Any Middleweights you'd favor over Sam Langford?

The weights for Papke-Smith 1 were unannounced, so how do you know Smith was under the limit. It was also a non-title fight scheduled at 165. Smith himself stated he hadnt won the title and would like a shot. This, combined with the more definitive result of their rematch pretty much blows any claim Smith had to a title at best. McCoy may not have been a satisfactory champion but neither were Braddock, Douglas, or plenty of others. He was still the man who beat the man. Darcy was not. Darcy's title and the lineage of that title were nothing but a promoters creation to sell tickets in australia. Even Papkes claim, as having derived from ketchel, was tenuous at best. Klaus had defeated both he and ketchel in nd fights and also held wins over men far more established than dave or jeff smith. Hence the tournament in france which klaus won. By the time Darcy's fake title was conjured mike gibbons had a better claim than Darcy as well since he had beaten all of Darcy's best opponents before Darcy got to them barring chip, including a victory over mccoy who refused to defend against him. In fact Gibbons was so highly regarded as the uncrowned champion that mccoy, as champion, fought on one of his undercards. So no, Darcy was never a champion.

 

Thete is a big difference between having no feeling whatsoever towards australia, and having ill feeling toward ut/them. You are such a jingoist and worship your flag and all under it to such an extent that anyone who doesnt share you warped sense of reality is against you. I assure, im not, i think of australia the same way i think of canada. Its there and im sure its a nice place to visit.

 

You don't want to make enemies yet you say my list sucks and again question my knowledge.

Why does he have to be top 100? There's been many fighters since he who have beaten better fighters.

He might well be one of the best prospects in history but he never reached that top level.

 

total ****..... never reached the top level, that is downright bloody insulting.... what the hell is wrong with you lot here ?

 

He was never the champion nor the best in the world.

Langford was the best LHW in a defunct division but he dominated the divisional champion.

McFarland was the best LW and WW for a number of years but was denied his shot.

During Darcy's era he had to contend with a horrifically protected champion and a phenom in Gibbons who was regarded as a p4p god during his prime.

Darcy was a terrific prospect but unfortunately that's all he achieved.

I am not insulting Darcy. As I said earlier, if someone doesn't see Bruno as a great fighter I would not take offence.

 

Yep he was the best in the world, Mike Gibbons was certainly good but most common opponents though darcy would beat him and no way in hell Gibbons could knock Darcy out, Darcy though was not interested in ND fights and wanted a proper fight with Gibbons. You are just scratching the surface... and I don't meant to say you have no knowledge of boxing history either but there is so much more. My problem is that Americans have so often lied to darken his name or to simply try make him irrelevant and to suggest he is a nobody, a smear campaign and I can see by what you have written that they have won.... the old american problem... how dare anyone ever even dare to suggest someone is better than a yank... sure you are probably from the UK but you have only got the american side of the story no matter if you don't intend it...

 

Anyway if the cancer hasn't killed me by then, i will part company with you guys for a few months or so but I have little desire to argue forever..... goodbye all.

 

I always had fun considering this as a fan of both!!!
Two of the greatest to never get a chance for a title...

 

Greb was one hell of a man...amazing.

 

I've seen both filmed in their prime and I conclude Gibbons had far greater talent.

Your anti-American agenda is a bit boring now.

When you put all nationalistic bias to one side you are left with a good prospect who beat a small handful of contenders but never secured a shot against the very best in the world. Maybe he would have been a great, maybe not. We'll never know.

 

"A special condition In connection with
the match was that each boxer should
weigh at least 11 stone 11lb (165 pounds) at the ringside...

...the scales were not allowed to
disclose tho exact poundages of the pair...

I don't think there was a
great deal of difference in the avoirdupois
of tho two, but Papke must have beat the
line drawn by perhaps a pound at most,
and Smith was probably a couple or three
pounds inside." -Referee, Sydney NSW December 28, 1910.

"Both men were weighed here at. 8 o'clock,
and they; are 11st 11lb." -Sydney Evening News December 27, 1910.

Clearly they were over the weights. Now, you could argue that, like the Chip-Klaus fights and some others at this time that were considered championship affairs, the weights were sort of secondary given the wild west nature of the sport at the time but that does your case no favors anyway because their rematch held a few months later was also set for 165 and Papke won by KO, which, if using the same standard means the title reverted back to him anyway. Your lineage was a mess from beginning to end anyway. Even if you discount the entire way it "created" you had the title essentially sit in repose for years until they dusted it off when the Americans returned to Australia. McGoorty knocked out Smith twice in those "title fights" after having already obliterated him in New York earlier. He then "beat" Jeff Smith in defense but when the crowd threatened to riot the decision was reversed. Smith then "defended" against Clabby in a fight with a similar result only this time the decision wasnt reversed and the "lost" the title to King in yet another controversial decision. That title was no more legitimate than the WBO was in the late 1980s and early 1990s unless you also think that Damiani was the HW champion...

 

If Darcy wanted a fight with Gibbons so bad why did he turn down a purse that was at least 4 times larger than the largest purse he had ever made to fight him and fired his manager to get out of the contract that was signed on his behalf?? We've been down this road before and youve never been to adequately defend your case before you inevitably disappear for a year before your next return to start blabbing on about Darcy and Griffo again and the illuminati plots against them and their legacies.

 

Last thing I wanted to do was be forced to come back and post but Papke was clearly no longer a MW... Al McCoy was clearly no champion, I have researched all of this, I am not the dummy you think I am or want me to be, I am not calling you one so lets treat this subject with some decorum and respect , finding facts about all this is tough as so much of this is rare, hell even the biggest fight in Australia during the 40's I cannot find a single newspaper report from the time. Boxrec has some information and a lot of this came from there, going through the fight careers of every fighter involved, Al McCoy seems to shape up as one of the worst fighters of the time, a guy with zero defense, a very solid chin, a good punch but even when he claims he won the title the other guy was overweight, Boxrec says some of his later fights the title was apparently on the line and also that the newspapers all say he lost ever single one of those fights and was made to look useless every time against all comers, his record is as bad as any I have seen from any "name" fighter.... even a young Greb who was nowhere near his peak beat him so bad that apparently Greb did a Griffo in one fight and never had a glove laid on him.... so that get's McCoy out of the picture. Yes I know Boxrec is not perfect and I also know why you might not like Boxrec seeing as though you are banned there,... or so i am told............. As for this Gibbons thing, I know that Darcy was furious that the O'Sullivan guy had signed on his behalf for a stupid ten round ND fight which Darcy had told him was NOT ON... he wanted a real fight... and there was no title involved either, a shame because Darcy was fully equipped as a huge chance to beat Mike who seems to have had his best days behind him. Jack Kearns had warned Darcy about the crooks in America that infested the sport and yes, not going earlier to America was a huge blunder. I do like your term about the sport being of a "wild west" feel because that is certainly true. I am not here to put down any of the top fighters like Mike Gibbons and you should not be going out of your way to put Darcy down, it seems we both have respect for Langford..... who this thread is about. I don't think many MWs ever beat him, maybe none can, this is a guy who beat the likes of Joe Jeanette who was a lot bigger than these guys and Langford. Langford himself was impressed by Darcy and so was Kearns and many many others say Darcy was great and i will take their word anyday.

 

As for my "disappearance", it's due to terminal cancer, I actually feel as if Joe Jeanette, Les Darcy, Harry Greb and Sam Langford have been taking turns punching me in the solar plexus, I am a lot of pain a lot of the time and I try not to go where stress is highly prevalent like this joint, I shouldn't have to defend Darcy's legacy, I wish Tony Hood and all the other Aussies were here with me but you have given all of them the ****s so bad they want nothing to do with the joint. One other thing about Darcy, unlike you I have actually met blokes who actually saw some of Darcy's fights. Of course they are now dead but they were very much alive back in the late 70's and the 80's when I met and spoke to them about Darcy.

 

I see it this way largely but I'm not sure about Gibbons having far greater talent. They employed different styles with Darcy fighting probably more at short range and inside than Gibbons whose movement and ability at longer range (from the limited amount that I've seen) looked better than Les'.

To be fair though the best Darcy on film is the Chip fight (which looked like it was shot from a kilometre away which detracts from its quality somewhat) which was Darcy's final fight. Without having seen the KO I thought Darcy dominated this fight largely and he impressed me particularly defensively which is something he wasn't really noted for.

As an Australian a lot of the Darcy mystique is the soap opera story and tragedy of doomed youth that he embodies (which is strange considering the thousands upon thousands of equally young men we lost on the battle fields of France and Belgium at the same time) and the fact Australia as a small and isolated country puts its sportspeople on a ridiculously high pedestal at times whether their performances warrant it or not.

Do I think Darcy was unproven?
No I think he beat a very solid list of fighters at a very young age usually impressively.

Do I think he was one of the all time greats?
No because he didn't do enough especially compared to the likes of Greb, Ketchel (who I think Darcy actually looks much better than on film though), Monzon, Hagler etc

Do I think he could have been one of the best ever?
Who knows he could've been a boom or a bust in America. We've had exports over there be both.