Darcy versus SRR

Name one.

 

I see a bloke who had, in his last fight before facing Darcy, taken Greb the full 10 rounds.

I see a bloke on film fighting Darcy, with the most pathetic lack of science ever shown on these shores. Throwing backhand blows. Chips own famous left hook being no more than an open handed slap that followed these backhanded rights. Lunging in with no knowledge of what the hell is he doing and desperately attempting to smother the relaxed Darcy. What point of the opening 5 rounds do you think troubled Les?? To say Chip had Darcy in any kind of trouble is ridiculous. Chip was unable to mix it in close, nor did he have the smarts to land clean shots.

I see a total mismatch that ended appropriately; with Chip at Darcy's feet. Out.

Considering the biast American opinions of American fighters over the years, I can only assume that the likes of Bat Masterson would not know their arsehole from their belly-button when it comes to boxing. Masterson had the stupidity to claim Chip as 'the hardest punching American to ever sail to the antipodes'. Well Bat has no idea. Unfortunately, it's sportswriters like Bat masterson that completely blur the subjects being focussed on.

Klompy, pull you big nose out of your arse. Satdiums Ltd were not babying Les Darcy. Had that been the case, Fritz Holland would not have been given a victory over Les in their first encounter, nor would a Dsq go against Les in the second meeting.. The same with the the first encounter with Jeff Smith. Do you think Harold Baker would Dsq Les, just for the enjoyment of seeing this young star tormented?? Stadiums relied on the 'full house' sign being up, in order to accomodate all financial costs. If there was a 'stew', then you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.

If Chip had suffered so badly on his long and terrible trip to Oz, then he must have been totally insane to request a second match with Darcy?? You also fail to mention that Les had boxed 20 rounds just 3 weeks before meeting Chip. What would I prefer?? 20 rounds against Jimmy Clabby or a relaxed few weeks on a steamer?? Was it unfair for Chip to face KO Brown upon his return to the USA??

Betting, rigged fights?? You moron. Considering Jimmy Clabby, Sam Langford and Ted 'kid' Lewis had entered in approx 60 bouts in Australia between them, perhaps testimony would come from them, during their own stays (more then once for Clabby and Langford) as to their own 'rigged' fights??? No, I see no suggestions from any.... but hey, you seem to know it all, perhaps you can enlighten us ALL to the truth.

Chip was off the boat long enough to train before facing darcy. He'd also kept in shape whilst enroute. No chance of jet lag. Hostile crowds?? Oh, just how many do you assume were hostile?? I believe patrons actually remained seated throughout. More bull****!!!

George Chip came to Australia on his own accord, in agreement with Jimmy Dime. They made the trip, knowing full well what awaited. If he felt any possible hostilities, favourtisms to the home lad, or in any way that he'd be shafted, then he'd not visit. Save your excuses Klompy, you make youself look quite stupid. Don't ever assume Harold baker was in Darcy's pocket. Don't ever assume Snowy Baker was doing Darcy any favours. Quite the opposite.

Darcy was physically milked in his last two fighting years, yet he never once complained. He left the complaints to the American fighters who earned great money whilst here.... They would complain of the strain of 20 rounds, and fair enough, as most were boozing and enjoying a celebrity lifestyle.

If it's so hard to 'win on the road' the feel some pity for Griffo. The great American, Maxie Moore- what a great boxing man he was- completely robbed Griffo of the World Lightweight Crown. Not to mention Griffo claimancy of the World featherweight Crown..... why would Topedo Billy Murphy be stripped upon leaving the USA??? Answer that with dignity Klompy. Murphy was undisputed CHAMP when Griffo spanked his arse until Murphy literally handed over the belt.... well, Murphy had not been beaten by anyone else, nor had he claimed a brief retirement. Why would it take so long for Griffo to gain recognition???

I'll tell you why, because ****ing clowns infest the American fight scene Klompy. Ignorance and hypocricy does not make for gospel.

Do us both a favour, stop sulking like a 3 year old. Accept Darcy for what he is, the greatest M/W in the World at that point in time.

 

So now you who obviously doesnt even know his own history is going to lecture me? Thats funny. Get the Kangaroo cum out of your eyes long enough to read something other than Rafe Champions love letters to Darcy and dig a little deeper into the man. I didnt say he was bad, I said he had the benefit of the very definition of home cooking. That is an indisputable fact. There were a lot of questions about him that went COMPLETELY unanswered. That is a fact. Its like if Mike Tyson had died just before the Buster Douglas fight. You dont think his legacy would look different? The bottom line is we NEVER got to see how Darcy would handle the same kinds of adversity that every single one of his marquee opponents had to deal with. You can throw your jingoistic bull**** in my face all day long but the fact is that any time anyone criticizes Darcy he has to watch out for a bunch Aussies coming back like youve pissed on their saint. They love to ignore that Darcy's management literally ran all of those shows from top to bottom from importing the fighters from America to fight him, to handling the referees (who were often related to Darcy's manager) to the venue, etc etc. As stated above more than one fighter came back telling interesting tales of how things were run down in Australia. From Buck Crouse claiming he was paid to lay down, to Eddie McGoorty freely admitting that his first bout with Darcy was completely staged from top to bottom in order to make a killing on gambling revenue and film procedes, to Jeff Smith swearing for the rest of his life that he was swindled out of legit KO in the first match and out of a fight and purse in the second. You guys wanna pretend that Stadiums LTD and Snowy Baker didnt have a MASSIVE stake in Darcy but then neglect to mention that the entire operation shut down, literally closed shop, for nearly a year after Darcy fled the country because they didnt have a suitable attraction. Then of course theres the whole mythology about Darcy secretly leaving the country to make a fortune in order to help his poor old mum before he would triumphantly return to fight for his country only to die of a broken heart in America. What a crock of **** that was. The guy stowed away the night before the conscription vote because he knew he would have to go and work doing PR for the government. He wanted to make money, plain and simple. When he came to America he refused to fight anyone of worth, turning down fights with both Jack Dillon and Mike Gibbons, unless he was paid more than the HW champion had made at that point. Instead he was trying to make matches with a succession of third raters in order to make quick cash. Everyone tired of this act very quickly and when his true colors shown through he was banned. When America entered the war and he saw that the only way he could fight was to join the service he joined the Air Corps, which at that point was so new it basically didnt even exist. He chose the least damanding branch of military he could and ended up training for a fight with Len Rowlands of all people to be held in Memphis of all places. Oh how your mighty hero had fallen. Oh, and lets not forget that by that point he was weighing in above the LHW limit... Hell even his EXTREMELY TENUOS claim to a MW championship is a joke. At the time the MW limit was 158, not 160 as the Australians had contested, which means the vast majority of Darcy's "MW championships" including his "title winning" robbery over Smith in their rematch, were all fought above the accepted poundage. Enjoy your history and have fun sleeping with dingo you call a girlfriend.

 

Whoo doggy!

 

Oh Klompy, Klompy, Klompy. Firstly, you've made me laugh. Secondly, I'm almost at a loss at where to start with a response to your newest edition of bull****.

Firstly, lets not talk hypotheticals. Ok, dickhead?? We are talking facts- not projecting into the future, if Darcy was fortunate to live long enough, so leave you Tyson manlove for the bedroom.

I see you quickly ignored the fact that Stadiums didn't baby Darcy. Having the youngster fighting monthly for close to 2 1/2 years in scheduled 20 round bouts; I fail to see the favourtism. Are you aware of the events after the first Fritz Holland fight- Im sure Stadiums Ltd would wish to provoke a riot by not favouring Les. Of course Stadiums Ltd ran the promotions from top to bottom. Would you prefer an American do it, from the other side of the world?? Who ran Rickards promotions?? Who ran Kearns' promotions?? Any American who came to Australia brought with them a Manager of their own. So, dickhead, any failings on the fighters behalf can be attributed to their own Managers.

Show me evidence that Buck Crouse was anything less than KO'd like a scared little school boy in 2 rounds.

McGoorty had made an agreement to sell his film rights for 50 Quid due to himself being confident of KOing Darcy inside two rounds. The film would be a total flop if that happened. Yes Klompy, I know about that. The whole fight-fix scenario was based on McGoorty's pre-fight venture into selling the fight film. Nothing more. The fight was such a fix the McGoorty was knocked unconcious in the 8th. Wow, you do know your history!! Well, you're extremely imaginative anyway.

Jeff Smith can harbour whatever grudge he likes, fact is he'd not won a single round of the first encounter and dropped a low shot that dented Darcy's groin guard. Again, you're history astounds me. :happy
Regarding the Stadiums closing down... They were not shut down entirely you dunce. Darcy was obviously a massive money spinner; I mean, everyone loved to come and witness this kid kick any, and every foreign arse with consumate ease, which he did. The last 12 months was almost embarrasingly easy. The lad had developed into quite a beast. After Darcy departure the fight game did not slip. Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney continued, yet the crowds were lessened due to him leaving.

Like the big nosed sook that I know you are, your attitude towards Darcy fleeing the country is rather girlish. Darcy was to be used as a token 'Irish lad' by the war mongering government. Not that you'd no **** about that. The belief that 10's of thousands of Irish would march to their deaths with Les had the government licking their lips. He was a tool for flooding the fields with Aussie blood. The conscription failed. Yes, he'd fled. Stiff ****. Mick King also fled, without a passport and stowed away. I dont see him being persecuted.

What fights in the USA did Darcy knock back?? Again, you ****ing idiot, you make up bull****. Check the facts. He refused not a single fight himself.

Yes, Darcy joined the aircorps. While Americans of fighting age were making a liviing boxing in Australia, Darcy was ready to fight for the USA. Unlike Greb, Dempsey or any other so called hero.

The M/W claimancy was brought to Australia by non other than Jeff Smith. Who gives two shits what weight the Yanks fight at. You are not the be all and end all of the universe. You arguements are very weak Klompy. You disappoint me I must say. Here's a test for you.. see if you can actually challenge me.

As you like to refer to my girl as being a dingo, will you please say hello to that fat arsed cum bucket ***** that you married. I'm so glad we can be mature about this. You obviouslly fell apart after the first response. Big nosed Jew.

 

This would be a much better read if you guys could keep it together. This is stunning information, but Christ on the cross why don't you cool it?

 

Just having fun. :good

 

We can speculate untill the cows come home about what Dercy would have done had he lived longer, but the reality is thgat he didn't.

There have been many contenders throughout history who have had a spectacular metioric rise and an equaly spectacular implosion.

Darcy might have gone on to become the pound for pound legend that some people speculate. On the other hand he might just have been handed a one sided beating by Harry Greb or Mike O'Dowd, lost his confidence and crawled into a whisky bottle never to do any good again.

We just don't know.

 

True, but we can see that there was a middleweight champion that was there to be taken, and that Les Darcy had established himself as being very capable of defeating Al McCoy and lifting his crown, at the very least.

Beyond that, it's speculation...But based on the work that he did do, he was likely the best 160lb fighter of his time.

It's just a pity that time was cut short.

 

Greb only really started to come into his own in 1917, and, as Bobby Sinn had pointed out, had dropped a newspaper verdict to George Chip during their 1916 tilt. There were other contenders, like Gibbons for example, who would have had claim to being best in the division, but Darcy had defeated a lot of solid contenders during his reign as Aussie World Champion. So, if he wasn't the very best, he had to be considered to be right up there.[/quote]

This is a good point. Darcy was already Australian heavyweight champion, and likely would have been pitted against the likes heavier fighters like Miske, Moha, Dillon, and Levinsky at some point had he survived, because there were a lot of catchweight bouts being scheduled during that time.

 

I stand corrected on Buck Crouse. But there isn't any denying that George Chip wasn't a very tough fighter and a champion for his era. It definitely was not the norm for him to lose by KO. However, given your vehemant outcry on Darcy's opponents not getting a fair shake, I ask you to evaluate film and tell me those incidents where it is apparent that the referee is favoring Darcy. Generally speaking when that occurs it is apparent ie when a fighter who specializes in fighting inside, is broken up to quickly, or is repeatedly warned about infractions, with out those infractions taking place. Or totally ignoring the rules ie Dempsey/Tunney II is another example...When I watched the Darcy/Chip film again, I saw both fighters fighting their fight. Darcy would hit behind Chip's head in the clinches, Chip would hold and use his head and shoulders to move Darcy back, and several times used a hard backhand swing throughout. It was a tough fight, but one in which Darcy had the cleaner, harder blows. It was a systematic beatdown. The referee appears lienient to BOTH fighters, because because their tactics did not change through the entire fight. Also in the other Darcy films I've seen, the referees actions did not appear to favor either fighter. If you have seen something I've missed do tell...Unless you have something to add to the contrary, the films do not back up your wealth of "anecdotal" information. If your accusations carry credence, it should be apparent...You need something more solid to back up your venomous diatribe. "Anecdotal" isn't good enough to slander the legacy of a national hero in his native land. It is reckless and irresponsible journalism from an author. We need something better than that!...Or your credibility as an OBJECTIVE and TRUTHFUL historian is sorely LACKING! There are standards to be upheld, if one is to be taken seriously and thus far, you had come up very short..."Anecdotal" does not cut it.

 

See this is the shell game that Darcy fans love to play. I mention the referee in the Jeff Smith fights being biased (he was the brother of Darcy's manager after all) and you say: Show me where the ref in the Chip fight is biased. Nobody said anything about the ref in the Chip fight. My point about Chip, and all of Darcy's opponents for that matter is that they were fighting literally THOUSANDS of miles, weeks, and an ocean away from home, in front a completely pro Darcy audience, eating strange food, in a strange land, fighting on promotion of a company that owned Darcy, in a stadium that was Darcy's house venue, etc etc. I dont need to examine films of Darcy to know that he benefitted from every advantage. Anyone who denies that and tries to act like it was a completely level playing field is living in a fantasy world.

So lets go back, and examine the referee in question and the two fights directly in question, NOT the Chip. In the first Jeff Smith fight Smith was giving Darcy hell. Even the day after reports of the pro Darcy press admit this. Suddenly Darcy starts acting like he was hit low. A low blow which the vast majority of those present swore they didnt see. In fact the only first hand account that I have found that states categorically that there was a low blow was Dave Smith, who was Darcy's friend, and trainer. Smith then threw in the towel. Now, here in the United States and every where else Ive ever heard of would call that a TKO win for Smith. But not Snowy Bakers man. He disqualified Darcy on the grounds that Smith was wrong to throw in the towel. Go figure. It should be noted as well that the championship belt Snowy Baker had already commissioned for Darcy in the assured event of a victory over Smith was never given to Smith...

In the rematch Smith was fighting low out of a crouch and was warned for a low blow at the end of the first round. In the second he was disqualified for a low blow which he denied. This is a guy who had fought the best fighters in the world across several continents and had never been DQd and would never be DQd again, in fact his style was repeatedly lauded (and I agree as Ive seen him fight) as being one of the cleanest and most scientific of that era, yet the Australian argument was that he was nervous and fouled out against a man he had already defeated after less than two rounds.:-( Smith and his manager were so infuriated by the home cooking that they sued Stadiums LTD over the DQ, the revokation of their purse for the match, and several contractual disputes they had with Stadiums LTD over other fighters in the Lippe stable. During this lawsuit it came out in court that Harald Baker had been coached from ringside by Snowy Baker who had a special path cleared all the way around the ring by which he would walk and shout instructions to his brother as referee. Wanna argue thats not a biased official?

I wont even go in depth into the court case which pitted Smith and Lippe and against Stadiums LTD, and the Baker brothers, needless to say that a great many interesting facts about the way business was down in the land down under emerged and the only reason Smith lost the case was due to a clause in his contract with Stadiums that literally gave them carte blanche to withhold his pay for any reason they chose. Smith returned to America, never set foot in Australia again, and had few kind words for it.

 

Sydney Morning Herald 1915 01 25.

Jeff Smith Beats Darcy
-------
Unsatisfactory Contest

The fifth and last roound was sensational. It was opened by Darcy hooking the left to the side face, and he followed with a right to the other side. The boxers then came to closer quarters, and Smith got hime a body blow which caused Darcy to stop fighting and show signs of being in pain. He walked over to his corner---Smith standing off him. The referee promtly went up to Darcy and said "Fight On". This Darcy did; and with remarkable vigour too. He fully held his own, and was apparently as strong at teh finish of the round as when he started the contest.

When Darcy walked to his corner his trainer and chief second, Dave Smith, threw in the towel. the referee immediately placed his hand on Smith's head and gave him the fight. Darcy's seconds at once exhibited his protecting cup, which was found to be dented.

At this stage the whole house was in uproar. Presumably the referee did not see the blow referred to. If so he had no alterantive but to order teh continuance of the bout. On the other hand, if Darcy were struck unfairly he was clearly entitled to the decision. That he was not injured does not affect the issue. If a hit is foul the degree of damage is immaterial. But as said before, the referee and a good many others did not see the blow in question.

This sounds about as impartial as you could get in Austrialia.

This fight ended as a win for Jeff Smith, not a loss, because Darcy did not continue...Your arguements that foreign fighters were not given no consideration whatsoever in Austrailia are false. If the implied arguement you've stated were true don't you think that Darcy would not have been given the win? There was outrage after this fight for a half an hour, wanting the decision overturned...but it WASN'T. The reports say the second fight with Jeff Smith state that Smith hit Darcy low, and was subsequently disqualified for it.
Why do you suppose Smith was given the win in hostile, unfair territory?

Please attempt to give something with a objective source. I'm tired of your shell game frankly...If you have an axe to grind, come up with something more substancial than a comment from Jeff Smith or his mangaement, or if you do, at least have it in the context of a credible source.

 

I have that report and fail to see how it deviates from my own. Darcy's corner threw in the towel and quit based on a low blow that only Dave Smith saw. Yet somehow the TKO or KO win for Smith was ruled a DQ??? That little trick worked for Georges Carpentier on occasion as well "Oh Im in trouble, this guy is tough, I better try to win by DQ or lose by DQ rather than get stopped." Furthermore, you are quoting from a newspaper that even Darcy's biographers admit was in the hip pocket of Huge Deal McIntosh, owner of Stadiums. So if thats "as unbiased as it gets in Australia" then thats a better argument for me than it is for you.

Yes Smith was given the win. What was Baker supposed to do after Darcy quit? Somehow create a new rule designating a quitter the winner??? Its not like Darcy refused to fight and waited for a DQ win (which is what Ruth Parker and Rafe Champion believed Baker was waiting for in order to award the fight to Darcy), they threw in the towel! If I have to spell out for you that there is no going back in that era from throwing in the towel or the sponge or whatever you Aussies wanna call it then we can end the discussion because you obviously dont seem to understand the significance. That it was it, there was no going back at that point, they quit and that was final. Baker was as dumbfounded as anyone else that Darcy quit. What were they going to do? Issue forth another serious cluster **** like the decision in the McGoorty-Smith bout 9 months earlier (see you cant take these things out of context). A decision so bad that everyone at Stadiums Ltd tried to disassociate themselves with it and fired Arthur Scott. Well, thats the Australian version of events, but as usual there is another side to that story. The fact of the matter is that Eddie McGoorty was a bigger name than Jeff Smith. McGoorty was expected to beat Jeff Smith and consolidate his claim to the "Australian Version" of the World Middleweight Title (whatever the **** that is) this would set up the big matches between McGoorty, Smith, King, and Darcy who was quickly becoming a star for Stadiums. When Jeff Smith completely outboxed McGoorty and Arthur Scott, playing along with script awarded the bout to the loser, it threw everyone in an uproar. Baker and Stadiums distanced themselves from the house referees decision and fired him but he was back working for them in a year or so, just long enough to let the dust settle. Now you spin that there was outrage over the Smith-Darcy decision. Really? Where was it? The only outrage I can find in any of the ringside accounts comes from Dave Smith. The worst that can said is that people stayed in the arena for half an hour "DISCUSSING THE OUTCOME." Nowhere does it say that a massive throng was clamouring for the official to change his decision and if that were the case wouldnt that mean that there was indeed a massive pro Darcy, anti-Smith audience (seeing as how even pro-Darcy rags saw no foul blow) and wouldnt you say this is just one of the several disadvantages that faced American fighters in Australia?

The Chip fight keeps getting thrown around as the be all and end all proof of Darcy's greatness. It was a good win and one which Im glad happened because it allows us to see film of Chip. BUT, Chip was not the best middleweight in the world at that time. Period. In the United States, regarded far and above Chip was Mike Gibbons, who whether you choose to believe it or not, Darcy refused to fight unless he was paid $45,000 when he came to the USA. So he essentially priced himself out of that fight. Yes its true that Chip went ten with and won a ND over a still developing Greb prior to fighting Darcy but Greb wasnt the best MW in the world at that time either and was still at least a year, maybe more, from beginning to enter his prime. Prior to Greb Chip had struggled with or lost to Jimmy Clabby, Jack Dillon, Sailor Grande, Buck Crouse, Jack McCarron, Leo Houck, and that was AFTER he had been knocked out in one round by the absolutely pathetic Al McCoy. Chip was a good fighter, a brawler with a wicked punch, but lets not pretend that even in his prime he was unbeatable. He wasnt. He was just in the right place at the right time to take the title from a fading, out of shape, and disinterested Frank Klaus and in the wrong place at the wrong time to lose the title to the nearly worthless Al McCoy. One could easily argue that at no point in his career, even during his reign as champion, was Chip the best MW in the world. That was a deep deep era with a lot of good and great fighters. Chip was simply one of best, not THE BEST, ever.


So lets just put all that aside though and answer me one simple question: In an era when a fighter had travel weeks, not hours, just to get to Australia, be sorrounded by strange people, in a strange land, and eating strange food that you arent used to, and fighting in front a pro Darcy crowd, at an arena owned by Darcy's promoter (who is also the partner/employer of Darcy's manager), where the referee is the brother of Darcy's manager, etc. are all of those things NOT a disadvantage? I just want the rational people here to read your response because I know what they will say. People today ***** and complain about going over and fighting in Germany or wherever and let me tell you travelling and living conditions today are a hell of a lot better and easier than they were 100 yrs ago and its also a lot harder with international television, sanctioning bodies, etc to pull the type of **** Stadiums was pulling down there. So just go on and argue for me that all of those things arent disadvantages. Say what you will about Svenn Ottke (and you can say a lot) at least when he fought and won all of those shoddy decisions his managers brother wasnt the referee and there wasnt a special track cleared around the ring so he could walk around unmolested and shout instructions on how the ref should officiate...

Like I said before, I never said Darcy was bad, just that there were a lot of unanswered questions about him. I freely admit that he could have come over here and cleaned up the middleweight division and maybe have been regarded as the greatest MW ever, he might have done so at LHW also. He may also have come over here and been thrown in with Jess Willard immediately (which was the plan for some of those promoters he was attached to) benn knocked out and sent back home in disgrace. We dont know. Lots of questions...