I read he did so in their second fight, but that their first was competitive. Maybe. I don't know. That's crazy for McFarland to outclass a guy like Britton. Britton was one of the best WW's of all time. Beat Mickey Walker, Benny Leonard, Ted Lewis, Mike O' Dowd...
How was Britton at this stage of his career ???, was he a shot fighter or just slipping from his prime????...... I know he was the naturally bigger man
McFarland was simply brilliant...... he is one of the all-time greatest at hitting but not being hit...... Bruce Lee would have loved him.
You got it backwards. By the last couple of McFarland fights Britton was just entering his prime, I'd say (may have even been slightly pre-prime still, as he'd not fully matured into his natural weight class). He'd yet to even begin his legendary series with Ted "Kid" Lewis. He also wasn't really the bigger man at this time, in fact McFarland was the one having difficulties making the weight, and would go on hiatus directly after the last Britton fight before coming back a couple of years later to win a close Newspaper decision over the best Middleweight in the world at the time Mike Gibbons (a monumental achievement, despite the nature of the bout) in his final fight.
OK Pre-Prime then, Thanks..... But I think Darcy Beats Gibbons anyday anytime any conditions..... Mike Gibbons is in no way the unanimous choice for #1 MW at that time,,, It is a disputed claim..... and not one Aussie ever thought so..... and many Americans also though Darcy was #1,...... You can have your opinion mate,... but don't ever imagine the question is closed..... someone said McGoorty said Gibbons would beat Darcy,, but Darcy punched Eddie so hard in the second fight that Eddie changed his opinion forever. .
No problem with anyone choosing Darcy, but I'd say Gibbons was definitely the more proven against top flight opposition (although the circumstances obviously have to be taken into account). Although, pointing out that few Australians thought so is kind of a moot point.
There is also the question of 20 rds and 10 rds..... I have read that Gibbons was a great 10 round specialist and Darcy hadn't fought a 10 round fight in his (approx) last 35 bouts.... And Gibbons fought a handful of 20 rounders,.. so I suppose that saying Gibbons was the proven #1. ten rd fighter and Darcy was the #1. twenty round MW... is fair enough (or 158 pounds against 160 ?)......... I don't think anyone can post facts to dispute that, and it'll keep me and Greatest1942 happy........ me and him have been through this argument in great detail...... and we are still good mates.... we just fight hard...... It's boxing after all you know.
