You're right. It was a year, Carpentier on July2nd 1921, then he fought exhibitions in 1922 and fought Gibbons of July 4th 1923, only a year. Dunno where three years came from... He did hurt Gibbons in the fight, Tommy said had Jack known it, he would be finished. Not a great performance from, Dempsey but a good performance/win. His stamina was pretty good and there was some good infighting. I think I've seen klompton say gibbons was still prime in 1923, which makes the win abit better.
Well stated. And they fought in the afternoon heat in Shelby, Montana. Right after the fight Jack Kearns, Dempsey and the proceeds of the fight skedaddled on a special train,ahead of the posse chasing them...
The choice in the poll with the most votes is a straight "B" for his title reign. I went for "C+" .... two notches behind the most popular choice ..... maybe I underrate Jack Dempsey ?!
Actually when you average everything with a numeric score (A+ being a 10, down to D being 1) it comes to 2.75, which is just a shade under the C you voted for. I'd say you were on par with the majorities opinion on this. :good
HATER but at least his championship resume is vastly superior to Lennox Lewis resume which is a dubious win over Old Holyfield, a win over the shell of Mike Tyson and the luckiest victory in heavyweight history via Vitali
More people think he is a B- or higher then a C+ and lower on this forum. 30 people have voted B- or higher and 21 have voted C+ or lower.
You can get a lot of bad votes that way. People will just vote higher or lower to bring the average more where they think it should be.
I can't change they way people have voted bro. Whether you or I think he should be higher or lower, this is how it breaks down. What sucks is the people who I disagree most with (those who voted A+ or D), none of them have put forth an argument to back their claim. Im pretty comfortable the average is where it should be whether I agree or disagree with the arguments put forth.
Maybe averging the votes is a good thing to do. Just seems to go by what the majority of posters think is a good way of determining things also. About 60% of people voting in the poll thought his title reign was a B- or higher. You say the results of the poll show his title reign is under a C+. 70% of the voters in the poll rated his title reign higher then what you say the results show.
Ok, A+ is worth 10 down to a D which is worth 1 point. A+ has 2 votes which =20 points A has 1 vote which = 9 points A- has 2 votes which =16 points B+ has 5 votes which = 35 points B has 15 votes which = 90 points B- has 5 votes which = 25 points C+ has 6 vote which = 24 points C has 5 vote which = 15 points C- has 6 votes which = 12 points D has 4 votes which = 4 points This comes to a total of 250 points. Divide that by the 10 options and it comes out to 25. Divide 25 by 10 and it = 2.5 2.5 on this scale is between a C- and a C. Lol, math has never been my strong suit so maybe Im wrong, but this is how it breaks down for me.
Why would you divide the number a second time? And shouldn't you really be dividing by the number of people voting (which would give you 4.9) rather than the number of options?
Like I said, Im not sure on this. But haven't the number of people been counted by the tally of votes?
your telling lies again.. i voted A+ and i put forward my case for voting as such, yet whenever anyone puts forward a case or any evidence to back up their case you "Rubbish" all links and trash their case as being garbage, you claim every boxing historian who ever lived is wrong and that you are right yet you yourself never ever put up a case for your side of the debate because most times you never have a case to put forward.. your whole agenda is built on HATE of fighters pre-1999 with the exception of Tommy Morrison who you claim to be "up there with the All time Greats of this sport" .. you even claim fighters themselves to be "biased & liars"
