in an earlier post, a bloke that knew better called barry michael a 'legend of aussie boxing'.....which he isnt. the was an old saying...."there are boxers, there are great boxers, and there is darcy..". the word 'great' is used to easily. 'good' would cover most exceptional aussie boxers. of the 'great' aussie ones there are probably only 3 or 4. of the legends, there is only one. les darcy. barry michael was a 'good' fighter. not 'great', not a 'legend'. who are your 'greats'? .
Agree with you on the general overuse of words like legend, champion, star etc. Seems once you play first grade AFL, league etc you are automatically a 'star' - which is just plain garbage. Similarly in boxing people get carried away. I'd rate Barry Michael as at least having been 'very good'. Just plain old 'good' fighters don't stay on their feet through 500 pro rounds and win world titles. Sure we've had better, but we've had many, many more who acheived far less.
remember the three 'divisions'. legend (darcy) great (rose, fenech, ?) good (harding, michael, ellis, etc) .
SallyWinder... what is it about Barry that bugs you... regarding his career?? What is it in the sport of boxing that he is underaited for??? What achievements dissapoint you?? State Title.. National Titles... Commonwealth Title.... World Title.... Keeping the game afloat during a lean period... Never knocked off his feet in 61 bouts.. 15 year career.. Destroyed careers of hard men.... Barry Michael is a legend of Australian boxing. SIMPLE. He may not be our most praised fighter, our most viewed fighter, the greatest crowd puller, our most exciting fighter... In all, he is one of the most underrated fighters in OZ Boxing History.... a far more worthy man than countless others. DING, DING.. Round 2. Is Darcy our only Legend?? Why would you place Rose alongside Fenech's name in the "Great" section??? "Good" Harding, Michael, Ellis....?? I think the 'system of rating' needs a little clarification. Are we talking Australian born??? World titles only?? Achievements without analysis, or just who looks better on plain paper in the eyes of idiots??
I'd throw in Dave Sands as well. Michaels sort of border line great when it comes to our boxing history. I've got a pound for pound list that I compiled lying around somewhere where I think I had him between 15-20. I don't think he's as good as the likes of Mundine (Tony), Thompson, Richards or Carroll but he sits behind those guys.
