hotel room mirror when for some unknown reason he began to take up the very dangerous (and in this case perhaps fatal) southpaw stance. How many left hooks did he attempt? Only the folks on the east coast can say with any certaintly.

This may of course NOT be factual, but the mystery surrounding the details leaves one to wonder. And with good cause according to my source.
buzz, the 'moderator,'

pollutes boxrec with glee.

And all the destroyers of boxrec who buzz sponsors are here---ebeneezer, collins etc etc.

Great site you run here buzz.

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 16:07
by BoxBuzz
Hey gran, good to see you up and around, what's your take on all of this?

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 16:17
by granberry
raylawpc wrote:
Robinson wrote:I dont believe that Tunney had Dempsey's number.
Bill Brady would have agreed with you. The former manager of Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries was quoted once as saying that Tunney would have never beaten Dempsey in Dempsey's prime.
Brady was a theatrical manager.

He knew nothing about boxing and was proud of that.

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 17:22
by Collins2000
granberry wrote:
raylawpc wrote:
Robinson wrote:I dont believe that Tunney had Dempsey's number.
Bill Brady would have agreed with you. The former manager of Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries was quoted once as saying that Tunney would have never beaten Dempsey in Dempsey's prime.

He knew nothing about boxing and was proud of that.
Just like you then.

:lol:

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 18:50
by granberry
BoxBuzz wrote:Hey gran, good to see you up and around, what's your take on all of this?
My take is that buzz destroys boxrec

with GLEE.

First collins and his ebeneezer and crew pollute a thread with buzz' encouragement,

then buzz joins in gleefully.

Boxing people I know look at buzz' boxrec ONCE

and ask me who in the world would waste their time looking at such juvenile drivel

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 27 Jun 2008, 20:22
by ebeneezer
granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
Boxing people I know look at buzz' boxrec ONCE

and ask me who in the world would waste their time looking at such juvenile drivel
Do these people have names?

Are they the same as the guy you insulted and drove away on the Peter Maher thread?

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 06:56
by Knucklez
So let me get the pecking order right:

Buzz is the old master. Collins, his protege, recruited me, ebenezeer and raylaw as his associates to do his foul bidding, on behalf of Buzz.

I would tell you all what the grand plan is, but the material is too valuable for a 'boxing' site like this.

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 28 Jun 2008, 10:20
by raylawpc
Knucklez wrote:So let me get the pecking order right:

Buzz is the old master. Collins, his protege, recruited me, ebenezeer and raylaw as his associates to do his foul bidding, on behalf of Buzz.

I would tell you all what the grand plan is, but the material is too valuable for a 'boxing' site like this.
:roll: :roll: No, no, no . . . you got it wrong: Kikibalt, not Collins, recruited me from the cbz forum for the sole purpose of ruining boxrec. :roll: :roll: I never heard of Buzz or Collins until I got over here and kikibalt introduced me to them through a series of super-secret, high-powered PM cyber meetings. :roll: :roll: Remember now, Knucklez? We went over all this at our last meeting when collins recruited you to the conspiracy. :roll: :roll:

In all seriousness, the ignore feature on this revamped website is WONDERFUL!

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 14:51
by Collins2000
granberry wrote:
raylawpc wrote:
Knucklez wrote:So let me get the pecking order right:

Buzz is the old master. Collins, his protege, recruited me, ebenezeer and raylaw as his associates to do his foul bidding, on behalf of Buzz.

I would tell you all what the grand plan is, but the material is too valuable for a 'boxing' site like this.
:roll: :roll: No, no, no . . . you got it wrong: Kikibalt, not Collins, recruited me from the cbz forum for the sole purpose of ruining boxrec. :roll: :roll: I never heard of Buzz or Collins until I got over here and kikibalt introduced me to them through a series of super-secret, high-powered PM cyber meetings. :roll: :roll: Remember now, Knucklez? We went over all this at our last meeting when collins recruited you to the conspiracy. :roll: :roll:

In all seriousness, the ignore feature on this revamped website is WONDERFUL!
The useless exercise that is boxrec continues---

testimony to the mental level of ‘buzz, the “moderator”.

Stop wanking. Now.

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 17:54
by Big Bad John
HomicideHenry wrote:The amazing thing about Jack Dempsey is this, that after his losses to Tunney, for a time he considered a serious comeback in the 'era' of the Schmeling's and Baer's, as he had well over 100 exhibition bouts, knocking out such men as Meyers 'KO' Christner and others...he proved in these exhibitions he could still defeat the best bangers in the world, but wasn't able to handle the movers, as Kingfish Levinsky outclassed him in an exhibition.

It was that exhibition there, that stopped Dempsey from making a legit comeback into boxing, though he would later revise his exhibition tours in his 40's against professional wrestlers, much like Archie Moore would do when he was going inbetween light-heavyweight and heavyweight.

Had he made a real comeback, I could see Dempsey getting back up into contention, but would fail miserably against Schmeling, Sharkey, Loughran, etc...*day dreams about a over the hill Dempsey against Primo Carnera*...
Jack Dempsey did get into wrestling, but his forays into that field were wholly different than Archie Moore's. He distinguished himself as a boxing referee, and was the highest paid referee in pro wrestling had ever seen. He fought exhibitions until he was 45 years old, and he was still knocking people out. He fought so many exhibitions that people all over the nation had personally seen him send fighters to the canvas.

I don't see how anyone can question the legitimacy of the Sharkey knockout. The low blow he set it up with would make Andrew Golota cringe, and Sharkey completely wasn't expecting that huge punch. Remember, later that year, Dempsey still had enough power to send Tunney to the canvas with his famed Dempsey Roll. It wasn't one-punch power that made Dempsey the most dangerous heavyweight boxing had ever seen; it was combination punching. By 1927, that combination punching was mostly gone, but he still had enough power to end a fight in a matter of seconds.

Re: Jack Dempsey v. Jack Sharkey

Posted: 29 Jun 2008, 22:04
by granberry
Collins2000 wrote:
Stop wanking. Now.
The useless exercise that is boxrec continues,

testimony to the mental level of ‘buzz, the “moderator”.