The 10 Best Fighters Never To Win A World IN Each Weight Division?

[McGoorty]

Middleweight:
Charley Burley
Eddie Booker
Dave Sands
Bennie Briscoe
Sam Langford
Mike Gibbons
Holman Williams
Les Darcy
**** Turpin
Harold Green


Had a hard time filling in last 2 spots, wouldn't argue against them changing.

The right names but I hope that's not you order, I agree Sands is awesome, but there's an even better Australian way down at the Paupers end. Gibbons isn't better than Les, whose one step above **** Turpin who Darcy would have blown away. Les Darcy was greater than Sands,... but just to mention Dave Sands leads me to think highly of you regardless... I forgive you my friend....... incidentally,.... Darcy did have a Belt....... a belt that many great Americans also held,.... Les was too good for said fighters.

[NChristo]

The right names but I hope that's not you order, I agree Sands is awesome, but there's an even better Australian way down at the Paupers end. Gibbons isn't better than Les, whose one step above **** Turpin who Darcy would have blown away. Les Darcy was greater than Sands,... but just to mention Dave Sands leads me to think highly of you regardless... I forgive you my friend....... incidentally,.... Darcy did have a Belt....... a belt that many great Americans also held,.... Les was too good for said fighters.

They're clearly not in any order except for the last 2 of which I said not much thought were put in too and could be change for many more people, the names were just the first too come too mind.

Sands was just an animal and imo had he been alive for longer would have got the title shot he deserved from 48' onwards and beaten a slightly slipping Robinson in 51 or so. Yes Darcy did hold a belt but it was the Australian belt, no matter how highly it was though of it was still not the world belt whish the thread starter specified.

[McGoorty]

They're clearly not in any order except for the last 2 of which I said not much thought were put in too and could be change for many more people, the names were just the first too come too mind.

Sands was just an animal and imo had he been alive for longer would have got the title shot he deserved from 48' onwards and beaten a slightly slipping Robinson in 51 or so. Yes Darcy did hold a belt but it was the Australian belt, no matter how highly it was though of it was still not the world belt whish the thread starter specified.

Ok then mate.... If that;s the case...... #1. position goes to Darcy of course. But the fact remains that Les's title claims were the strongest in the division.... He beat guys that claimed some linearity to the title. Try to understand that it all boils down to the sudden murder of Ketchel in 1910..... That's why the Australian belt was highly thought of.... Champions to have held that belt were all great names in boxing history,... here's a few names... Darcy, Langford, McVey, Dave Smith, Eddie McGoorty, Jimmy Clabby, Mick King, Jeff Smith, Billy Papke & more..... the only two Aussies there are Darcy and King.. ------------------------------- Hardly a paper title,....... please look at THE OTHER SO-CALLED Champ.. Al McCoy.......... McCoy wouldn't have made it to the 4th against Darcy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you disagree with that choice, allow me to have Burley as my reserve.