Darcy versus SRR

If thats the case he exercised a luxury that few of his opponents in Oz benefitted from. Then again we made him pay for it didnt we? After all, he was murdered by Americans wasnt he?

 

Klompy...

Darcy offered to fight Smith FOR NOTHING. Would you like to read the letter from Al Lippe???

That's right, the letter from Al lippe is not an account by Darcy, or Smith.. therfore it is not a 'first hand account'.... barely substancial enough to quote... lmao..
You're wasting your time on a 'man love' adaptation of Greb's career and life. The entire account will be factually hollow.. but not as hollow as Greb's KO ability... yet you, who never witnessed the limp wristed, windmill slapper LIVE, feel knowledgable enough to create a 'factual' composition of the mans life.

You ****ing moron. :hi:

 

Make a case for Darcy if you must (and i insist), but i'm sure you'll find that we accomadated our foriegn boxers in a royal-like manner compared the way most of our boys were accomadated on the US shores. How many of your "Official World Championship" bouts were held between New York based fighters?

 

We killed Young Griffo as well. He could dodge bullets but a little kryptonite laced booze took care of him. Now we have the only film of him and his belt, and australians will never again lay eyes on them. Now if only we could get the Mundines, Briggs, and Green over here we would be able to do away with all of Australia's modern greats in one fell swoop.

Oh, whoops, I forgot about his highness, the bulli-blaster, Shannon Taylor. Hes a worldbeater as well. We need to find a way to get rid of him also.

 

I dont understand why you would think that Darcy should have fought Greb. Unless my timeline is wrong, Darcy was coming off a KO win of George Chip. George chip despite having done his best work had just accounted for Greb with relative ease, it seems.

http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...AAAAIBAJ&pg=1893,3694588&dq=george+chip&hl=en

If Greb had wanted to earn that shot at Dempsey (whom this article tends to indicate was becoming seen as the best middleweight in the world) he should ahve done much better, shouldnt he?
http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...=3946,3667186&dq=george+chip+harry+greb&hl=en

It wasnt really until a couple of years after Darcy's death that Greb started to factor into the equation in a major way. Intersting that his rematch with Gibbons was seen as a chance for him to silence his critics.
http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...4293,5133509&dq=harry+greb+mike+gibbons&hl=en

It seems to me that Mike Gibbons was the only one with a real shot at Darcy. Darcy's claim to the title was as good as Gibbons and this was themoney fight that both wanted and both were working towards. Although Carpentier did provide that big money attraction for obvious reasons. The selection of Rowlands seems an obvious choice. A decent warm up fight against a solid opponent. Why you would want Darcy to fight a fighter he had already beat is beyond me. Rowlands was the smart choice, while the Darcy Gibbons superfight was on. If anyone else wanted a shot at Darcy they either needed huge monetary backing or they needed to defeat mike Gibbons. Greb had already had his chance and failed. Others needed to do the same if they wanted Darcy whether it was a rematch or not. In hindsight, fate really robbed us of one of the greats.

If he had just got the chance at Gibbons and/or Greb a little earlier, he would have probably been remembered as the Greatest of all time on ESB at least.

 

I never said Darcy SHOULD have fought Greb. It was posted here that when the two appeared together Darcy was the greater attraction. My point was two fold: Darcy and Greb never appeared together, and as someone else stated Darcy was considered a greater attraction at this point given the curiousity factor. What is lost on so many Darcy fans is that only a few months later when Darcy died he was almost a complete non-entity in the sport in the USA and Greb had faced Gibbons, Jeff Smith, Al McCoy, and George Chip (four fighters Darcy had offers from and failed to meet and all of whom Greb beat with the exception of Gibbons who Greb gave a good account of himself against despite being pre-prime). Why some feel the need to try to beef up Darcy based on things he MIGHT HAVE but NEVER ACTUALLY accomplished had he lived is beyond me i.e. what he might have done to Greb or during Greb's era. Only one thing is known for sure: Darcy died before he could prove himself, Greb didnt and proved himself easily one of the greatest, if not THE greatest fighter in history. For some reason Australians have a hard time accepting that Darcy died with a lot of unanswered questions sorrounding him.

None of what you say makes any sense whatsoever: Rowlands was the smart choice? Really? Thats like saying Green-Briggs was a smart fight. The only reason Darcy-Rowlands was considered was because Darcy had already burned every bridge he had against legitimate opposition. But somehow Les Darcy, who only a couple of months before had been the biggest name in boxing and was now barely mentioned, landing in the relative boxing backwater of Memphis and fighting Len Rowlands in an 8 round bout is the logical choice??? I guess that was all part of Darcy's extremely well thought out plan to take America by storm. I mean, his opponents in Australia didnt need tuneups to fight the fight hometown hero in front of all his fans, in his arena, with bought and paid for officials officiating but Darcy needs an 8 round tuneup in the middle of nowhere against an out of town ham and egger after having basically destroyed his name and credibility in the USA... Genius, yup, makes perfect sense. Totally logical.

He wasnt working towards a fight with Gibbons at all. In fact every time a number was reached or agreed upon (even by Darcy's manager, and yes Bobby Sinn Sully was Darcy's manager) Darcy raised that figure and priced himself out of the fight.

Why should he have fought someone he had already beaten? You dont think major questions sorround both Smith fights? If not then you are simply blinded by the Darcy legend. But hey, Darcy didnt want that fight either. In fact he didnt want any fight that was offered to him until someone as soft as Len Rowlands came along.


This topic has been beat to death. Every so often some Australian or Darcy worshipper (arent they the same thing) comes along and revives it. Refer back to my previous posts for pretty much any argument some deluded Darcyite might come up with...

 

So Greb had proved himself by beating 4 fighters, two of whom Darcy had already handled? And while i dont have time to check the records, i am guessing that Grebs victorys were in actual fact by way of Newspaper verdicts in NO Decision fights? Am i Correct.

Greb went on to become a great fighter. Darcy was the better fighter until death intervened. Does not common sense suggest that since Darcy was considered at the time as better than Greb, beat the common opponents more emphatically than Greb and (again i havent checked the dates) was probably about the same age or younger than Greb, wouldnt this tend to suggest that Darcy was everybit as good as Greb, probably better?

What did Darcy have to prove to America? He was considered the best fighter in the world, with Gibbons the only fighter close to him and with an argument. He tried to fight carpentier (Big money fight and easy opponent, you would agree wouldnt you), he was banned from fighting and when it was lifted, he signed straight away for a fight with a decent fighter. He didnt need the stay busy fight, but why not take it, while he waits for Mike Gibbons & Co to create the super money fight that Carpentier could have provided if the authorities allowed it.

That is silly talk. Of course he wanted a fight with Gibbons, it was the biggest money fight out there. Of course he turned it down and tried to negotiate more money. Is there a world title fight negotiation from those days that didnt follow this path? Jeffries turned down Johnson many times. Willard turned away challengers, Johnson turned down challengers before making fights etc. It is just the way the sport was run. If you dont think that Darcy Gibbons was on the agenda (subject of course to either losing form and losing) you are kidding yourself. If Greb or Smith or anyone else wanted a shot at either they either stood in line and got lucky like Rowlands did, or they waited until they became stand out challengers or one of the big guys failed. Admittedly, Greb did become a standout after Darcy was removed from the equation.

Why take a fight with Smith before the big Gibbons match takes place. Unless of course there were huge money attractions which i dont think there was was there? Common sense says Darcy should have fought Gibbons first, and left smith for a huge title defence and in hindsight by then Greb would have even been accomodated as a succesful middleweight title defence by this time. Unfortunately fate intervened.

it is interesting that Darcy is put down by so many americans. Obviously we all know that he had the potential to be the greatest ever but that he never had the chance to put that to the test. Still, i ask you this. I presume that you consider Greb the greatest fighter ever or close to it for good reason. But how do you consider the fact that Darcy seems to have the better record against common opponents. Do you think it is just a styles thing that Darcy was more impressive at this time, or would you consider that Darcy just developed quicker.

In fact i am interested an honest answer perhaps to a slightly different question. How does the Harry Greb who lost to George Chip go against the Les Darcy who defeated George Chip a couple of months later. who wins if it was Harry Greb and not George Chip who took the boat voyage to Australia?

 

It's just a damned shame that Greb never tackled Darcy.

It's quite amusing that a punch drunk Mick King DID tackle the great *cough* Tommy Gibbons... lasting the 15 round journey without drama. He fell to a 19y/o Darcy in 10... Oddly enough, King took the *cough* great Jeff Smith, how many rounds?? In how many fights??

I doubt Greb would have lasted 3 rounds with Les. Your door stop.. oops.. I mean, 'your book' will be a fascinating insight Klompy.

Now, would you like to read the letter from Al Lippe??

Keep Griffo's belt. Richard K. Fox would soon have realised that Griffo did not give a rats arse about belts... Maxie Moore cared even less about fair and justified decisions...

Would you like to purchase a signed Griffo portrait to accompany it?? Perhaps a few Griffo fight programs? What about one of Bob Fitzsimmons' belts..

Will your lame excuse for a book come with a complimentary Air Freshener??

 

Robinson would win a points decision but might have to get off floor first. Darcey is a what might more than what was. He could easily have reigned at 160 & 175 had he lived.

 

Oooohhh...I dunno about that.

Anyone who gets stopped only twice in 300 career fights- once due to a broken arm- probably is lasting the distance against Darcy. He might have to smother and clinch , if the fight is held in '16, since Greb was only starting to come into his own at that point, but I think he still goes the distance.

I would venture to say it would have been a competitive fight, at any rate, had Darcy lived and been able to fight in '17-'18, because by that point Greb was really starting to get into his groove as a fighter. Assuming Darcy stays on form, it becomes a very intriguing match-up, imo.

 

Ray Robinson

 

I must agree with all of this, even the last, I applaud the thread author for his love of Darcy, he's my favourite too. But there's just no diplomacy in the way he went about it, everybody needs to understand some diplomacy,... for every Darcy fan there's a Greb fan and a Walker and Monzon fan, and if you get too overboard you start stepping on toes. However this is Robinson we are talking about and while Darcy makes mincemeat of most of Robbo's MW opponents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The idea of this match-up is in no way an insult to the great Ray, but he will be the common favourite here. What an intriguing match-up it is, possibly the greatest fight anyone would ever see with Darcy being able to face up to Ray's blows and I think the fight goes the distance everytime. It also depends on what age you have them at for a fantasy match-up,..... a 36 year old Robinson would find Darcy a bit of a nightmare,,, but of course Ray was not in his prime at that age,.. and Darcy was yet to reach his (but the 19 year old Darcy beats 99 out of a hundred good MW's... -------------- SRR may beat 99 and 6 10ths.

 

I don't agree with this .....

....... it is bordering on offensive, and is your assumption. Stop using gripes from fighters who were squarely beaten (Smith & KO)...... You know that they robbed Smith in one fight against McGoorty and then Darcy stood up to Smith and hurt Smith severely in fight two. And you can't deny knowledge of Smith being howled down by the masses, being refused his prizemoney (he never saw a cent of it... ever), then being kicked out of the country, surely with your apparent research abilities you can deduce that Smith wasn't a happy camper........... But we still recognise him as the Champion before Darcy was and we still honour that...... Just because Baker and McIntosh were not very honest has nothing to do with Les. You should realise that McIntosh did far far worse to Darcy......... FAR WORSE...... Try to get a more balanced view on Australian boxing because it just sounds like you have a gripe with my country, I thought we were allies ?????

 

Mate you are a joke........... Back up these claims with reliable evidence or shut the hell up. Call yourself a historian ??.............. You are an American-Boxers-are-better-in-every-respect-than-dumb-foreigners Nuthuggers Club.............. Buck Crouse, paid to lie down against Darcy ????.... when any fan with a brain knows that Darcy would wipe the floor with him......... you don't have to rig an early Crouse KO defeat....... Darcy shat on him, Crouse doesn't even begin to deserve to be mentioned in Darcy's league. ---------------------------------------- I have worked you out pal, you are a historian in name only....... you don't have the necessary objectiveness....... don't be a Drongo, stick to dear old Hazza, and stay away from Darcy until you wake up to the truth, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This content is protected