No. The numbers are not false. In the first place I used calender years in which the fighters were champ. In the second place I used the day from each man's first title defence, to their last, to calculate in months. Both of these are fair and reasonable. There is nothing wrong with either calculation. If for some reason - and I know the reason - you don't like these numbers, these methods of calculations, say so. Suggest an alternative. Don't start branding people liars, cheats, etc. If you are a grown man, i shouldn't have to tell you this.
No matter what you say.....you completely denied Ketchel hit Johnson with that right hand...and you were wrong. All your cursing and insults are do 100% to being showed up. What does that say about you?
No they are not if you chose a specific methodology the made your numbers look better. And this is what you in fact did. In any event Dempsey did the same as those before him aside from Burns. Took the title on the road making pay checks in ways other than defending their title. To degrade Dempsey for doing what was the norm is disingenuous.
Perry, it doesn't do you or anyone else good to use logic or facts on posters who are absolutely paranoid in their hatred against the "name" of Jack Dempsey...It must make these posters so much "nobler" to have a Jack Dempsey to smear time and again...I have been a devotee of boxing history for many, many decades and only on ESB have I seen such baloney and distortion against any fighter, let alone a great and decent fighter like Jack Dempsey...These brave and "noble" posters think that 100 years earlier they would have been any different than the Jack Dempsey they love to tar and feather today...Why they never even reply to TWO facts that I pose to them time and again... So P, save your energy on another topic...cheers...
The treatment of all numeric data and they will always lean one way or the other. You didn't like the numbers so you started calling me names. You didn't like the second treatment so you kept calling me names. In any event, Dempsey clearly was significantly less active than Johnson and Jeffries.
As well you should pay homage how many guys you know maintain a pre championship career of 11.4 fights a year..Cleaned out his division beat the best guys around working toward title shot Were talking 58 pro fights before age 24 anyone relevent was disposed on his march to the title
You've got so many disagreeing with you ,your confused as to whom your arguing with. You've shown up one person on this forum, yourself.
Lets take a look at the timeline here, and what it actually means. September 14 1923, Jack Dempsey defends his title against Luis Firpo. He later signs articles to fight Harry Wills on 6 September 1924, but the State Athletic Comission refuses to sanction the bout. He anounces his retirment at the end of Januaty 1925, thuse leaving the Athletic Comissions free to apoint another champion. Now if we accept that his intention to face Harry Wills was sincere, then he intended to fight him a year after the Firpo figth, but was prevented from doing so. The fact that he anounced his retirment a few months later, means that he presumably intended to make his last title defence against Wills in September of 24, then retire. In this context, his actions do not look so bad. He had intended to be inactive for a year, and only remained inactive for a total of 16 months before relinquishing the tile, and only because he was prevented from fighting his scheduled opponent. The fact that he remained an inactive champion until the end of 1926, then becomes the fault of tha comissions, who failed to apoint a new champion, despite it being within their power to do so. Furthermore, if said comissions had really wanted Wills to get a shot at the title, they could have simply matched him with another contender, for the vacant title.
Cleaned out who exactly that was in top form and not coming off a losing streak and was not named Fulton?
He does it regularly. He did it in a Frazier thread, in which he started off by saying Joe fractured Chuvalo's cheekbone, then he changed it to Eye Socket, when in fact straight from the horses mouth ( Chuvalo ) it was an orbital bone, of which there are 3 .36 mm thick, which is less than the thinnest guitar pick it is possible to buy. .75 mm thick and 1.2mm thick, or as near as dammit, and not only that Chuvalo clearly claims the eye was damaged in a fight one month previously against Archie Ray, and was swollen every time it was hit in sparring thus preventing him from participating in that aspect of his preparation for Frazier. Indeed so serious was the damage from this " devastating " punch from Frazier that Chuvalo didn't even bother seeking medical attention until he got back to Toronto 3 days after the fight, and in less than 10 minutes they had cut him open, inserted some silicone, stitched him up again, and sent him on his merry way. Very hard to tell with Walter Mitty's, when they are telling the truth.
You must have been reading the wrong books because every book I have on Dempsey or the heavies mentions the Wills situation w Dempsey
Well there's no "wrong" books, I would hope, just books (apparently) that have different information. Either way, I'd suggest Wills-Dempsey is a bigger deal on the internet than it ever was in the bars and barber shops.