Les Darcy vs Harry Greb

People also said (and repeated in print) for decades that Billy Papke sucker punched Stanley Ketchel during the referees instructions and that that's why he was able to take Ketchel's title. Guess what? It never happened.

The myth that Greb and Walker got into a street fight after their 1925 brawl in NY was told and retold for decades. Also never happened.

We can even go more recently with people claiming for decades that Cassius Clay was given anywhere from an extra minute to an extra 5 mins to recover in his corner due to a Henry Cooper left hook (as well as some shenanigans by Angelo Dundee). Didn't happen.

Gotta have something that proves it happened, ESPECIALLY with boxing, where myths run rampant.

 

Good point.
My next question is, go and find some evidence it was made up.

If all these old rumours have been dispelled why not this one. heh

 

It doesn't work that way.

Sporting writers at the time were gathering and printing any gossips they could, especially about heavyweight contenders. 7 feet tall 350 pounds farmer from a god-forgotten village, who never put on the gloves in his life, challenging Willard for the title? We'll write about it!

With this story nothing leaked out at the time it supposedly had taken place, even though the stories of them two sparring were mentioned multiple times.

 

They had nothing to gain from this,no one did, Darcy was banned everywhere in the United States from boxing.

 

no reason to suggest darcy beats greb.Greb takes this

 

Sometimes lack of evidence is the evidence, as in the case of Papke-Ketchel. Nothing supports it except talk that surfaced much later on and from out of nowhere. None of the newspapers that covered the fight mention any pre-fight sucker punch. So that's evidence that no such thing occurred.

 

It still would have gotten out and spread pretty quickly. Stuff like that always did.

 

Sparring stories are so much bull**** anyway.

Darcy did more than enough in his short career to form an opinion on his merits as a fighter without resorting to a sparring session that may or may not have happened. I put enough stock in his victories over McGoorty, Chip, Clabby and Crouse and the testimonies of those he fought and saw him fight to say he would be more than competitive with Harry Greb in 1915-16 if they had've met.

Afterwards we just don't know what Darcy does but we know how amazing Greb must've been so it's impossible to predict who wins then suffice to say Darcy would have to be even more sensational to get a win over possibly the greatest fighter ever.

 

I concur. Well spoken.

 

Senya gave a pretty good definition of primary source earlier.

There is a difference between having 5 local papers reporting the story (more hype for the inevitable Darcy v gibbons bout) and having it retold as some myth that someone knows someone who heard it happen.

But the main point is we dont have to disprove it, just like you dont have to disprove my accusations of you being a paedo.

 

A primary source is a source which comes from first hand information. If you want something else then change what you ask for dont try to change the meaning of what you ask for just because it doesnt suit your agenda. this is sad, expecially considering some of those doing this are easily some of the best posters in the history of this site.

A primary source was asked for, and a primary source has previously been provided. That is fact and it really should be acknowledged. I have seen convictions in a court of law wiht far less.

If memory serves correct, there were 3 first hand primary sources which appeared admittedly years later.

There was also secondary sourses provided from pretty respectable sources with little to gain, including all time great fighter in Jack Dempsey.

Originally those against the story claimed that no sparring between the two ever took place. This was shattered by Primary and contemporary reports and has been since taken as admitted even by the most ardent opponent of this myth.

It has to be acknowledged that obviously it owuld be better proved if this was reported. Certainly I think it reasonable to conclude that the myth may have been a little exaggerated, and it has to be accepted that nothing definitely is 100 per cent conclusive but it is certainly more likely than not. I have never seen a current report of Jack Johnson ever fighting in a battle royale but i am pretty sure this happened. I dont think we will ever get much more evidence than what we have on the subject. it may not be 100 percent but it is probably at 85 or so and certainly it is well over 50.

 

http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources

and by the way this is the first definition of primary sources i came across. I am sure there are others. The sources provided might not be the best primary source but they are still a primary source.

 

From your link:
Primary Sources
Examples include:
Newspaper articles written at the time;

That hasn't been provided. First-hand is not primary source, unless it was told during or shortly after the event it refers to.

 

If Martinez knocked out povetkin in sparring the story would get printed.

Hell Martinez outboxing campillo in sparring made the papers.

It's really a very simple debate.

A claim is made that Darcy sparked Fulton.

We ask you to back up said claim with primary sources.

Failure to do so is tantamount to retracting the claim.