Sugar Ray Robinson would have cut Greb to pieces

A very good point Boiler, usually the pound is worth twice that of the dollar. I doubt the commonwealth Bank existed back then as we were not in a commonwealth but an empire, the term commonwealth had been used during Cromwell's time but our commonwealth began after the end of world war II. The big bank here was probably The Bank Of New South Wales which probably worked hand in hand with The Bank Of England... the bank that our first band was based on. I don't think many fighters good good purses in the USA in at least the years between 1908 and 1914....... there were so many state governors trying to ban the sport altogether... the ND rule was one of the measures they used to try and kill boxing but trying to do that in those days where every decent sized city in the US had fights often many nights a week, so instead of really big paydays that would mean more boxers not needing to fight 20 plus fights a year, instead to get ahead they usually fought every chance they could get and with hundreds of fightcards every week especially in the east they went and fought lots of these ND bouts.... no results mean they don't count on their record so the main job is to please the audience but not going too hard but had better make it at least look they were... so many of these were just 6 or 8 rounds...... not sure but I think that depended on what state you fought in. as the war started to kill off boxing in Australia some purses seemed to be on the rise. What that guy says about Darcy being offered good money is because he was a huge star and drawcard.... until the PM Hughes went on his crusade to destroy the life and name of our greatest fighter. He would have made these promoters rich, as it was Tex Rickard was obviously a brilliant entrepeneur and he did need to wait long to become rich or at least much richer.

For a time Les Darcy was making good money, he was probably the youngest man in Australia that came from poverty to ever buy a Buick and also a house for his Mum.

 

Yes for sure, two reasons, The war and Hughes and the campaign to destroy Darcy had a massive effect on reducing boxing after the war, the public were angry as a pack of hornets as to the was Darcy was treated and that helped give boxing a bad name but the deep love of the sport was still there and it grew slowly, what it needed after the war was a star but there were none, Tommy Uren looked very promising but with no top flight americans coming for him to beat anymore he couldn't build that reputation, Les Darcy's Brother was not too bad a prospect but he died too just a year or two after the war. Add to that as well that Snowy Baker was maybe the most hated man in Australia then..... there were a lot of issues.....

Which brings me to point two... Why no americans ? the money could surely have been raised to be reasonable.... well Jack Dempsey and tex Rickard had suddenly made boxing infinitely a far bigger show than it had ever been, the million dollar gate... the largest crowd in the history of sport and well to cash in you better hang around eh !!!

 

Yeah Loughran is one of those exempt from doubt as a Great for sure, he was a well schooled and clever boxer with great skills, it is ok to raise questions like Dago did cos it is a debate forum but he seems to me to be one of the best light heavies of the all.

 

No it doesn't matter what era they are from, a great is a great is determined by what era you fought in... hell if we use the criteria of Tommy's time none of the guys from these days would ever be considered greats except for maybe Pac man and Floyd but maybe in Tommy's era Floyd never gets a title shot let alone be a champ. I mean at lightweight he ain't gonna solve Benny Leonard, at welterweight Walker kills him dead, Mickey was quicker and more powerful than Floyd, he just overwhelms most men.

 

YES, gyse, Yes and yes to all of that.