Hello, Seems he wasn't doing to bad in 1936 and 37. In 36 he lost what sounds like a questionable decision to Tommy Farr. According to Boxrec here: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Loughran_vs._Tommy_Farr Tommy Farr would fight Louis over a year later. Should Loughran have gotten a shot instead? Or at least a rematch with Farr in the US to decide who'd fight Louis. So Farr could prove it wasn't a robbery? Loughran was only thirty five in 1937 and I think was still a better fighter than alot of guys Louis defended against. What do you guys think?
No. Between 1st March 1934 and his last fight, 18th Jan1937 Loughran had 26 fights .He won12, 8 of those wins were over nobodies. Loughran lost to 5 Louis victims, the Farr fight was debateable but Farr earned his shot against Louis by beating Neusel and Baer. Neusel had beaten Loughran and Farr had not lost a fight in the previous 5 years when he challenged Louis.
Not really, he was done by the time Louis was in the ascendency. If Louis should have fought any light heavyweight champion of his era, it is Melio Bettina
Great info thanks guys! Who were the five Louis victims Loughran lost to? Carnera and Farr are the only two I can think of?
Mc, your right, no one looks good against a southpaw especially Melio Bettina. I saw Melio Bettina and Jimmy Bivins fight a DULL draw at MSG, a real yawner. There was talk in those early Louis days of giving Maxie Rosenbloom a title bout with Louis but the Louis braintrust refrained knowing even Joe Louis though beating Maxie would not look good doing it.
