Packey McFarland - The Most Underrated Lightweight of All Time

Yes.

In 113 fights he lost once, if at all (some reports suggest it was a different McFarland), when he was a 16 year old child.

Over 100 fights with 1/no losses and hardly mentioned today, he must have fought poor opposition, right? Think again.

He went 1-0-2 with my no.8 all time LW, Freddie Welsh, and is generally considered to be on the better end of both draws.

He twice beat my no. 5 all time WW, Jack Britton.

Absurdly, after a 2 year retirement, he came back to beat my no.6 MW, Mike Gibbons. To be balanced, much of the film of that fight survives today and to my eye, Gibbons appears to shade the fight in the remaining footage. From memory, there are also mixed reports about what weight it was contested at, which wasn't the full MW limit.

So, over 100 fights, 1/no loss, got the better of top 10 all time greats at LW, WW and MW, his 2nd tier wins must be lacking, right? Nope.

Owen Moran (shame on me for describing the brilliant Owen Moran as a "2nd tier win"), Benny Yanger, WW Jimmy Duffy, Leach Cross x 2, Matt Wells, Harlem Tommy Murphy x 3, Dick Hyland and Jimmy Britt.

Reports of his fights regularly used terms like "bemused" and "dominated". It wasnt just that he always won, he seemed to often appear on a different level, to some very good fighters.

Top 15 pfp imo.

 

Packey didnt beat Mike Gibbons , the fight was a draw .. And it was an agreed CW fight at 154.

 

It was a no decision fight that is generally recorded as a newspaper win for McFarland. Boxrec lists 13 x newspapers who scored for Packey, 6 for Gibbons and 3 who scored it as a draw. It also lists their weights at 153 & 152lbs respectively, though there are alternate contradictory reports, including this one - https://www.nytimes.com/1915/03/26/...bbons-will-be-his-opponent-weight-set-at.html

 

McFarland lost more than once. JJ Johnson who was a terrific historian had found more losses that have gone unrecorded for him.

Also, I will never understand the disagreement in newspaper decisions for the Gibbons-McFarland fight. The film exists and Gibbons was in control the entire fight. He was the bigger guy, better boxer, threw more, landed more, landed harder, etc etc. I cant figure how anyone could judge McFarland the winner in that fight. As for the weight the fight was fought at 147 the day of the fight. Boxrec has the official weights listed higher because after the fighters had rehydrated their managers gave their estimated weights to the announcer and he announced them. Those are the weights listed on boxrec but those were unofficial weights. They were akin to when HBO would list the fighters weigh in weights and rehydrated weights. The reason those unofficial weights are listed in boxrec is because there is a very biased editor who is a fan of McFarlands that refuses to acknowledge that Gibbons struggled to make 147 leaving him weak and drawn for the fight. This was well covered at the time. Regardless, Gibbons beat McFarland in that fight.

 

Some posters rate him highly, inlcuding me.

Almost 3-years ago, but he was ranked #9 all time at LW here - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-35-all-time-reveal-boxing-survey-series.653021/ - which is a little low for me.

I have him at #4 & honestly I could see him above Duran at #3.He's around 90-0-7 in fights contested in & around LW, generally considered to be on the better end of most of his draws, inlcuding the 2 x draws vs Top 10 LW off all time Freddie Welsh, who he also beat, as well as wins at or around LW vs Jack Britton, Jimmy Duffy, Leach Cross x 2, Owen Moran, Benny Yanger & Matt Wells. I'm perhaps being a little pedantic, but I'd argue #9 is underrating him.

 

As highly as I rate McFarland, I concede Gibbons looked to be getting the better of the fight in the surving footage.

Still, a natural LW (or modern day LWW) in his prime, going straight into a fight with a fighter who remains to this date a top 10 MW of all time (albeit a likely weight drained version) following a 2-year retirement, without a single warm up, and being competitive, is impressive to me.

 

I wasnt impressed with McFarlands performance. He was primarily on the defensive against a guy who killed himself making a same day weigh in weight and was still able to boss McFarland around. I dont really take the fight away from McFarland but I think people who havent actually watched the long version of that fight use it to give way more credit to McFarland than he deserves for it. As for Gibbons being bigger, keep in mind that before he retired McFarland was weighing in the 140s. His second to last fight before he retired he weighed as high as 146. So its not like 147 was this huge weight gain for him. Whereas Gibbons had consistently been weighing in in the mid 150s. So its a lot more like guys nowadays pretending they are making this huge jump in weight when in reality they are using catchweights to weaken their larger opponent. And again, Im not sure what some of the press were watching. The only thing I can think is that maybe they were holding it against Gibbons that he didnt blow a smaller, aging fighter, coming out of retirement away and so he in their eyes he couldnt win without a huge victory. Thats all I can think. When you factor in that Gibbons rarely went for the kill and was already weight drained did McFarland really do that well by staying on the defensive to avoid getting stopped?

 

JJ found either one or two more losses. I cant remember which. He used to live in Chicago where McFarland fought his early bouts before moving to LA and he had a huge archive so he had great access to information that isnt easily available.

 

I agree with you that Mike edged the fight .. The fight wasnt fought at 147 tho .. where did you get that ? that dosent even make sense .. Packey in interview says he wasnt going to fight Mike at 160 .. when did Mike ever make weight for 147 ?? The fight was a CW fight at 154... why would Mike who was around 157 cut to 147 ... which is a WW fight anyway, Not a MW fight

and Packey's performance was outstanding imo .. why not ?.. he is carrying around the most weight ever in his career and he is on a 2 year lay off againt Prime Mike .. .that was 100 % Mikes fight to lose ,, he is the one who under performed .. not McFarland

And Packeys walking around weight was 139 .. you are leaving out that he fought at the LW at 133 all the time, he wasnt even at WW , not even close

@BitPlayerVesti has a dq only for Packey , nothing else

@Senya13 ... might have something diffrent

 

the fight was a Draw on boxrec and just recently changed a few years ago .. McFarland didnt win the fight .. it was a draw

 

I don't believe he is underrated. Underrated means that people rate him lower or lesser than he should be rated. I think he is rated appropriately highly by those who know of him. Packey McFarland is criminally unknown and that is really too bad.

 

Right on the money as usual Fogger. There has been only a handful of us who have said his name over the years, or at least the 6 Ive been here . .I have posted so much info on him over the last 5 years ... there is a search button here i think