Any Middleweights you'd favor over Sam Langford?

Sorry Mc, I didn't read the previous posts. Glad we are on the same page...

 

I'm not playing any game . I'm flat out making a statement .. Langford at 160 was better than Norfolk at 175, just as strong, just as well conditioned, faster, harder hitting, had a better chin and a longer reach than the 175 pound Norfolk who was a disaster for Greb. He has the same skills that tortured Greb but more so. That's putting aside how both did against the Kid head to head when Harry fought for his life but a fat, old and visibly impaired Langford crushed him. You can spin it how you like but that's my point.

 

No censure intended, I was just saying we are on the same page.:good

 

Tortured Greb? What? Thumbing him in the eye? Unless Ive read the reports wrong it was Kid Norfolk who spent a week in the hospital after he fought Greb and cancelled all of his scheduled fights afterwards as well. It was Greb who had Norfolk in a corner covering up for dear life and battering him when the final bell rang. Who was getting tortured LOL. Like I said, Greb was a lot better than many if not all of the guys that troubled Sam, particularly at 160. Just because fighter A. does better against fighter B. than fighter C. doesn't mean he beats fighter C. Nevermind that you are basing your opinion on Greb's performance against a guy who weighed 180 pounds and thumbed him in the eye to the point of blinding him in a fight that half the ringside accounts still think he won and all admit that he was in charge at the end. Seems an odd measuring stick. Either way, its a good competitive fight and that would have to seen in the ring to determine the outcome. If Greb could handle Langfords power or avoid it (and both were possibilities) then Id favor him on the cards at the end.

 

Its not a debate. Debates are two sided and you haven't offered anything beyond a hero worshippers OPINION and some revisionist history that is in no way grounded in fact. When hit with the very real fact that Papke-Smith was not a title fight you crawl into a shell. But your whole belief that Darcy was a champion is rooted in the idea that Smith won the title from Papke and then somehow retained it when he was KOd a few months later.

Pointing out that your arguments are not based in fact or grounded in reality isn't attacking your character. Its attacking your mental state. You've done enough to show your own character by going after anyone who doesn't believe the sun shines out Darcy's ass like a rabid dog and ignoring the fact that there are/were a lot of questions surrounding him that went unanswered when he died.

He could have lost EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS FIGHTS and still knocked out George Chip for the title and be a champion. That's how it works. Championships are won and lost in the ring. Not anointed by Snowy Baker and Hugh Mc'Intosh.

Maybe. He might have been indeed but Dave Smith never beat a champion in a championship fight. So Dave Smith wasn't the champion. Harry Greb was the best LHW and MW for YEARS before he ever got a shot at a title. Other fighters can claim the same. I don't just award them the championship because I think they were better. Those fights are fought in the ring, not in your imagination.

What am I wrong about? You said Darcy was a champion. You said his championship was derived from Dave Smith's claim. I proved to you using your own precious Sydney newspaper that this was categorically not the case. Why would I concede that point? Im not here to stroke your ego or prop up your hero.

If your "work" is you spewing more revisionist bull**** that isn't grounded in fact then your imaginary friends are as stupid as you are.

And the one fight he lost was the one that mattered. Funny how that works. Had Darcy fought McCoy and knocked him out he would have been a champion. And if a cane toad had wings it woudnt bump its ass a hoppin.

Im sure you unique take on reality will be missed :nut

Darn, I was hoping to have a long meaningful discussion with you. Its never happened before but a guy can dream...

Oh no a bunch of a people Ive never met and never will don't like me. Im wounded sir, wounded to the core.

 

What a load of ****, not worth any other reply, waste of time talkin to liars

 

Wouldn't have mattered, McCoy got butt kicked 22 times yet you call the bum a champ.... go see a doctor and get your prescription pal, you are off your medication

 

best you never meet some of them too, you would not like the result, by all means visit Australia just don't go to any fights and announce your name, that would be dumb.

 

Foreman was far from the best HW in 95 but by virtue of his one punch against Moorer. There were other men around who had whipped him, others who had title claims, others who would have beaten him with fair judges.

But there was no one else who knocked out the reigning champion. The champion isn't always the best. Al McCoy was far from the best. He won't be remembered as a great fighter. He will be remembered as the first southpaw MW champion and he will be remembered as the champion who hid behind ND fights and he will be remembered as a champion.

Darcy nor Gibbons were champions. Both were clearly better than McCoy. Gibbons was better imo by some distance.

 

I have already stated that McCoy's opponent, Chip was overweight and therefore the title not supposed to be on the line...... another fact here (and Klompton either knows this fact and refuses to mention it because he is a lying scammer or he doesn't know it and therefore not half as good as he thinks he is)..... at the time most of the boxing fraternity REFUSED to acknowledge McCoy as champion and they were certainly right to do so. Now I do not want to poke fun at a brave man and it's not my intention but because the number one Les Darcy hater on earth.... Stephen Compton (Klompton) has always gone out of his way to trash the memory, legacy of Darcy including twisting words around to make anyone with a good word about Darcy look bad I have to pull out facts to refute him and that means I have to start with McCoy....... I also know it's a waste of time debating the hater as he will ignore any legitimate points I make but I also know that he isn't trying to convert me but playing to the audience here and trying to convert them for his agenda.... what is his agenda ??? probably to make Greb look better by trashing the only guy who could have become better than Harry ever became (if he had lived of course)........................ Foreman is a different case... he only had to lose once to lose that title..... no KO needed, just to win, in McCoy's case he not only loses nearly every fight he had since the Chip fight but he wasn't entitled to the title in the first place and most of the boxing world refused to ever give him recognition..... another point not often noted is that the middleweight title has more often had two belts than one belt on offer...... in the 30's and 40's there were often two titles as the NY people wanted to hold on to the rights of the title at all costs. So in most of history to become UNDISPUTED champ... (and yes Les Darcy was never that, but neither were McCoy and Gorilla Jones and many many others). you had to beat all claimants... I also find this incredible that people from this day and age can argue the claims of a truly great fighter when in this day and age we have nearly a dozen world champs in most divisions... it is PURELY HYPOCRITICAL.... and it really does stink of BIAS......

 

Wait, so its ok for Papke AND Dave Smith to be overweight and have the title change hands just so Darcy can be champion but if someone else has a claim that negates Darcy's under the same circumstances its not ok. I see. Let me get this straight: Papke and Dave Smith have a fight in Australia that is not for the championship and weights are expressley written into the contract to prevent a championship changing hands. Papke is DQd and magically, according to you, its a title changing event. Then Papke comes back and under the same circumstances knocks Dave Smith out (surely a more satisfactory and conclusive result) but somehow Dave Smith retains the title for it to pass to Darcy years later (even though this never happened). Then years later Al McCoy makes weight against the champion and knocks him out but because that fight actually breaks your argument and lineage (and is accepted by the majority then and now) it doesnt count. Who is a biased hypocrite?

Untrue. Most is a strong word. Some resented his championship because of his poor quality, or others refused to acknowledge him (without acknowledging anyone else), but in reality the majority of press acknowledged his claim. I can cite literally hundreds of sources for this around the country and the world in fact. I dont know that anyone was really thrilled to have McCoy as a champion particularly given the ND law at the time that he exploited BUT he was grudgingly given credit for it. Why else would the majority of the world acknowledge O'Dowd's claim when he finally knocked McCoy out, or Wilson or Greb or Flowers? Maybe youre perception is warped by the fact that you have only looked for sources which cater and sell to the Australian public but the wide world did acknowledged Les Darcy far less than McCoy as champion and by a great deal less.

I havent seen where you have refuted anything. You havent cited a single fact. In fact your claim that Darcy's claim was derived from Smith was blown to **** by your own sources. Furthermore if not worshipping Darcy is the same hating then I guess I hate him. In reality I think he was a good contender who had potential but still had plenty to prove on neutral ground and never got a chance to prove it. I guess I hate him in your mind.

What legitimate points have your brought up??? Youve stated nothing but blind opinions. Those arent points or facts. You made a claim. I countered that claim with cold hard facts that you not only cant refute but wont even acknowledge. If you say the sky is green with pink poka dots and I say its blue that doesnt mean I have an agenda. It means Im sane and your not. Claiming Darcy was a champion and that his lineage derived from Dave Smith is as much fantasy as the sky being green with pink poka dots.

COULD being the operative word. He COULD have also lost every fight he had in America and been exposed as an Australian con job. He COULD have fought Gibbons instead of running from him and been dominated. He COULD have fought Jeff Smith in a rematch and been knocked out again. All of those outcomes are just as likely as him MAYBE becoming better than Greb (if he had lived of course). As for me, Greb doesnt need me to make him look better. He did that on his own in the ring.

And thats all McCoy needed. That one KO. You may not like it but it was a different sport back then and America, where the contest was held, had the ND law which wasnt satisfactory but it was a fact of life. Deal with it. Crack open any boxing history book and you will see Al McCoys name written there as champion from the Police Gazette record books to the Everlast record books to the Ring Record book to Harry Mullans Great Book of Boxing and his Encyclopedia of boxing which has a short section for the Australian version he states "The Australians set up their own version of the title" (WBO anyone???). You may find it shocking that the Illustrated History of Boxing by Nat Fleischer makes no mention of Darcy as a champion of anything other than Australia. McCallums Encyclopedia of boxing as well lists McCoy, not Darcy, as champion. Go do a google search of newspapers or go to Fulton history, or newspapers.com or wherever and search "Al McCoy boxing champion" and spend the next year or so reading the articles.

Oh, I see where this is going. You want to invent some phony title because your phony lineage just went up in smoke. There have been times when there were two titles and generally there is a good reason behind it, such as the time that Bryan Downey knocked out Johnny Wilson but was robbed of the title by Wilson's hand picked referee causing a temporary split. However, when Australians, whether its today or yesteryear, want to create a title out of the ether for no other reason than to promote their favorite who has never proved his right to a championship even remotely then I call bull**** and so do most other boxing fans. That **** dont fly.

We are arguing it because there is/was no precident for it. Not then not now. Very few people outside of Australia acknowledged any pretentions Darcy had to being a champion. Championships are won in the ring and Darcy never did that. NOT EVER. When his own promoter suddenly decides to start calling him a champion and one of his biggest ass licking fans today starts inventing stories to add some credibility to that claim its not bias, its not hypocritical, its just common sense that you are going to get called out on your asinine bull****. You want to pretend that because boxing is so watered down today that we should find a place in our hearts for Darcy to be retroactively awarded a championship. GTFO! Thats stupid. You want us to believe that because a couple of Darcy's handlers got the bright idea to announce that he was a champion based on nothing whatsoever that his claim had some legitimacy. It didnt.

 

LOL.. this dude should be a stand up comedian... Langford knocks Greb out at any weight, hell he could even give Greb 5 pounds. Langford is awesome.

 

And Greb would have stopped Darcy's protected ass with a body shot just like Jeff Smith did.

Greb:ko

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Yeah,........ actually Nah, he wouldn't, Harry hit like a girl

:rasta:hammertimewha: