Any Middleweights you'd favor over Sam Langford?

KLOMPTON you asked about the Greb in hospital thing, if I typed Bogash by accident then my bad, but it also shows you didn't read the other post which I actually posted again a second time where Greb in his own words was talking about Jeff Smith cutting Harry to ribbons... I meant to say Jeff put harry in hospital so I made a typo, a mistake and admit it, unfortunately you can never ever admit a mistake which is sad................................ for you.

 

During 2006, the Australian National Boxing Hall Fame inducted Bob Fitzsimmons in its Honorary Internationals category. According to the ANBHF website, "The Honorary Internationals category consists of international boxers who although not Australian, made a major contribution to Australian boxing."

Since the ANBHF had its first induction ceremony during 2003, Fitz wasn't a charter inductee. Moreover, I wonder if the Honorary Internationals inductees are considered true members of the ANBHF.

- Chuck Johnston

 

hagler

 

Thank you mate...

 

Thing is that way back in those days most Australian's regarded themselves as British and the empire meant a lot them.

 

Sorry pal but Smith beat Papke only once, in their first fight by DQ. He lost the rematch later by KO. They never fought again and had never fought before. It was you who tied this fight to Darcy's claim. So you can admit you were wrong and apologize for the numerous posts that sent you into a spitting rage defending your mistake.

Another mistake you can apologize for is alleging that Greb spent time in the hospital after fighting Bogash and then changing your story to Smith. Now you are saying he spent time in the hospital after fight Smith. Neither is true. Immediately after facing Smith Greb returned to Pittsburgh and agreed to take part in an exhibition bout for the Knights of Columbus which was held five days later. You wont find that in boxrec and its not something I imagine your equally idiotic friend Speciale knew. Doesnt sound like the hallmark of a guy laid up in a hospital bed does it? I will await your return with your tail tucked between your legs and your inevitable apology.

 

Apologise to you ??? lol now you call Greb a liar and dare to call my buddy "idiotic", coming from you that's meaningless, I admitted my mistake in saying Bogash but that's all you get, now go and read Jack Johnson say that Greb lasts only four rounds if he fought Walcott... I will take Jack's opinion over yours, even dead he is still more dangerous than you are alive. Funny how far you go out of your way to marginalize lots of great fighters just to make Greb look good... I bet Fitzsimmons would have stopped harry in 5 rounds .

 

Nobody gives a **** what you or the other Greg think. I would have thought youd know that by now. My whole purpose has been to show how wrong you are and how you like to make up stories to suit your agenda. Ive done that. You've offered nothing but addled personal attacks. I'll let the people decide for themselves who to believe. My money is on me, whether they like me or not.:hi:

 

Nobody ?:blabla here you go again thinking you speak for EVERYBODY, well ok then mr Barack Obama... lol, seriously you should get a grip, you are a funny guy but so full of yourself. My only agenda is boxing history and making sure it isn't re-written by fanboys like yourself. So in the 30's and 40's which version of the title do you recognise, The New York version or the other one ? I just ask so I can go s**** some names from their world titles, after all as you said, there can be only one... hell sounds like a super hero thing doesn't it.... and which belt is the only one that counts today ? is it the WBA ? The WBC ?, The WBO ? the IBF ? The WBF ? the KBF (that's the Klompton Boxing federation btw)...... :rasta

 

Lol "history isnt written by fanboys like yourself" pot calling the kettle black much mister "Australia was paying more" "Darcy's title came from Dave Smith when he beat Papke for the title" "ND fights were meaningless and dont count" "Greb was sent to the hospital for days after Bogash... uh I mean Smith..." When you can point out all of these reputable institutions who thought Darcy was an actual bonified world champion I'll be here. When can address any of the points Ive posted instead of rambling with Darcy's rotting **** in your mouth Ill be here. Until then I'll just watch you continue to make a fool of yourself. Nobody needs to rewrite the history of Darcy's claim because nobody is writing it. Nobody but you and a few other nuthuggers even cares. Darcy was what he was: A prospect with POSSIBLE unrealized potential and a lot of questions. He wasnt a champion as youve claimed. He wasnt invincible as youve claimed. And he wasnt the only fighter to accomplish what he did at his age or any other age. You can prop him up all you want but eventually that house of cards wont bear the weight of scrutiny which is why you cant debate in a civilized manner or address any of my points. Like I said, I chalk it up to the cancer that is killing you and dont hold it against you even though you were an ******* before cancer supposedly made you crazy.

 

I think you've gone over the line here. You are making great points ,no need to descend to this.

 

I am not wanting to get into this too much at the moment, but a prospect with unrealised potential is not really correct in relation to Darcy. I must admit that this is how i originally saw him not so long ago but i think he is well past the prospect stage.

I agree that his World Title claim was tentative. But it was no more tentative than say Jeff Fenech's world title claim. Or 90 percent of current world titlists. It was as strong or close to as strong as anyone else had at the time. In those days, recognition in Australia as the world champion meant as much as recognition in the USA (as did recognition in Britain). Nowadays, that is obviously no longer the case!

It is also true that others have done what he did or close to what he did at the same age, although it should be remembered that not very many others did it.

All in all, i think it is unfair to consider Darcy all potential. It is true that he potentially could have done an awful lot more. I have said elsewhere, but imagine if he had taken the dempsey fight (which was talked about by Dempsey himself) and which was scheduled around the time of Dempsey Flynn i where dempsey was kod. (imagine in hindsight if Dempsey had agreed a dive in that fight as some, wrongly in my opinion, have argued). This alone would probably make him a top 10 ATG fighter. Imagine if he had fought Harry Greb, who even Klompton admitted once, he would have started favourite over. Imagine if the Fulton Darcy bout was a proper fight.

In my opinion, the fact that we can look at Darcy's actual known qualities and fights and make reasonable choices in favour of Darcy suggests to me that he is more than just potential but that he has proven he is a world class fighter who should be in the discussion with All time greats.

Of course his early death does mean that he is not proven to be the no1 of all time, like he may or may not have been if he had a longer career. However, based on proven ability, we do know that he is every chance of defeating Mike Gibbons or Harry Greb. I dont think you could say that of many people at all, and that alone, imo, makes a person more proven than potential.

In regards to Sam Langford who the topic is about, I think Darcy Langford would be a great fight. Arguably two of the greatest fighters ever to hold the Australian Heavyweight Championship. I think this goes down as one of the greatest possible Aussie heavyweight dream fights. Langford surely starts favourite, but Darcy has more than a fighting chance, particularly with the Australian crowd behind him.

 

^^^ Sense.

also FACT based, like has been stated all along... yet gets dismissed so readily by some who accept only what they approve of.

of course Darcy was/is a great THAT was Documented LONG BEFORE Any of US!!!

 

Of course he was a prospect. He never cleaned out is division, or even close. He never won a title. The big fights he did win were won with every single conceivable advantage in his favor and when the tables were turned he ran from fights. So yes, there were a lot of questions still unanswered sorrounding him.

Oh please. Dont give me that horse**** that a title that had never existed before and was created by Darcy's manager to sell tickets for Darcy and his stablemate was legitimate when there was already an established title holder. You cant just up and say "We dont like this champion and we want our guy to be champion so here." It doesnt work like that and its not legitimate. If you agree with that your silly.

It is also true that others have done what he did or close to what he did at the same age, although it should be remembered that not very many others did it.

Life isnt fair. Darcy died before he could actually prove himself without having his protectors refereeing his contests and with every other advantage.

This is nonsense. Thats Dempsey's story. That fight was never talked about. Of the dozen or so fights that were up in the air for Darcy NOBODY had any interest or discussed a Dempsey-Darcy fight. And why would they? Dempsey hadnt done anything at that point to be considered for a plum job like one against Darcy. Darcy was being offered $25,000 and $45,000 purses. What was Dempsey's biggest purse to date? $1,000 maybe $2,000? He had already avoided fights with Jack Dillon and Sam Langford but they were going to call him up for Darcy? Show me a contemporary account and I'll believe.

Imagine imagine imagine. What if what if what if. Are there better openings to a sentence detailing unrealized potential than those? All of those fight you can imagine him having and you can just as easily imagine him losing them and then that potential becomes not unrealized but unfulfilled. As it stands its nothing more than supposition as to what he MIGHT have done IF he had gotten those fights and MAYBE won.

Why? Its arguable that he ever fought an all time great much less beat an all time great in anything resembling a fair fight. Why should he be mentioned alongside all time greats? I dont mention Tony Ayala, or Edwin Valero, or any other prospect that attained contender status and then died along with all time greats. People always ask questions like "if Tyson had died in 1989..." and "if Joe Frazier had died in April of 1971..." Because it means we would have never gotten to see some of their vulnerabilities. Darcy didnt even attain as much as those guys did. He didnt reach the pinnacle and clean out his division. So its silly to even pretend he got to that level and should be compared with people who did.

Anybody with two hands has "every chance of defeating Mike Gibbons or Harry Greb." Its nonsense to suggest based on his performances that we categorically know enough about to suggest he could have either defeated them outright, was better, accomplished as much, or COULD have accomplished that much. You are leaning very heavily on the idea that his accomplishments extraordinary and that by beating men who had travel three weeks to a strange land and face the hometown favorite in a stadium owned and operated by his management with a referee who was his managers brother and every other concession (and that doesnt even touch on the allegations of paid dives that McGoorty and Crouse and others spoke of) we have a good representation of what he could have done against the best fighters in America without the same protections. Taking all that into account I reiterate that there are a lot of questions sorrounding him and his silly claim to a championship.

(and with Harald Baker refereeing, and with Snow Baker allowed to walk his famous path around the ring and instruct Darcy, and with who knows what other benefits. Why not have the fight in Los Angeles? Why do we always have to give Darcy the benefit of the hometown crowd? Hmmm. Maybe because he was unproven anywhere else...)

 

Certainly more documented than Bert Gilroy's greatness, that I concede.