By United Press
- NEW YORK - William Muldoon,
dean of the New York State Athletic
Commission and co-donor of the
Tunney-Muldoon heavyweight
championship trophy, disagreed to-
day with the almost unanimous
opinion that Max Schmeling was
fouled by Jack Sharkey in their
titular bout at Yankee stadium last
night.
- "I have to contradict all these
young fellows, but in my opinion
Sharkey should have been declared
the winner by a knockout when
Schmeling refused to answer the
bell for the fifth round," the 85-
year-old boxing czar told the United
Press.
- "The disputed blow, as I saw it,
was a terrific left hook which land-
ed just below the navel and was
perfectly fair. These physicians'
reports don't mean a thing. Signs
of a foul blow would not be evident
in a physical examination for sev-
eral hours."

Tunney Calls It Low

- Gene Tunney, the other donor of
the championship trophy, said he
thought the blow was a foul, and Dr.
William Walker, official commission
physician, who examined Schmeling
after the bout, declared he found a
distinct spasm of the left side of
Schmeling's scotum, indicating a
recent blow. The physician siad that
"Schmeling could not produce this
condition unless he was hit low."
- Opinions of newspaper men who
viewed the bout from ringside
follow:
- Frank Getty, United Press: "I was
not in position to see exactly where
the blow in question landed, but
Schmeling is too good a sportsman
to have been faking and obviously
was fouled. Sharkey was winning
all the way, and was most unfor-
tunate to have landed this uninten-
tional low blow."
- Joe Williams, New York Telegram:
"I am firmly convinced that Schmel-
ing was hit low and that the blow
carried sufficient power to render
him temporarily helpless. I don't
agree that Max showed enough to
warrant him being accepted as
champion."

Had To Be Penalized

Grantland Rice, N.A.N.A.: "It
was a foul and, although uninten-
tional had to be penalized."
- Jim Dawson, New York Times:
"The punch was unquestionably foul.
I have no hesitancy in saying it was
accidental, but I do not believe
Schmeling jumped into it, as claimed
by Sharkey."
- Frank McCracken, Philadelphia
Public Ledger: "I don't think the
blow was low. Even if it was,
Schmeling should have continued."
- Paul Gallico, New York Daily
News: "Unquestionably a foul."
- Damon Runyon, New York Amer-
ican: "Any argument that the blow
was not a foul is absolutely silly. It
landed in the crotch and the follow
through almost lifted Schmeling off
his feet."

Aimed Blow Fair

Ed Frayne, New York American:
"The punch was foul, but the de-
cision was perfect and the best thing
that could have happened for the
boxing game."
- Jack Kofoed, New York Post: "If
it was a foul, Schmeling deserved the
verdict, but the hysterical manner in
which Referee Crowley handled the
situation ruined everything."
- Westbrook Pegler, Chicago Trib-
une: "I was not in position to see the
blow, but the evidence convinces
me that the verdict was fair."