Top 50 Non U.S. ATG LIST

[Greatest1942]

.................................................. ..

"One or Two names"

Considering that Smith ( I know its not very reliable, which makes me come to the point that most Australian newspaper had smith ahead) , Saylor and KO Brown three gusy who had first hand knowledge of both the guys , thought that Gibbons could clean up Darcy I think its a hard case....

Can you provide me one or two names who fought both guys and said darcy will beat Gibbons? Yea fought both remember....

About Nino okay, let us see. The man beat Griffith 2x which is alone better than anything Darcy has on his resume. Let us see Don Fullmer, Ki-Soo Kim, Luis Rodriguez (another Great)...the man was 65-0 at a point if he even retired at this point his whole career would be great. Was an Olympic Gold Medalist. What else do you want? His resume overshadows Darcy's. By the by he did avengehis loss to Tom Bethea. Much like Darcy might have done with Smith or Holland.

As for Darcy going more rounds than Nino, it proves that he had better stamina probably (since Nino never fought over 15 probably), but it doesn't prove he has a better resume.

Darcy was claimed more widely as champ? Look you gotta understand that boxing was mostly done in America...the Americans never ever recognized Darcy as the champ, except a few fighters and writers. You will find when you read the sources that Gibbons was widely regarded as the best boxer of that period...Yea it was the opposite in Australia. But since there were more people, more newspaper and more writers in America , I have to stand by Gibbons...

As for Darcy's claim vs Gibbons claim:-

Read this.

MIKE GIBBONS JUST A BIT TOO CLEVER FOR JIMMY CLABBY IN BATTLE FOR MIDDLEWEIGHT TITLE.
St Paul Scrapper Wins Six of 10 Rounds, and Two Are Even. Hoosier Begins and Ends Well, But in Between First and 10th Is Outpointed.


This will give you a better idea how the fight went :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...ms+title&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...leweight&hl=en
The above Declares Gibbons as the best middle.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...leweight&hl=en

This says that Mike Gibbons is generally given the credit for the best middle.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...st+boxer&hl=en
The above says Mike Gibbons is one of the masters of the game.


And lastly I believe in studying newspaper and primary accounts over books. As per me Darcy was accepted by many as the best, but Gibbons outpointed him 2-1 here.

If you want I can give you more sources.

[Kid McCoy]

I was never inferring you were American, but I'm trying to get the point across that there has been a lot of undercutting or at least watering down of Darcy's greatness by U.S. writers, not all of course, but by many who are very patriotic to say the least. I have read articles from before Darcy's death through the 20's to the present day from the U.S. which have their facts skewed,,,,, like the one saying that McGoorty lasted the 20 rd distance with Darcy,... and if Darcy can't KO McGoorty then what chance has he against Gibbons sort of thing............ Which lying SOB did they get their facts from... I have film of that fight showing clearly that Darcy knocked Eddie down 4 times in which McGoorty stayed on the floor after the 4th...... KO 15..... You know it, 1942 knows it anybody should know it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact :- Put Gibbons question aside for a tick,,,,, apart from Mike, who else had claims to Darcy's title ?????........ Dillon was now a LHW, McCoy couldn't beat Darcy with Mathew Haydens cricket bat, Greb was still a virtual novice, Carpentier was now a LHW....... Miske,...... mate for a start he was a LHW, yes Darcy wanted to fight him but it does nothing for the MW question,.... but for arguments sake, Les bears him anyway,... he's just too good,.... that is my opinion on that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the last time, Smith hit Darcy in the nuts, and Darcy did not go down to the canvas, he was folded up in pain,..... How the FU*K did Smith dent the metal protector......... the protector was immediately showed to hundreds of people,.... Darcy said it,.... HE DOESN'T LIE,.... if you think he did, you have read nothing of his character. ----------------- So somebody in Smith's team sent a cable to US newspapers with SMITH's VERSION OF EVENTS And You Fell for it just like those know-it-alls in the US newsrooms (real experts on events many thousands of miles away).... If Darcy had met Smith for a third bout, Les would have ripped his liver out..... Darcy admits to hating only one man during his entire life,.... and that was the man who was noted many times for his disgraceful tactics he employed,... and when Smith fouled Darcy in the second fight, it was because he was about to be knocked out, so the coward hit Darcy low again. The as*hole was booted out of the country,... All Australians know the real Smith did what we call down here "a dog act" and he "dogged it", as far far as I know, I know of no other opponent in Smith's career that had Smith so visibly frightened of the kid who was so good that his ability in the second fight was way improved in the space of a few weeks,..... Darcy got better every fight, by the time he'd have reached 25, you my friend would have him in your top 10 fighters P4P. Even if Gibbons managed a single win over the non-distance of 10 rounds, he would have lost the re-matches.... Darcy had youth in his favour........ What I;m trying to say with Gibbons is that Darcy was at worst 2nd best, but soon would have surpassed Mike,...... You won't find anybody back then that gives Gibbons a chance over the proper 20...... and Gibbons won't knock Darcy down a single time,..... unless of course Gibbon's dents Darcy's protector...... are you criticising Darcy for blinking when hit with full force ti the gonads, the balls, the testes,.. --------------------------------- You Have been hit in the nuts haven't you ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Sydney Morning Herald ???..... ahead on points means nothing if Smith is hurt in the 5th....... Smith dogged it, I have other accounts........ If Smith was beating Darcy up,.. which it is clear that by the 4th Darcy starts cleaning Smith up,,, otherwise why would Smith hit Darcy 6 inches under the belt......... Did you know that a fighter was DQ'd and lost the fight for that,.. EVEN IN DANIEL MENDOZA'S DAY............ Darcy won the first fight no matter how you look at it,...... What really happened was that the referee chose not to notice what everybody else clearly did........ It's simply that Harald Baker was the referee for the Jeff Smith V McGoorty fiasco, it was bakers decision alone to award McGoorty a fight he had clearly lost....... Seems old shifty Harald was evening up things for Smith............................................. ........... There were many rumblings that there was a deal made between Smith and the Stadium management,.... which Darcy was not aware of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in regard to your last paragraph.... Darcy had only one top name in Mike left,.. he beats Gibbons and the division is cleared out, and secondly...... even though you have been reading up mate, there is still so much for you to read yet.... researching this era is very difficult.... stay tuned on my Darcy thread, it is just warming up,... when the whole book has been posted I think you will have many revelations.............. Not religious ones but, ....... just boxing ones.

That kind of thing works both ways. There were undoubtedly some in America who dismissed Darcy, but there has also been a concerted effort in Australia to build the man up. I'd say both groups are/were pretty biased. My view on Darcy is somewhere between those two extremes. Wonderful fighter but still somewhat unproven. While you're telling me to read up more, perhaps your reading should include more objective sources.

Darcy did beat a lot of the top guys around but without meeting Gibbons he didn't prove he was #1. Nor did Darcy beat Al McCoy, who held the real title at the time, although he was a bit of a joke. Then there's the question of how he would have fared against Dillon, Miske, Greb, O'Dowd, Willard (which was amazingly mooted at one point) etc. When you take into account that, the Smith shenanigans and various other contemporary rumours about fixes, betting coups and so on, there remain legitimate and unanswered questions about Darcy. Saying what Darcy would have done in the future is just your speculation. Suppose he'd lived on and lost to Gibbons and the rest of the above? I could say that Salvador Sanchez would have gone on to become the greatest boxer of all time but as he never actually did, it's meaningless.

You don't know if it was a low blow. Darcy and his manager claimed foul but "the referee and a good many others did not see the blow in question" (Sydney Morning Herald). If a fighter quits from a low blow that the ref and many others at ringside didn't see then what can the referee do but award a TKO win? Calling it a DQ win for Smith made no sense. From most contemporary accounts I've seen (including Australian), Smith won four of the six completed rounds and since both fights ended in controversial fashion with a DQ apiece, there's absolutely no basis for claiming Darcy would have whipped Smith in a third fight. Saying Smith was about to be KO'd when he got DQ'd is news to me as well.

Out of interest, where was Smith noted many times for the "disgraceful" tactics he used? Most of the claims of foul tactics came from Dave Smith and Darcy himself, who aren't exactly objective sources. Smith received one warning in the first (which may have been the one which dented Darcy's cup) and then the final shot which Darcy claimed was low. Smith was DQ'd without any warning in the second. That's hardly a foul fest. As I said in my last post he never had another DQ loss in his life and I've not come across any other evidence for him being dirty. Smith was a tough contender who fought virtually everyone in his era, so calling him a dog and a coward is bang out of order and ridiculous based on what I know of him and what I've read of the Darcy fights.

[Greatest1942]

That kind of thing works both ways. There were undoubtedly some in America who dismissed Darcy, but there has also been a concerted effort in Australia to build the man up. I'd say both groups are/were pretty biased. My view on Darcy is somewhere between those two extremes. Wonderful fighter but still somewhat unproven. While you're telling me to read up more, perhaps your reading should include more objective sources.

Darcy did beat a lot of the top guys around but without meeting Gibbons he didn't prove he was #1. Nor did Darcy beat Al McCoy, who held the real title at the time, although he was a bit of a joke. Then there's the question of how he would have fared against Dillon, Miske, Greb, O'Dowd, Willard (which was amazingly mooted at one point) etc. When you take into account that, the Smith shenanigans and various other contemporary rumours about fixes, betting coups and so on, there remain legitimate and unanswered questions about Darcy. Saying what Darcy would have done in the future is just your speculation. Suppose he'd lived on and lost to Gibbons and the rest of the above? I could say that Salvador Sanchez would have gone on to become the greatest boxer of all time but as he never actually did, it's meaningless.

You don't know if it was a low blow. Darcy and his manager claimed foul but "the referee and a good many others did not see the blow in question" (Sydney Morning Herald). If a fighter quits from a low blow that the ref and many others at ringside didn't see then what can the referee do but award a TKO win? Calling it a DQ win for Smith made no sense. From most contemporary accounts I've seen (including Australian), Smith won four of the six completed rounds and since both fights ended in controversial fashion with a DQ apiece, there's absolutely no basis for claiming Darcy would have whipped Smith in a third fight. Saying Smith was about to be KO'd when he got DQ'd is news to me as well.

Out of interest, where was Smith noted many times for the "disgraceful" tactics he used? Most of the claims of foul tactics came from Dave Smith and Darcy himself, who aren't exactly objective sources. Smith received one warning in the first (which may have been the one which dented Darcy's cup) and then the final shot which Darcy claimed was low. Smith was DQ'd without any warning in the second. That's hardly a foul fest. As I said in my last post he never had another DQ loss in his life and I've not come across any other evidence for him being dirty. Smith was a tough contender who fought virtually everyone in his era, so calling him a dog and a coward is bang out of order and ridiculous based on what I know of him and what I've read of the Darcy fights.

The contest was now most exciting. They seemed warmed up to their work in the fifth round, and although Jeff had landed many punishing blows, they had not the slightest effect on Darcy who fought back all the harder. In sheer desperation, Smith swung his left, missed badly, and for this mistake received a mighty downward wallop on the left ear, and Les was in the act of following on with his left when Smith shot out his right to the body. Whether this blow was unfair or not is impossible for me to say, as Darcy's back was square on to where I was seated.
Will Lawless

A perceived Darcy backer

[Welsh Jon]

About Nino okay, let us see. The man beat Griffith 2x which is alone better than anything Darcy has on his resume. Let us see Don Fullmer, Ki-Soo Kim, Luis Rodriguez (another Great)...the man was 65-0 at a point if he even retired at this point his whole career would be great. Was an Olympic Gold Medalist. What else do you want? His resume overshadows Darcy's. By the by he did avengehis loss to Tom Bethea. Much like Darcy might have done with Smith or Holland.

As for Darcy going more rounds than Nino, it proves that he had better stamina probably (since Nino never fought over 15 probably), but it doesn't prove he has a better resume.

^This here is pretty much everything I wanted to say about Benvenuti. The guy had a great resume.

And Dick Tiger's is better than that again: Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Don Fullmer, Rubin Carter, Nino himself and, at light-heavy, Jose Torres.

I think it's quite fair to rank both these guys above Darcy. It doesn't matter which experts THOUGHT Darcy could beat the division's elite, it only matters what he actually did.

Don't get me wrong what Les Darcy achieved at only a young age was incredible, it is just less than what some achieved throughout their ENTIRE career.

[McGoorty]

^This here is pretty much everything I wanted to say about Benvenuti. The guy had a great resume.

And Dick Tiger's is better than that again: Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Don Fullmer, Rubin Carter, Nino himself and, at light-heavy, Jose Torres.

I think it's quite fair to rank both these guys above Darcy. It doesn't matter which experts THOUGHT Darcy could beat the division's elite, it only matters what he actually did.

Don't get me wrong what Les Darcy achieved at only a young age was incredible, it is just less than what some achieved throughout their ENTIRE career.

Then Australians can't fight at all...... because we have never produced anything even close to him since his death,,.. which seems to be the MAIN REASON HE's BEEN PUSHED OUT OF ALL LISTS,,,,,,,,,, the smear campaign should have died with him but the Yanks are so precious that NO FORIEGNER could ever beat an American..... this is why there has never been an American that has ever tried to do a book on Darcy..... not American enough.

[McGoorty]

The contest was now most exciting. They seemed warmed up to their work in the fifth round, and although Jeff had landed many punishing blows, they had not the slightest effect on Darcy who fought back all the harder. In sheer desperation, Smith swung his left, missed badly, and for this mistake received a mighty downward wallop on the left ear, and Les was in the act of following on with his left when Smith shot out his right to the body. Whether this blow was unfair or not is impossible for me to say, as Darcy's back was square on to where I was seated.
Will Lawless

A perceived Darcy backer

Will Lawless was a Darcy fan.... so would ALL OF YOU IF YOU'D SEEN HIM FIGHT. But Lawless was a very fair man,....... and This is my point about that fight... I said that just because you are a round or two ahead on points does not mean that the fight doesn't suddenly turn on it's head when Darcy hurts Smith, and yes it matters where a spectator is seated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is why books written by historians are important,.. with all the facts and reports collated, they have done most of the leg-work for us. If you want Gibbons elevated above Darcy, you will have to do a book. but you'll never convince me here, I think Darcy does to Gibbons what Fred Dyer said Les would do against him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have always wondered why I'm virtually the only Aussie here,..., I'm starting to understand now. If Darcy is not even a Top 20 MW around here, then that's a MASSIVE National put-down, what chance have I got to discuss Vic Patrick and the rest, nobody here has ever heard of Vic, but he was a helluva fighter, but not half as good as Darcy, Patrick admits this,... no if Darcy is not Top 20 MW, then he's not even top 150 in the world....... therefore Lionel Rose is not in the Top 1000...... and Vic Patrick is not top 1,000,000.......... it's getting VERY DEPRESSING.

[McGoorty]

The contest was now most exciting. They seemed warmed up to their work in the fifth round, and although Jeff had landed many punishing blows, they had not the slightest effect on Darcy who fought back all the harder. In sheer desperation, Smith swung his left, missed badly, and for this mistake received a mighty downward wallop on the left ear, and Les was in the act of following on with his left when Smith shot out his right to the body. Whether this blow was unfair or not is impossible for me to say, as Darcy's back was square on to where I was seated.
Will Lawless

A perceived Darcy backer

SO THE CUP PROTECTOR BENT INWARDS BY ITSELF...... This is for the very last time, Smith hit Les there with an illegal blow, whether on purpose or not....... Cups don't dent themselves. I WILL NEVER DISCUSS SMITH AGAIN......... I have very little respect left for him.

[McGoorty]

^This here is pretty much everything I wanted to say about Benvenuti. The guy had a great resume.

And Dick Tiger's is better than that again: Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Don Fullmer, Rubin Carter, Nino himself and, at light-heavy, Jose Torres.

I think it's quite fair to rank both these guys above Darcy. It doesn't matter which experts THOUGHT Darcy could beat the division's elite, it only matters what he actually did.

Don't get me wrong what Les Darcy achieved at only a young age was incredible, it is just less than what some achieved throughout their ENTIRE career.

He beat the entire division except Gibbons... and Gibbons had ample opportunity to fight Darcy,......... Gibbons would have made twice the money in Australia, you can say Gibbons MAY be better over 10 rounds but it is ridiculous to think Mike had a hope of winning over 20........ 10 round fights should be wiped from the record books...... they are usually exhibitions of one guy running away from another sticking a jab out, That's why I hate todays boxers........ I have read a lot more on Darcy than anyone here, WAY MORE, I think I know what I'm talking about,..... but I'm just an Aussie and we have never known anything about boxing,.... seeing as though we are pretty dumb.

[McGoorty]

"One or Two names"

Considering that Smith ( I know its not very reliable, which makes me come to the point that most Australian newspaper had smith ahead) , Saylor and KO Brown three gusy who had first hand knowledge of both the guys , thought that Gibbons could clean up Darcy I think its a hard case.... WHO IS SAYLOR ???

Can you provide me one or two names who fought both guys and said darcy will beat Gibbons? Yea fought both remember....I'm also talking about those who saw both fight,.... for future reference their common opponents are, Christie, Chip, McGoorty, Clabby, Brown and one other (sudden blank(

About Nino okay, let us see. The man beat Griffith 2x which is alone better than anything Darcy has on his resume. Let us see Don Fullmer, Ki-Soo Kim, Luis Rodriguez (another Great)...the man was 65-0 at a point if he even retired at this point his whole career would be great. Was an Olympic Gold Medalist. What else do you want? His resume overshadows Darcy's. By the by he did avengehis loss to Tom Bethea. Much like Darcy might have done with Smith or Holland.You are vastly under-estimating Clabby, McGoorty, Brown, Chip, Marchand, Dyer, Hardwicke, DAVE Smith, for starters,........ I'm not impressed with Rodriguez....... most of the names you put up would have struggled to be top 10 in the 10's........

As for Darcy going more rounds than Nino, it proves that he had better stamina probably (since Nino never fought over 15 probably), but it doesn't prove he has a better resume. DISAGREE

Darcy was claimed more widely as champ? Look you gotta understand that boxing was mostly done in America...the Americans never ever recognized Darcy as the champ, except a few fighters and writers. You will find when you read the sources that Gibbons was widely regarded as the best boxer of that period...Yea it was the opposite in Australia. But since there were more people, more newspaper and more writers in America , I have to stand by Gibbons... Crap... the big money was in Australia,..... Gibbons is the only fighter of note who did not fight here, why, scared of going 20 rounds,..... you under-rate Australian boxing from that time.... it was boxing Mecca.

As for Darcy's claim vs Gibbons claim:-

Read this.

MIKE GIBBONS JUST A BIT TOO CLEVER FOR JIMMY CLABBY IN BATTLE FOR MIDDLEWEIGHT TITLE.
St Paul Scrapper Wins Six of 10 Rounds, and Two Are Even. Hoosier Begins and Ends Well, But in Between First and 10th Is Outpointed. Just read what Clabby said about Darcy.... Gibbons outpointing Clabby ?????? .... then WTF was Darcy doing to Clabby...... holding his hand..???? .... mate Clabby lost something like 35 out of 40 rounds with Darcy....... you can believe whatever you want, I may have to disappear for a while...... I'm going to need a year or two...... to get all the facts for you.


This will give you a better idea how the fight went :-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...ms+title&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...leweight&hl=en
The above Declares Gibbons as the best middle.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...leweight&hl=en

This says that Mike Gibbons is generally given the credit for the best middle.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...st+boxer&hl=en
The above says Mike Gibbons is one of the masters of the game.


And lastly I believe in studying newspaper and primary accounts over books. As per me Darcy was accepted by many as the best, but Gibbons outpointed him 2-1 here. Outpointed ????? how do you work that out ???

If you want I can give you more sources.

Some sources are political......................................... . LOOK MATE there are only 21 million of us here versus 300 million Americans....... of course, if the Americans want to, they could smother us in Trillions of words and we'd drown........ Darcy would have simply walked through Gibbons, it would have been a F***ing massacre...... I have to go to another thread before before I really flip out.

[McGoorty]

That kind of thing works both ways. There were undoubtedly some in America who dismissed Darcy, but there has also been a concerted effort in Australia to build the man up. I'd say both groups are/were pretty biased. My view on Darcy is somewhere between those two extremes. Wonderful fighter but still somewhat unproven. While you're telling me to read up more, perhaps your reading should include more objective sources.

Darcy did beat a lot of the top guys around but without meeting Gibbons he didn't prove he was #1. Nor did Darcy beat Al McCoy, who held the real title at the time, although he was a bit of a joke. Then there's the question of how he would have fared against Dillon, Miske, Greb, O'Dowd, Willard (which was amazingly mooted at one point) etc. When you take into account that, the Smith shenanigans and various other contemporary rumours about fixes, betting coups and so on, there remain legitimate and unanswered questions about Darcy. Saying what Darcy would have done in the future is just your speculation. Suppose he'd lived on and lost to Gibbons and the rest of the above? I could say that Salvador Sanchez would have gone on to become the greatest boxer of all time but as he never actually did, it's meaningless.

You don't know if it was a low blow. Darcy and his manager claimed foul but "the referee and a good many others did not see the blow in question" (Sydney Morning Herald). If a fighter quits from a low blow that the ref and many others at ringside didn't see then what can the referee do but award a TKO win? Calling it a DQ win for Smith made no sense. From most contemporary accounts I've seen (including Australian), Smith won four of the six completed rounds and since both fights ended in controversial fashion with a DQ apiece, there's absolutely no basis for claiming Darcy would have whipped Smith in a third fight. Saying Smith was about to be KO'd when he got DQ'd is news to me as well.

Out of interest, where was Smith noted many times for the "disgraceful" tactics he used? Most of the claims of foul tactics came from Dave Smith and Darcy himself, who aren't exactly objective sources. Smith received one warning in the first (which may have been the one which dented Darcy's cup) and then the final shot which Darcy claimed was low. Smith was DQ'd without any warning in the second. That's hardly a foul fest. As I said in my last post he never had another DQ loss in his life and I've not come across any other evidence for him being dirty. Smith was a tough contender who fought virtually everyone in his era, so calling him a dog and a coward is bang out of order and ridiculous based on what I know of him and what I've read of the Darcy fights.

Mate AL McCOY was the worst champion until Mundine....... McCoy was not the true champ,.... you have some reading to do on him... when you do that, you'll dismiss McCoy for the fake he was....... Darcy also had a belt that said WORLD CHAMPION....... McCoy defended once in 4 years,,,.... and got knocked out.... glass jaw ????....... Darcy defended and never lost to around 10 or more times,...... The NZ TRUTH.... called darcy "THE ABSOLUTE MW CHAMPION OF THE WORLD........ The title was recognised in the southern hemisphere and I know the French said it was.............. Darcy is twice as good as you think he is.