Consistent, not sensible, unless it is under fire, then, eventually...until the next time, which gets very tiring if you somehow become the police.
Sensible opinion is that at any given time during dempsey's active years, wills was the best available opponent.
which is what I have said all along. there was a point where I think wills was more of a threat and a time when he was less of a threat, whats unsensible about that?
everything on here is opinion isnt it? and when did I say it was a fact that wills was not a worthy chalenger? A fact you are trying to create is that wills was better than dempsey and this is an opinion that cannot be proved anymore than I think dempsey was better than wills after 1920. have you found any articles that say firpo was less of a threat than wills yet because untill you do I am going to asume that dempsey v firpo was a fight that was wanted as much as any other.
Your completely arbitrary selection of 1919 as the end of the period where he posed "more of a threat" your reasoning generallly and your pre-supposing certain things about the standing of Wills are way off.
No. Never, when did I say that you said that Wills was not a worthy challenger? No, wrong again, my guess is Dempsey was better and i stressed earlier that if they met passed prime Dempsey would "still" be the favourite to me. Dozens before and after that discuss Wills as the most serious challenge out there. None that say "FIRPO IS NOT AS GOOD AS WILLS" as the headline, sorry.
Your choice of year seems strange to me. Beating firpo erased any doubts that wills was the biggest threat to jack.
everyone great beats sonny. who did he beat? roy harris and floyd who was not trying? foley who cooper beat? machen who ingo KOd? who did he beat ali? No.
when you are presented with factual articles refuting your position you ignore them, when you're confronted with a tentative "guess" that coincides with your position you present it as fact, itallics, bold and all...I think luf is being kind labelling you just a troll.