Who wins this battle between boxing's nearly men? Darcy was a rising prospect with a small handful of good victories before unfortunately passing meaning he never got have to realise his potential, or face the best in his division. Papp was arguably the best amatuer in history, communist state meant he couldn't turn pro and when he did do eventually, his visa was denied. It could be said he was past his prime before ever turning pro. So on one hand you have the pre prime Darcy and on the other you have the post prime Papp. Both national heroes, both denied opportunity to achieve greatness in a professional championship bout. Who takes it?
I think Darcy from the Chip footage would stop Papp in the rules from that era. Darcy appears very strong, has a good jab, also has an up jab, uses control in clinches and mid ranges, slams in uppercuts to the body, moving to the side angle similar to Dempsey, spins opponents in clinches...Darcy would be too rugged for Papp, and would overpower him. IMO the Darcy from the Chip fight would have also beaten Mike Gibbons, from the footage I've seen of Gibbons v McFarland. Gibbons would have stayed away and not engaged Darcy...losing a decision.
Struggling with a smaller, inactive McFarland and beating an old Tiger Jones is something else as well...
I thought maybe you would match Darcy with Burley so you could have two "prospects" facing off lol. I think Darcy does this by a KO, not sure when, but sooner or later he catches Papp with dynamite.
It a pretty good summation of Darcy, Chip was a very rugged fighter, amazingly dismissive of the rules too, lol.... backfists fgs. Darcy's strength would overpower most middleweights and you are right, Mike Gibbons probably would try to avoid anything in close but Darcy can fight on outside too with superior reach. It is pretty much unknown as to what needs to be done to beat Darcy, only truly outpointed once and that was his first fight at Sydney Stadium, before that he fought twice at Newtown, just down the road from me actually and before that in Newcastle..... going from those venues to Sydney stadium is a huge step for someone just turned 18... in that fight, the first of four with Fritz Holland, Darcy was a raw tearaway and he had never been coached by anyone of high class yet, he lost that because Holland was a slick boxer who had fair power and he made the lad miss a lot. All that changed as Dave Smith started to add polish to the youngster and from that fight on Darcy improved greatly each time. He lost the 2ns fight with Fritz by DQ after landing a couple of low blows after he was well ahead on points. Great fighters learn fast. He had many more fights after that and by the time he beat McGoorty and Clabby he seemed unstoppable and nobody found a weakness to exploit. Pap would have to find a way, if there was one. Papp won't KO Darcy so he has to outpoint him somehow.
TBH I see Burley as on a different plain of talent. Here we have man who was pre prime for his career vs a man who was post prime for his career. Both national icons who had a lot of hype.
I just will never understand the idea that McFarland gave Gibbons problems. I understand the newspapers were split but I don't get it. In the long version of the film which is most of the fight Gibbons makes the fight, he is the one coming forward, he is the one throwing and landing more, his punchers are harder. It is McFarland who is initiating the clinches and largely trying to avoid punishment and this is a Gibbons who had to weigh in nearly 10 pounds under his normal fighting weight just to get the fight (regardless of what Senya says and posts on Boxrec) hardly indicative of a prime performance.
Mike Gibbons struggled with Soldier Bartfield, while weighing 155 pounds, in his last fight before meeting McFarland (and yes, I'm aware he later claimed he sprained his side in Houck bout several days before Bartfield, as an excuse). And "split" is not quite fitting word, there were more journalists who voted for McFarland than for Gibbons and draw combined.
Are you a moderator on Boxrec ???? I have both Gibbons and McFarland in my top 12 of the decade, I think that McFarland edged it but I also believe the report I read where the crowd called it a fix because no one thought they were hitting as hard as they could but that aside the fact that this is McFarland's last fight and he is "fat" and fighting a younger bloke in his prime I must say McFarland was more impressive.
And this has what to do with what I said. Youve long been a proponent of using the word of mouth, unverified ringside weights for that contest. Nobody uses unofficial weights. The official weights were 147 which was almost 10 pounds lighter than Gibbons best weight. When you start entering the unofficial HBO ringside weights for modern fights I'll give the argument that Gibbons weighed 155 some thought, but not much more than a thought considering that was an estimate and no actual weights were taken ringside. Ive been clear about the fact that I don't understand how anyone could vote for McFarland. When you see the complete fight you can come back here and argue with me. Until then I'll trust my eyes. Gibbons made the fight despite being weight drained. As for Bartfield, well, McFarland would have struggled with him as well in 1915.
I'm not an editor for quite some time, so feel free to change the weights to whatever you want. I don't need to do the arguing, when we have a bunch of first-hand accounts explaining why they voted for McFarland or Gibbons or why they thought it was a draw. I very much doubt that Bartfield could out-McFarland Packey the way he out-Gibbons-ed Mike, even the one who was retired for over a year.
