It's the era mcvey, overselling sex, mainly soft modern athletes, and no respect to the old school. Same here. Would love to read stories/important career info of boxers like Greb, Sullivan, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Armstrong,etc.
Darcy has as much right to be considered middleweight champion as any of the NBA titleholders in the 30's. Not sure about Top 10 all-time, though I have inserted him into the 10th slot before, but he's a lock for Top 20 at middleweight based on what he did and who he fought, imo. It's the one revision in the list that I actually welcome. That being said, if we're simply rating middleweight champions and their reigns, I think there are much better choices than Abraham and wouldn't even consider the thought of rating Sturm based on the fact that his reign hasn't ended yet (let alone his quality of opposition durins his tenure as WBA champ).
Hell, why not include Bob Fitzsimmons? He held the MW Title and he was World Champ at LHW and HW. If he can beat good LHWs and HWs he can surely beat some good MWs.
He never defended the middleweight or LH claims though. Darcy did, with great frequency for a two year period. And he was so successful at it that he was considered to have usurped the position of the lineal titleholder, Al McCoy. No issue with this choice...Darcy is way underrated these days.
Anyone looking into mw history without bias should greatly appreciate what darcy achieved and how good if looks on film (no homo)
Langford's fight in England, according to Clay Moyle's book, quoting local reporter James Butler of Mirror of Life, was for the middleweight championship of England, not of World. I saw no mentions of Langford's bouts with Larry Temple (using Boston Herald and Boston Journal) or Young Peter Jackson (using LA Herald, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Denver Post) being mentioned as for the middleweight championship of the world. If those bouts are what his middleweight claim was based on, that is.
Hugman actually has it for the coloured world title. With only Fitzsimmons being a generally recognized world Middleweight champ pre 1916. This content is protected
Don't be a prat, you can create any criteria you want - it's as Tbooze stated. If it's not fighter specific it's unjustifiable. If you're so stupid as to think this is justifiable, re-read the list. Only explanation is that you didn't read it properly, and you look far more stupid than the guy who looked more stupid than the guy who wrote it. Stupid.
"Great champions" doesn't mean chronological length of reign or number of defenses. There's too much else there between the lines. Anyone not realizing that a Jake Lamotta or a Dick Tiger would kill, gut, and eat Felix Sturm inside eight rounds needs to find another sport to watch.
Eight rounds? I respect you Sal, but what has this mf ever done to deserve stepping in the ring with either of those dudes? Gatekeeper, guts them.
I don't care about the list. I've seen plenty of stupid lists from supposed serious historians. If you were reading CBZ forum, you should know one example already, coming from IBRO itself.
Please, you have embarrassed yourself in my thread enough. If you plan on making more embarrassing, self-serving posts, open your own embarrassing thread. Thanks.
The only thing I've done in this thread was I proved I could actually pay attention to what's written, instead of inventing things that were never ever said in the write-up.