Final Research Report 1 .Doc: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A. I’ve organized the tools below by phases, hope this helps:Planning (Outline) - It’s important that you create an outline of your pitch before you begin adding content/images/data to fill it out. These are the tools that I use:Evernote - Create a notebook, create a separate note for each “slide” that you plan on having in the final pitch deck. Collect information for each note. If you find that a specific note has too much information consider splitting that into two notes (and therefore, two final slides). If you find that a specific note has too little information consider combining it with another note. I like it over tools like Word because the notes sync pretty quickly to the cloud and I can access it easily on any device.DropBox Paper - I use this for business plans rather than pitch decks but thought I would include it here anyway. Its a little like Evernote meets Google Docs.Design - Once you’ve got your notes you can start designing your deck.At the moment its mostly still a choice between PowerPoint or Keynote. I use PowerPoint (even though I use a Mac) just because I’m more familiar with it, however I use Keynote if a client asks for it specifically.I do not recommend Prezi for business presentations.For some reason, I’ve never really liked the final “look” of a Google Slides presentation.I suppose you could use Adobe InDesign (we use it for our market research reports) but only if you are extremely proficient in Adobe.Feedback - This step is important as it can help you refine your deck before you send it out to potential partners, investors or customers.DocSend - Provides data analytics per slide such as which slides were viewed the longest and which ones people just skipped over. You can choose to interpret the data depending on the content/context of your deck but in general I find that if my readers are spending too much time on one slide then its better to split it into multiple slides so as not to overwhelm them. Similarly if I find them just skipping over a slide I consider eliminating it or combining that information with a different slide.If I remember any other tools I’ll add them to this list later. Best of luck!

I agree with Ayabulela Solombela, but I’ll list some further advantages/disadvantages:Advantages:Intellectual freedom. Mathematicians typically get to work on the problems they find important, not the problems that are important to a boss or a company.By contrast, I like my job as a patent lawyer. But from time to time I have meetings that last several hours, that involve marking each line of a 60+ line spreadsheet with either a 1, 2, or 3. I really “own” exactly two of those lines, and have very little to say about most of the others. So, there I am in those endless meetings…Staying young (at heart). In an academic environment, you are surrounded by undergrads and grad students. I believe this really does help professors hang on to a little bit of whimsy. Or, the flip side, you may also stay young at heart because you are somewhat sheltered from aspects of the corporate grind. You don’t have to get your TPS reports in before the 3:30 deadline, you don’t find yourself on a conference call you don’t belong in, etc.Interesting colleagues, especially outside the math department. At an office, you might learn that the guy down the hall is into Shakespeare. At a college, the guy down the hall might be an expert on Shakespeare. Okay, maybe Shakespeare isn’t your thing, but you get the point. You’re surrounded by experts on stuff. Even if 95% of people’s expertise isn’t interesting to you, that still leaves you with a lot to talk about.Credibility/status. This isn’t just an ego thing, although I think most professors can take a little bit of justified pride in having secured one of the precious few academia jobs. (Granted, some professors really overdo it.) Instead, when people know you’re a professor, people tend to treat you with a little bit more respect or deference, especially in (but not limited to) matters related to your area of expertise.Exit options. Let’s say the disadvantages described below finally do get to you, and you’ve had enough of academic life. Having a PhD in math and a stint in academia provide you with some pretty good exit options, from finance to software development to market research, and many points beyond.Disadvantages:The long, hard road to tenure. A lot of the advantages described above only apply (or only fully apply) to tenured faculty. Unless you’re a true stand-out, it’s hard to get there. Until you finally grab that brass ring, you have to work your ass off. Publish. Present at (and organize) conferences. Teach. Get funding. Make sure everyone likes you. Measured strictly in terms of man-hours, it’s as least as hard a job as any other corporate grind, if not harder. Presumably, some of that stuff is a labor of love, so it feels like less of a grind. If not, you’re in for some bad times. Relatedly…Politics. Until you have that untouchability that comes with tenure, you really have to make sure everyone likes you.Very little control over your whereabouts. Consider the trajectory of a mathematician: 4-5 years of grad school, followed by 1-2 post-docs, before you maybe get a tenure track job. By then, you’re in your early 30s. You may not know where in the world you’re going to live next year. Worse yet, you may have very little control over it. (“Great, the only tenure-track job opening this year in my field is at the University of Nowhere in Upper Fredonia. There will probably be 300 applicants.”) This may not stress you out personally, but perhaps by then you’ll have (or want) a spouse or children. Depending on your spouse’s profession, it might be impossible for them to find work in Upper Fredonia. This is especially problematic considering the…Relatively low pay. Take two recent college grads. One goes to grad school, post-docs, and eventually becomes a tenured professor. The other goes into “industry,” whatever that is. The professor earns essentially nothing during 5 years of grad school. Call it $20K/year. I haven’t checked lately, but post-docs are good for about $50K-60K / year. Junior faculty maybe $70K-80K / yr, going all the way up to mid-$100K / year for tenured faculty.On the other hand, starting salary for good software developers make $70-140K. Even if one stays a software developer (and does not transition into management or some other more lucrative job), it’s going to be a much nicer ride.It can be isolating. Once you’re at the frontiers of research, there are very few people who will know or care what you really do. Even your mathematical colleagues will only have a vague idea (and you’ll have only a vague idea about their research). Once you start talking to “civilians,” forget it. This may not seem like a big deal, but suppose one day you have an incredible breakthrough at the office. You come home, giddy and full of energy. You really want to tell your spouse the details of your masterful insight, but unfortunately your spouse usually won’t have any idea what you’re talking about.Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that mathematicians solve problems so they can go home and get congratulatory pats on the head. But most people want to share their successes with their loved ones, and it can be frustrating when it’s not possible to meaningfully do so.

Yes - it has definitely been proven to the satisfaction of virtually all experts, that the story was a bitter payback and attempt to demean Dempsey by dismissed Dempsey manager Doc Kearns, and it never happened.CREDIT PICTURE AMERICAN HISTORYSpecial Attribution credit: quotes and facts credited to: A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s by Roger Kahn; Heroes & Ballyhoo: How the Golden Age of the 1920s Transformed American Sports" By Michael K. Bohn. Other sources are the New York Times, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Times, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press and Topeka Daily Capital,The legend of “loaded gloves” came from two sources, first, the stories of Willard having multiple bones broken, teeth knocked out, et al. Second, the late life claims of embittered ex-Dempsey side man, Doc Kearns.First, the legend of loaded gloves depends on the terrible harm by Dempsey to Willard, only, the truth is, the injuries were not that bad…The beating Dempsey administered was simply not as bad as reportedThere is no question Jack Dempsey gave Jess Willard a savage beating, BUT there have been records unearthed that call into question whether that beating was as severe as everyone thought.A good source for this one is Roger Kahn's excellent book "A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s." Another is "Heroes & Ballyhoo: How the Golden Age of the 1920s Transformed American Sports" By Michael K. Bohn. Other sources are the New York Times, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Times, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press and Topeka Daily Capital, interviews with Willard in the three days following the fight.Willard entered the ring thinking he would dispose of the much smaller Dempsey easily. Willard had claimed that:“This will be the easiest fight of my career.”Obviously, he brought home nothing but a savage whopping.But it appears from the records that the injuries Willard suffered were not what have become enshrined in folklore, that Dempsey:“broke Willard ribs, knocked out his teeth, fractured his cheek and jaw, and smashed him into human rubble."On July 5, 1919, the day after the fight, the Associated Press reported:“The defeated champion said today the rumor that he was severely injured and that he was taken to a hospital were gross exaggerations. The only injury he suffered was a deep cut over the eye and a badly cut mouth. He did not lose any teeth or was his jaw fractured as reported."A day after the fight, the New York Times interviewed Willard at length, and speaking would have been very hard if his jaw really had been multiply fractured. Willard said:“Dempsey is a remarkable hitter. It was the first time that I had ever been knocked off my feet. I have sent many birds home in the same bruised condition that I am in, and now I know how they felt. I sincerely wish Dempsey all the luck possible and hope that he garnishes all the riches that comes with the championship. I have had my fling with the title. I was champion for four years and I assure you that they'll never have to give a benefit for me. I have invested the money I have made."In an interview on July 7, three days after the fight, the Kansas City Times announced that Jess and his wife were leaving Toledo and driving their car back to Lawrence, Kansas that day. His condition seemed to be fine:“The swelling over his left eye had entirely disappeared and the only mark he bore was a slight discoloration over the eye and a cut lip." ("Willard starts for Home,")Kansas City Times, July 8, 1919, p.10). A fourth reporter interviewed Jess in Chicago on his way home, four days after the fight:“Hello, Jess" said the reporter, "How do you feel ?" "Hello," said Willard, "I'm feeling great. Would you like to spar a few rounds?" (Kansas City Star, July 10, 1919, p. 10).A fifth reporter for the Topeka Daily Capital, on July 16, 1919, p. 8, 12 days after the fight, who interviewed Jess when he got back to Lawrence:“The ex-champion didn't have any black eye, nor any signs that he was injured in any way." He didn't seem to be missing any teeth, nor was his jaw injured.Both Kahn, when researching "A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s," and Bohn, when researching "Heroes & Ballyhoo: How the Golden Age of the 1920s Transformed American Sports" went looking for proof that Willard was hurt as badly as folklore said. What they found was nothing.The newspaper interviews with him the following days after the night obviously discredited the stories of broken bones - but there was more.There are no medical records, or hospital records, that support the claims that Willard's jaw was broken - he never went to a doctor!And he was sure was talking to reporters the day after the fight without any wires or anything showing a broken mandible! - or lost teeth, or broken ribs. He had some bruises.Doc Kearns made the loaded gloves accusation after Dempsey had fired himEven late in life, when Doc Kearns made the “loaded gloves” accusation in his memoirs, and the 82 year old Willard said he believed it, he did not claim he had any broken bones. He said his eyes were swollen shut and he was knocked down “4 or 5 times.”Jack “Doc” Kearns, Dempsey’s ex-manager, came out with his loaded gloves claims in the January 13, 1964 issue of the magazine Sports Illustrated, in an article titled, “He didn’t know the gloves were loaded.” The article related how Kearns was a:“wily trickster and a ruthless opponent when money was involved.”The article quoted Kearns claiming the following:“My plan had to do with a small white can sitting innocently among the fight gear on the kitchen table. I poured myself a nightcap and picked up the can, grinning at the neat blue letters on its side. All it said was “Talcum Powder”…I had bought another can of powder. This one was labeled “Plaster of Paris”…I placed the plaster of paris into the talcum powder can and replaced the lid. Set back among the fight gear –the bandages, the Vaseline, the razor blades, the cotton –it looked as innocent as any of them.”There are three things wrong with this story, first, Willard’s, chief second, Walter Moynahan was in Dempsey’s dressing room to make sure all was on the up and up, and Kearns claimed he simply fooled him, which is highly unlikely. Secondly, Kearns claimed Jack Dempsey knew nothing about it - and that he never noticed his gloves being heavier by far than usual; again, highly unlikely.Tests of what Kearns claimed he did revealed he lied through his teethBut third, his claims don’t hold water scientifically. Kearns claimed he used plaster of paris.Boxing Illustrated decided to duplicate what Kearns claimed he had done, and see if it actually worked. The results were laid out in detail in the May 1964 issue of Boxing Illustrated, pages 20-24,and 66. Hugh Benbow and Perry Payne, the manager and trainer of Cleveland Williams, respectively, used plaster of paris on Cleveland's hands and reenacted what Kearns said occurred in Dempsey's dressing room. After 35 minutes of toasting to reenact the 114-degree heat of Toledo that day, Cleveland Williams hit the heavy bag five times. Benbow examined the wraps and found that the plaster had cracked and crumbled. "This stuff." said Cleveland Williams emphatically, "wouldn't do anybody any good."The Boxing Illustrated test was scientific proof that the plaster of paris would not have held up after the first punch, it would have crumbled and left chunks in his mitts and the one injured would have been Dempsey, whose hands would have been shredded.In addition, the inventor of plaster of paris issued a statement as to the impossibility of using plaster of paris without breaking all the bones in the hands. Dempsey’s hands were not hurt in any way during the fight, and he punched away with power the entire time.Pictures show what Kearns claimed couldn’t have happened, and Dempsey’s hands showed none of the signs of having worn loaded glovesCREDIT MONTE COX, COX’S CORNER AND BOXING ILLUSTRATEDSee above, Williams hands were a mess after doing what Kearns claimed he did.CREDIT MONTE COX AND ANTIQUITIES OF THE PRIZE RING PHOTO ARCHIVEOn the other hand, see above, what pictures of Dempsey’s hands we have from that day are fine and simply prove Kearns tale to be a hoax to show how smart he was, and how stupid Jack was!Finally, anyone who took the kind of mythic beating Willard supposedly did would never have fought again - and Willard did.Although the 37 1/2 year old Willard retired after the Dempsey fight, it was age that inspired it, not any beating. Also, 4 years later, at 41, Willard came out of retirement for two fights because promoter Tex Rickard offered him a small fortune for Willard to make a comeback, fighting Floyd Johnson as part of the first line-up of boxing matches at the newly opened Yankee Stadium in New York City.Willard was basically paid to be a curiosity that everyone expected to lose. But old Jess fooled them - 63,000 people were at the festivities, which the 41-year-old Willard was widely expected to lose. However, after Willard was battered for several rounds, he came back to knock down Johnson in the 9th and 11th rounds, and Willard earned a TKO victory. Damon Runyon wrote afterward:“Youth, take off your hat and bow low and respectfully to Age. For days and days, the sole topic of conversation in the world of sport will be Willard's astonishing comeback."Willard followed up this victory by facing contender Luis Ángel Firpo on July 12, 1923, again, as Willard bluntly said:“the money was too good to turn down!"The fight was held at Boyle's Thirty Acres in New Jersey, with a crowd of over 75,000 in attendance. Willard was knocked out in the eighth round, and then permanently retired from boxing.Dempsey did not use loaded gloves, but others have, and not that long ago.Loaded gloves happened back then, and they still probably happen today, (see Margarito and Luis Resto) but Dempsey didn’t use them. They were not used in the Willard fight.CREDIT TO:A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s by Roger KahnAssociated Press July 5, 1919Boxing Illustrated, May 1964 issue; pages 20-24,and 66.Chicago TribuneHeroes & Ballyhoo: How the Golden Age of the 1920s Transformed American Sports by Michael K. BohnKansas City Star July 7, 1919Kansas City Times July 8, 1919New York Times July 5, 1919Sports Illustrated January 13, 1964 issueTopeka Daily Capital July 16, 1919