Darcy versus SRR

Come back when you know enough about Darcy to interest me.

 

We Aussies don't take criticism of Australians well, do we?. There's been some valid points made on both sides and while there's been good rebuttal, there's also been a fair bit of 'going for the man and not the ball' from the Australians atsch

 

In other words: Come back when you are willing to blindly agree with Bobby Sinn...

 

Klompy, you should thank DPW for kindly taking it easy on you.
Get one thing immediately clear. Smith had not won a single round of the first fight. You still sulk like a 3 year old against Harold Baker. The facts in DPW's post above spells it out quite clearly that NO FAVOURTISM was afforded to Darcy. The Dsq came about through not retireing, but disputing the referee's lack of acknowledgement towards the low blow. Harold baker was not one to take **** from Dave Smith.The referee can, and will call the fight closure in which ever manner he so deems. Many ringsiders and sportswriter's actually felt Darcy was unjustly Dsq due to the towel being thrown in due to frustration, more than a deliberate attempt to end the bout. Either way, Baker took action against his authority as referee being undermined, promptly ending the bout in favour of the American. That same American was in a strange land etc etc etc etc

The Chip fight is a second example of no favourtism. Harold Baker let the combatents fight with their extremely oposing styles, with no interferance at all. Again you sulk that this is the only example of no FAVOURTISM. If anything, this bout is an even weaker example of NO FAVOURTISM towards Darcy; compared to the first Smith fight anyway. Again, DPW has spelt it out quite clear as to why this bout was unbiastly refereed. Again, you look like a ****ing idiot.

You keep harping on with the same sulky tune... 'the fighters were in a strange land, with strange food, with hostile crowds'. Actually, most of the Americans who entertained themselves in Australia earnt well, lived very well and returned more than once, took up residence or spoke highly of the place for the rest of their lives. I could name up dozens who relished the lifestyle and offerings of Australia. Yet, you attempt to make it sound like hell. Well Klompy, I dont recall any Americans arriving in 1917 to witness a bunch of white folk kicking a recently murdered negro's head around like a soccerball. Sadly though, thats exactly what Darcy's fiance encountered when arriving in Memphis, May 1917.

Poor Klompy, he just cant accept that his American brother would eventually be Dsq for low blows in the second bout. Well Klumpty Dumpty, from ringside to the bleachers- this time everyone heard the painful THUD as Smith landed solidly on Darcy's groin guard. Baker immediately halted proceedings and awarded the victory to Darcy. Why is that unfair?? Low blows are Fouls,, and Fouls result in Dsq. Its strange that you seem so frustrated with the Australians way of handling such affairs. Tell ya what dickhead, if you would like to see some lame arsed refereeing, take a look at the Dempsey/Willard massacre. Had Darcy handled any American on Australian soil in the same manner in which Dempsey handled Willard, poor Klompy would have a genuine reason to pick bitterly; but no, he just continues to step on Darcy's legend... attempts to anyway.

Poor Al Lippe and Jeff Smith. Fancy signing a contract that stipulates that the powers that be (Stadiums Ltd) can, and will revoke any match payment, when and if they see fit. What an outrageous contract to sign. Oh, hang on, these contracts continue to operate throughout the USA and Europe to this very day. SHOCK HORROR!!! Smith and Lippe should be grateful that their purse was donated to the war effort. That the only input either would make to the first Great War. But still, Darcy is the slacker????

Baker had his own path that went around the ring?? Amazing. Can you please provide me with a sentence, a motion of the hand, a word or anything for that matter, that had been recorded or reported by any sportswriter pertaining to Snowy's instructions for Harold that altered or systematically interferred with any fight outcome. See if you can answer that with dignity.

Well Klompy, your agenda is shot to pieces. You've made a complete **** of yourself again. Throwing false accusations around in regards to Darcy.. you call yourself a Journalist?? Really?? You'd have been perect working for the Baker/McIntosh Hate Machine that vented on Darcy post Oct 27th, 1916. Other than that, you fail. :hi:

 

Or come back when you realise Klompy has no ****ing idea. How's the wife Klompy?? :hi:

 

You are a ****ing moron and here is why:


Since when is throwing a towel into the ring NOT a sign of capitulation in boxing?

Harald Baker did not ref Darcy-Chip, all knowing one...

You didnt answer my question, were the American fighters not at a disadvantage?

So according to the press, bought and paid for by Huge Deal McIntosh, Jeff Smith, who fought pretty much everybody over a nearly twenty year career and never lost on a DQ or was called a dirty fighter, got scared of a man he beat after one round and fouled out... That doesnt sound a touch odd to you? Oh wait, according to you Darcy had a big red and yellow S on his chest and wore a cape, nothing in regards to him sounds odd to you.

A couple of points: Those types of contracts arent regularly signed today. In fact, I could easily refer you to Audley Harrison who recently threw one punch in three rounds and then laid down on the first soft patch of canvas he could find against David Haye and was still awarded his purse. In fact even in extremely severe cases fighters are awarded their purses because the law in most locales protects them against such unfair practices. Even down there in your neck of the woods Paul Briggs still recieved the majority of his purse for an obvious dive. Even in the Tyson-Holyfield 2 fight where there was a blatant and shocking foul that ended the fight early only 10% of Tyson's 30 million dollar purse was withheld. Why? Because he was protected under the law. Second, another point where you show your ignorance: Jeff Smith returned to the United States and joined the Army during WW1. He served the duration as a fitness instructor at Camp Dix New Jersey, when he wasnt training troops he was boxing exhibitions gratis the proceeds of which went to the war effort.

You can argue that the Baker brothers didnt influence contests all you want but the simple fact that they had such an elaborate setup in place (and you can check that in court records from the trial) calls into question the entire legitimacy of the Stadiums LTD operation as an unbiased entity.

When did I call myself a journalist???

 

Oh no.. my world has just crumbled. :| The ref was not Baker, vs Chip. Oh damn. That obviously means that Baker was not there to favour Darcy. Strangely enough, the vast majority of reports suggest Chip was carried by Darcy for the 9 rounds. ****!! Where's the favourtism in that???

In essence, Baker did Darcy no favours at all. Handing a victory to Fritz Holland in the first. Disq Darcy in the second Holland match, and first Smith bout. More favourtism towards Darcy I see??

Klompy, you've managed to, in all you petty arguements against Les, point out one error. You also failed to point out a single Australian who suggested KO Brown defeated Darcy. You can't provide a single word, said to be directed at Harold via Snowy, that would infringe on fair play- the single duty held by a referee to ensure an even match.

The press paid for and supplied by Hugh McIntosh?? No stupid, reports going to the papers of Broken Hill are freely available on the net for you to read. Perhaps you can search through these papers also and track down the totally biast and unfairness in EVERY match in which Darcy was contesting. The momopoly you seem so frustrated by is clearly a figment of your narrow mind. Those who witnessed the fights were not writing from the same script.

A touch odd?? Jeff Smith was obviously less than intelligent with the direction of his blows. You should consider him fortunate in the first, and justifiably dealt with in the second. Are you attempting to suggest that Smith won the first round of the second bout?? Laughable. Take a look at the reports. Griffo belted the **** out of McAulliffe, and failed to gain the decision. Should we talk more about that, and the great quality of refereeing in the USA??

Those who witnessd the towel tossing by Dave Smith in the first fight suggested he'd acted out of frustration. Hence many reporters felt the Dsq was in fact a tad unfair. Either way, Darcy was Dsq due to this. You seem quite sad at this. Why?? The towel was tossed in, either accidently, out of frustration or in attempt to show contempt towards Baker. FIGHT OVER.

Jeff Smith entered himself into WW1 as a physical instructer?? Good for him. I'll remember that. The Yanks must have been quite apt at throwing low blows in offensive manouevers during the war!!

Where the Yanks at a disadvantage whilst fighting in Australia. No!! Home sickness may have troubled them. Either way, most would come with managers; and girlfriends/wifes. Not exactly a stranger in a strange land. How difficult was it for them?? I'd suggest they lived very well. Fighting constant 20 round battles obviously did not appeal to them. Griffo arriving in the USA and fighting 6 round scraps, is to me, ten fold in lameness.

It does become quite apparent that the only one complaining was Jeff Smith. Buck Crouse was belted in two rounds after attempting to con darcy into carrying him- taking it easy and having some fun. Silly Crouse went too heavy on Darcy, hoping to sucker him.... Silly Crouse went to sleep early.

Yes, Stadiums controlled everything very thouroughly. An enterprise of that scale was not open to bribes, cheats, fixed-fights or sulking via those who felt persecuted. Not Darcy. Not Dave Smith. Not Al Lippe. Not Jeff Smith.

Hey dickhead, think of the numbers of foreigners to enter America. Think of the numbers of fighters robbed in bull**** decisions. Think Klompy!! If a list was made of every DISGUSTING decision made at the hands of US judges, you'd want to embarrassed. Don't bother pointing you finger at one contest. As that is all you've been able to come up with. Darcy vs Smith II.

****! You've pointed out the Audley fight! And the Green/Briggs fight. You have a copy of the contracts for both?? Would you like a dozen examples where fighters were not paid?? I'm happy to start with Jeff Smith vs Les Darcy...

Again you've allowed me to make you look the dumb **** that you are. And I must admit, it's easy... and enjoyable. Offer something substancial, or don't bother. :hi:

 

.....and Klompy my old friend, you wonder how Darcy would have fared in the USA.

Well, the sever hiding he gave Fred Fulton should provide an adequate idea. Considering Fred was the number 1 contender to Jess Willards H/W crown, I think the FACT that Darcy belted him, causing him to surrender in two rounds, might show what a dynamite little man he was. Can we please go into greater depth in discussing this as well???

You obviously hold the cards Klompy... I just love it when you throw them into your own face.

 

It's a legit point, though.

As good as Darcy was, there's no guarantee that he completely recovers from the illness that he contracts when he comes to the U.S., even if he survives the experience. Plus, pressure based style doesn't lend itself to that long of a career anyway, so he might not be the same fighter two or three years later regardless of whether he recovers completely or not.

Darcy was legit and he likely would have defeated Al McCoy in short order once he stepped inside the ring. But there's no set in stone guarantee that he continues to fight at the same level that he was in 1916 if he's alive and active from, say, 1917-1922.

We don't know for sure.

The best we can say is that if Darcy does continue to fight at that level, and with the same frequency, then there's a good chance that he could have won the title at middleweight and done a lot of damage, depending on whom he fought.

 

I am curious to know exactly what about my post you would take issue with.

We have to deal with facts here. All that we can say for certain is that Darcy was good enough to beat the versions of Smith, McGoorty and Chip that he beat at a young age.

Anything that he might have done after that is pure speculation.

What we do know is that had Darcy lived, he would have been stepping into a murderous middleweight and light heavyweight era, where I can't really imagine any fighter not getting mixed results.

 

Well spoken. :good

Great as he was, Darcy would have had his hands full.

 

In regards to the supposed hiding he gave Fred Fulton: I would love a first hand account of that. I have researched it and have never found single first hand source. All mention of it comes from second or third hand sources that had an interest in promoting Darcy as a major attraction in the USA or an interest in Darcy in general. Im not saying it didnt happen, it may well have, but I would like to see an actual account by an unbiased observer who was there. Not an account from one of Rickard's P.R. people or one of Darcy's entourage.

 

How high do you rank Ike Ibeabuchi?

 

Me? In what sense? Not very high really. He had two good wins over contenders. Neither of whom was that great IMO. But, at the time they were good and impressive and important wins none the less. That being said, at the end of the day he had two good wins over contenders... Not really something to base a legacy on. I rate Darcy much higher. In my opinion he accomplished much much more.