Darcy versus SRR

You call everybody liars don't you...... he's American,,, you said only Aussies say that.... you call Mick King a liar, he was there, and you can't prove it.... Mick King would knock you out in 2 seconds...... and stop your hatred....... you dare to say you love Darcy,... pffftt. You have tried to revive the smear campaign which was the source of 99 % of every anti -Darcy report ever given, you believe all that smearing related writing during that time. AND you fail to recognise that US newspapers were fiiled to the brim with some real liars.

 

Where are you from ???....... so I can trash your useless pathetic nation (wherever the **** it is)............... Better yet tell me what city or town..... it must be a shithole.

 

That's not what I was talking about... are you denying that Darcy told the useless shitbag to get lost ??...... are you denying their rift ?????....... and the papers were biased against Darcy,,.... thanks to McInWanker. ......... Are you denying there was a anti-Darcy campaign...... which suited Gibbons and McCoy........ If you are trying to prove Darcy was not a great fighter, you are wasting your time. I notice that the only Darcy fight report on your site, was one with some negativity........ why don't you post some of the good reports...... there's one in particular from the New Zealand truth, about McGoorty V Darcy #2 fight. I think it's time that your site has some decent Darcy fights. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incidentally, I love your site and I read there a lot, it's very, very good, I just wish you respected him fairly.

 

Klompton,

Are you trying to make the point that if Darcy had come to fight Gibbons, or Greb i suppose, that because the fight was in America and not australia, you cant rule out the possibility of a Jeff Fenech - Azumah Nelson style decision? If so, this is a fair and interesting point you raise.

 

In this instance where we know where Bob Laga was when Darcy was supposedly sparring with Fulton, yes, Im calling Laga a liar. Bob Laga was travelling with Mexican Joe Rivers at the time in question and never made it further east than Ohio. Darcy left Goshen (where this sparring match supposedly took place) on March 19. On that same day Laga and Rivers were still in the midwest where they had been all winter. However, Laga was in California when Mick King sold that story to the local papers and thats likely where he picked it up because he wasnt within 1000 miles of Goshen when Darcy and Fulton could have sparred there.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Fenech-Nelson 2 but Nelson wasnt exactly fighting on home turf either so...

 

Mate I have the same information basically..... once you have that information it's how you INTERPRET IT... I have a problem with his interpretation, ------------------------------------------ He started out with one motive only, and that was to "PROVE" that Darcy was simply the worst fighter in history and to "PROVE" that Aussies are the dregs of the earth. Can't you see that. I'm not a writer of books and didn't do well in English,...... It would take as long to write a refutation as he's done with his book. You must realize that calling us names is not the way to go. He may be good at collecting data but his lack of actual boxing (is he a pro-boxer ???_.... knowledge. his theories are laughable......... If Ray Swanwick was alive, the four or five Darcy fans here could sit back and laugh at Klomptons assertions.

 

Actually I didnt start with one agenda. Indeed I started much like you from the standpoint of a fan, particularly after watching the extent footage on Darcy. However, much like my criticisms of Dempsey, my "interpretation" (as you put it) comes from the fact that there was a lot that went left unsaid about both men (for different reasons) after their careers ended which has skewed the public perception of them. You see the same sort of backlash from hero worshippers when you criticise Dempsey. The myth becomes their reality and thats a hard thing to let go of. What most here dont realise is that I started out years ago as a Dempsey fan, before I had ever heard of Harry Greb. It was through my interest in Dempsey that I discovered Greb. I used to buy up everything related to Dempsey. One day I picked up a magazine with an article about this little squirt who chased Dempsey all over the ring. This peaked my interest and years and years later you have someone who started out as a massive fan of Dempsey and ended up being a critic. Now, regardless of what some might believe Im still a big fan of Dempseys, and Im still a big fan of Darcy's, but I also make the caveat that both men's actual accomplishments and lives have been overshadowed by years and years of mythologizing and hero worship. I like the guys, I just try to keep them in their proper perspective.

With Darcy, for the longest time I basically accepted the stories. But as I would research and read contemporary accounts I would often find things (mark that word: often) that were troubling and divergant from the accepted mythology. The more I read the more interested I became and the more I realized that a lot of Darcy's story has been glossed over. Some of the criticisms were unfair to be certain, but a lot of those criticisms were basically lost after he died in the manner he did, likely out of the belief that we should not speak ill of the dead. Another factor is that how many biographers, even of the best, actually know, in depth, of his time here in the United States? How many of them have read the stories of people who met and interviewed him, ate with him, watched him, etc while on his vaudville tour in places like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc? How many have read all of the information from his time from Memphis, or his time in Chicago with the family of Freddie Gilmore, or his time at Goshen? Im not talking about just a dusting of source material here and there, Im talking about comprehensive research, every paper, every day, looking for later interviews and so on. None. Swanwick, Champion, Park, none of them did that and they freely admitted their limitations. Some spent some time here, but not to the extent Im talking and for the most part they relied heavily on interviews with Darcy's travelling companions which itself gives a skewed portrayal. Its this meat and potatoes that gives us a real insight into the Darcy story and his persona, not the stories about the boy who was being lead around by his nose by Stadiums LTD, Baker, and his family. Once Darcy got here and began to act on his own accord you really got to see what he was made of, how he thought, and what his true colors were. Once he died that all stopped and the eulogies began and havent really ended to this day.

 

Have to agree with a lot of that...we idolise our heroes and if they died before their time then god help anyone that dares to criticise them

 

Exactly, Im not saying Darcy sucked, not at all. Ive even said all things being equal Id favor him over Greb in early 1917. My point was that while its possible we never saw the best of Darcy, its also possible we never saw the worst of him.

Theres a lot of mythologizing that goes on with Greb too and I have no problem admitting that. Some of it was to his benefit and a lot was to his detriment. The main thing is getting to the bottom of all of that and shedding some accuracy on those stories. A lot of people dont like that, theyd rather keep the myths. Ive just always been one of those people that thinks the truth is better than fiction.

 

salvador sanchez would have moved up and beaten arguello, going on to become a top 10 all time great

stanley ketchel would have shown a dramatic second career, beating sam langford and moving up to heavyweight and winning the title

edwin valero would have challenged and knocked out manny pacquiao at 140. tops the p4p list with a follow up win over timothy bradley

now...prove me wrong

 

rated as americas best ever heavyweight NEVER to fight for the title, fred fulton was knocked cold by darcy in 2 rounds in a spar.

it happened in the USA, no crowd, no ref. no doubt krumdon is a pig faced, smelly arsed, homosexual, child desiring, ****** son of a slut who ****s her brothers.

 

Do you have any sources you can cite to back this claim? Because I've never heard anyone consider him as such.

 

I would like to hear any logical rebuttals of this, because it is a rock solid, compelling argument.