Top 50 Middleweight of all Time

No you sure aren't high on Darcy but yes he should be above Klaus and i like Klaus a lot and have done a thread on Klaus's book on infighting but there is no film so we know more about Darcy and we know Darcy was a great infighter and also great on the outside just from film evidence alone. Klaus sure should be in your list too I won't dispute that.

 

Les darcy beat at least the same level of fighters as Yarosz did and as many, looks like I have to go back to his record, even the four losses he had 3 are disputed and yet he still gets revenge on all three guys who had wins over him, Whitelaw (Les was 16 when he lost that one) Holland (he was just 18) and Smith (Les was maybe past his 19th at the time).... then after his last loss which was nothing more than a DQ he then has a stunning run winning nearly half of his 50 fights without loss and without any controversy, he just got better and better. So to the names..... Chip KO in 9, Clabby two 20 round points decisions, He KO's dave Smith twice, Crouse KO in 2, Costica (yeah a nobody), Les O'Donnell (another not so good), KO Brown by decision 20, Harold Hardwicke KO 7 (he was a heavyweight ), McGoorty twice KO 8 and KO 15, Billy Murray twice (fight over by 6th and other by decision), Fred Dyer ko 6, Mick King KO 10, Jeff Smith destroyed in 5, Fritz Holland twice (20 rd decision and KO 130, Demlin KO 5 and Loughrey DEC 20........................................................ ............................. .......... so the names there are McGoorty, Clabby, Chip, Crouse, King, Jeff Smith, Dave Smith, KO Brown, Clabby and Crouse all top level guys with McGoorty, Clabby, Chip, Brown and J Smith all big names, yeah some were not so good like Demlin and Costica and O'Donnell (another heavyweight I believe) but he was fighting very often. He won his last 23 fights (these are the guys above), Between his loss to Smith (very controversial btw) and his fight with Chip from the 23rd of January 1915 and the 30th september is what ?... 20 months and yet he has 23 fights all meant to be over 20 rounds, he was born on the 31st of October 1815 and yet his last fight is in January 1915 so he is only 19 years old at the time, is that record more meaningful to you now ????? Then we should at least take the word of those who should know just how exceptional Darcy was, his opponents.. fighters being fighters sometimes tell pork pies, Jeff Smith and McGoorty sure did but the rest all said he was incredible, inhumanly strong...... Maybe you could rate him higher, I could go on with more but surely Les Darcy was one of the greats even at age 20 ?

 

as well as what I just posted a few seconds ago I PM'd you as well,

 

Read the PM mate I wrote to you to explain my initial reactions, as for your question I never saw any footage of teddy so there is much mystery there and I have never heard him described as an all time great unlike so much I have heard of Darcy, I think les would still beat him despite resume's, I rate him very high as you may have guessed, i know more about Darcy than I do the back of my right hand.

 

You make some valid points here and these are exactly my problem with people using ONLY resume to rank fighters, too many of the resume lists don't delve deep enough and most seem to just scratch the surface like putting a bunch of names up which on the surface look great but forget who was "over the hill' and "who was not yet in the bigtime and fully matured into prime", "who had bad injuries that changed a fight"....... "who was making a comeback after a large layoff" and other factors. I think too many do not use film evidence enough, yes many earlier fighters don't have film so then we need to go to newspaper reports and another thing I find very important.... how did their contemporaries rate them... were they really famous in their prime or are they guys who suddenly develop big reputations generations later like Burley and these "murderers row guys". Some fighters had huge reputations in their prime and were thought of by many as all time greats...... many of the fighters in this list do not fit the latter category no matter how hard some people may try to make them bigger then they were when they were alive. We must accept that all such lists are flawed to some degree, some are just ridiculous like many I see on facebook these days...... :bbb

 

hopkins and cerdan could drop a tier for me.

i was gonna say mcallum should be higher but it depends how are you approaching 147-154lb fights? ketchell fought mw fights where both made 154, but they were called mw, while mcallum fought the same weight but the name had light in front.

 

I did send one, something has gone amiss, sorry i will try to resend

 

oops I actually sent to the wrong bloke, I sent to McVey.... lol

 

Now you have one :yeplol:

 

Most of Cerdans wins were against French and Europeans most of us would know little about so as far as resume goes i wouldn't have him very high................. that is until I see the man fight on film and then I understand perfectly why he should be rated high,,, oh man a hell of a puncher, fantastic skills and speed and he is very tough as well, when I watch him fight he thrills me, he was an exciting fighter, another great middleweight who tragically left us way too young and he had great taste in women too.... mmmmmmmmm yummy.

 

How about Darcy compared to, say, Dempsey? Does Nonpareil (2 tires higher!) really have a resume that is better than Darcy's?