Les Darcy vs Carlos Monzon

Well many regarded him as the greatest captain and he was simply brilliant in the field and no it is not ridiculous to say he was twice as good or almost twice as good as the next best batsman who I believe most like is Hobbs.... stats prove me right, and you so called experts are bad experts if the say otherwise, I am sorry McVey but you just don't get it.

 

Bradman always made up for them in spades, he is histories greatest run getter nobody ever had a better record and it would be well nigh impossible for any other batsman to ever average 80.00 let alone 99.94...... tell me McVey what is it about 99.94 that you don't understand ???... or 309 runs in a single day......... or in all first class cricket, 338 innings, 43 not outs, 28,067 runs, highest score 452 not out, an average of 95.14 and 117 centuries ????? do these stats mean anything to you ? I presume you must be English but most of them see it the way I do.

What series are you talking about ???? every batsman in history gets a duck sometimes,

 

I am sure Griffo said by stats, but even if he said what you say he said it is far from laughable, did you know that Sachin Tendulkars hero is Bradman, same for Steve waugh, Richie benaud and just about all batsmen.

I saw a lot of Tendulkar and the guy was phenomenal and while watch him I couldn't help but think how good Bradman must hace been to have has stast almost twice as good.

You mention the fact that there are more teams now so more competition but you miss other facts, Bradman didn't have a helmet, Sachin did yet Bradman faced bowlers just as fast as today's bowlers... you also forget to mention that Bradman had to play in far worse conditions, most of his low scores were on wet stcky wickets, we don't have those anymore as all wickets are covered as soon as play is over..... history shows that ALL batsmen struggled very badly on sticky wickets against spin,, Jim Laker's 19 out of 20 wickets in that test match in 1956 was on guess what, a sticky wicket and sure Bradman was retired by then but my point is that is how Laker got so many wickets... All the greats of the past have bad records on such pitches... Trumper, Hobbs etc all have many low scores as sticky wickets were common. No Bradman had it tougher than todays players do where most pitches are perfect batting wickets, we saw a few greentops in this last Ashes series but old timers were used to those, todays players have forgotten how to handle anything less than perfect pitches and did you see what happened ?...... carnage, disaster on both sides.... bowlers had a picnic, but we won't see that on the pitches Tendulkar played most of his cricket on... flat bowler destroying pitches.... and he played many tests against sub standard nations too,, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe he played a lot against.

 

I'm not an expert on any subject.As to those who made the assessments, of course if they don't slavishly agree with you they are wrong stupid etc .I think we see an ongoing pattern here, and I'm not the first poster to pick up on it.

 

Wow, two Aussie cricketers make Bradman their hero what a surprise!atsch Laker was a fine spinner but Warne has taken the art to another level.I never mentioned anything about more teams or more competition.:huh

 

I give up, you believe whatever shyte you want to believe dude, I just can't take you seriously any more. I was talking to Berlenbach not you anyway.

 

Bradman is the greatest and a few objectors will never change that.

 

Ongoing pattern you reckon ?... yeah the pattern is me being right.

 

You entertain no other possibility in your posts ,anyone who does not agree with you one hundred percent is a hater /anti Australian or both. Berlenbach is just one to notice it.
And I never have taken you seriously. In one of your posts you made some silly comments, I alluded to them and you asked which ones I had issues with? I posted them and you ignored it because you were WRONG and you knew it . End of any prospect of credibility right there.

 

You are a joke, pathetic, I have no idea what you are talking about, you can have your forum, with people like you I am getting very bored with all this, you are wrong about Bradman yet are too insecure to admit it. Between you and that ******* Klompton you have screwed this forum. You are just toxic.

 

This is what I'm talking about.You making statements that are just plain WRONG ,being corrected on them and ignoring it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey

This content is protected

The one where you say Moore was nowhere near ready for a title shot against Zale.
Moore was his number one contender in1942.
In the same post you said the mob controlled boxing and if they thought Williams and Burley worth of title shots they would have got them.
Williams was ranked the following in Zale's title reign.
1942 no3.
1943 no2
1944 no1.
1945 no 1.

Burley was ranked:
1942 no2.
1944 no3.
1945 no 2.
1946 no2.

I'd say that proves they were ready and had justified themselves as title challengers. They were certainly more worthy of title shots than Steve Mamakos who was unranked.

Here's your response to being corrected .


"Yes for sure although mamakos was a decent fighter. I rate Burley higher than Holman Williams certainly a lot higher than Lytell. around 1940 Zale was just becoming a good fighter and Burley was a legit contender at the time but war did intervene and that was really what stopped that matchup, he would certainly have gotten that shot if the war didn't happen but from there on we can only guess as to who would have won. i did a good write up today on Zale and am proud of my work on him, it was highly detailed and i described the third Graziano fight and the Cerdan fight from memory and I think it was accurate and a little exciting, at least i was excited recounting those two awesome fights from memory."
I'm toxic ? Yeah because I don't happen to slavishly agree with every word you post , before I disagreed with you I was fine. Lets get to the bottom line , what you are is a Les Darcy Fan Boy And a Fan Boy of everything from
DownUunder .

You don't like me now? As if I could give flying f*ck!

Oh and here is your pm, sent minutes ago, posted for the entertainment of the forum.



"I tried to be nice to you but after that rant you can go fukk yourself you cokk. I never called you a hater but you and Klompton clearly are. I know a bucketload of boxing people who hate Klompton and you are second on their lists but now I can see why... only a re**** would ever say Bradman wasn't the best batsman of all time yet you debate it........................ Compton can fukk himself and so can you "


A bucket load of boxing people that hate me second only to Klompton? Boxing people have never even heard of me!

 

Not impressed in the least by what I see in Darcy on film. Not a lot of good technique in his punches, his shoulders, body, looks "tight" when delivering a punch, as many fighters from that era no fluid "swing" in his body while fighting.

Monzon was not a great in that but clearly better. He would outbox Darcy and probably gets a stoppage.

 

That's you down as a "hater " then.:-lol:

 

They know they hate a spastic called McVey from this forum you stupid Pommy spastic...... then you go post a private PM in public you scum, well I ain't taking any of it back, you had to get me angry so wear it.

What ? you are off your head, insane, how is me stating Don Bradman is the best batsman of all time wrong OMG what a total fool. I even posted a bunch of stats to PROVE I WAS RIGHT............ Everything I said in the PM I stand by... you are a cokk and I PM'd a mod to tell him what I PM'd you, so I clearly do not give a fukk about idiots. I can tell the future too, whoever you are you will one day be surrounded by men in white jackets at an asylum..... asylum, thats what you are turning this forum into.... I really don't want to reply to your garbage any longer, have a good life in your future mental hospital.

 

Well not all of us can see.............. your opinion only mate.