If we include debutants, then Torpedo Billy Murphy gave 67 (if I have counted correctly) of his opponents their first defeat.
What criteria do we have to work with? Do we count debutants - or must they have had a least one pro fights?
I don't see the problem. It is what it is, and shouldn't be taken too seriously - and if it irritates you, you can just ignore it.
I'm looking for the evidence that boxing is dying. I presume this means, that the number of fights/fighters is shrinking? So let's see the numbers.
I would be interested to see the numbers/stats you have, that backs up this contention.
I have a hard time imagining Donaire seeing the final bell - prime or not.
I wonder if, 10 years from now, Inoue will be considered for such lists?
???
Are you familiar with so many of today's trainers of world champions, and their teaching skills - that you feel, you can confidently make a broad...
I believe those lists were made quite a long time ago (maybe 10 years or more?), with no updates since - so Usyk could not have been considered.
You're right, I didn't include the Satterfield knockdowns on my list. Why do you think that is?
Pretty much as weird as Nat Fleischer's old lists!
I'm not saying that it is - and I'm not passing judgement on anyone, but simply answering a statistical question.
"Even that's wrong"?? What's wrong by saying, that Charles was decked at least 29 times in his career? How is that wrong? Is Ezzard a HW? Well...
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I've never said he is wrong - for the simple reason, that there's no right or wrong, when it comes to these...
