How Did Tommy Farr Do So Well Against Prime Louis ?

Three reasons to my mind:

1. I think that Louis's confidence was still a bit shaken from the Schmeling loss.

2. Louis seems to have sustained a hand injury at some point during he fight.

3. As others have said, Farr was a very slippery and experienced customer.

 

He was the same as other great fighters.

 

Joe Louis caught a lot of critcism for the Farr performance at the time.
But every up-and-comer - and every champion - gets criticised.

Farr was underestimated going in. If he was an American golden boy, the focus of the post-fight story would be saying how great his performance was rather than how poorly Louis performed.

 

Absolutely. I agree with this.

 

It says a lot. Farr was a moderately skilled guy with moderate power and good toughness.

Louis lack of footwork, low guard, limited head movement / stick his face forward stance cost him here and Farr often had an open and stationary type of target. As for switching tactics, that was not Louis forte either. He needed Blackburn and a full camp look better in the rematch.

This is why I say Louis would be in trouble vs larger skilled heavyweight who threw straight punches. The films show what Schmeling saw.

Farr even stunned Louis.

The fight was much closer than referee Art Donovan ( who was the ref in 15+ Louis fights, with some iffy scores ) had it. Donovan only gave Farr one round. Amazing. I think Farr won 6-7 rounds out of 15. The other two judges had about right, and the AP Press Louis winning 8-5-2.

There was no re-match. In his next fight, Farr was robbed vs Jimmy Braddock. In fact, Farr never won a boxing match on USA soil. This was the 1930's. The mob and boxing establishment didn't want any NON-USA champions.

 

Farr always maintained he beat Braddock and told my Father so, but he never claimed he beat Louis.The other fights Farr had in the US were losses too and Baer had him on the floor 3 times,Nova once,he clearly lost those fights, there was no fix involved,the Burman fight was closer.
Donovan refereed 12 of Louis' defences,all but a couple in NY where he was the premier referee, his scorecard was needed only in the first Godoy fight and the Farr fight.His score card for the Godoy fight was 10-5 to Louis one other judge gave it 5-10 and the other 10-4-1 so of the two who voted for Louis he gave Godoy one more round than the other! I believe Farr won more rounds than Donovan gave him but that is just one fight, so the phrase "some iffy scores" is BS.

 

I thought the Farr-Nova fight was considered very close by the American press.

 

"This reportedly was a sizzling battle. Nova had Farr near a knockout in the 14th round when Referee Eddie Joseph started counting as he lay in the rope. However, Farr resumed the fight after the count reach two. Both men were in a state of exhaustion in the last round."Competitive yes.

 

I don't think you could find a fight that told you less about how Louis would have fared vs. larger skilled heavyweight who threw straight punches.

 

Your old man is correct. Farr won the Braddock fight.

But to point Farr really wasn't that good. He was a sound boxer in a time with few. Look how well he did vs Louis. What would a bigger boxer with more power and reach do to Louis? I think he's in trouble and lucky there were next to none in his time.

Farr did almost as well as Walcott who deserved the nod in the first fight, and Conn who had Louis hurt and all but be a ton points until getting foolish. The first Goody fight was close. Donovan did not see it that way.

As for Donovan how can a man be front and center and only give one round to Farr in that fight? It's reeks of incompetence, and Donovan was in fact pulled from the first Walcott fight because Walcott camp knew full well how biased he could be.

Donovan was the ref in the first Louis vs Schmeling fight too. Do you know his score card, and do you agree if he had it too close, he was biased? Yes or no? It's a question that puts your honest on the line, and I might have the answer for you.

 

??? Why not ???. He was stationary square up, guard low type of fighter without a lot of footspeed and sometimes limited head movement.

Open to jabs, rights, and counters. The film shows this, and Farr threw solid straight punches. Dozens of fighters post Farr could do the same, and they were much bigger and hit harder.

As it was Louis never faced a larger skilled heavyweight who threw straight punches. But Schmeling and Farr did throw straight punches. We all saw how easily they landed.

I see no reason why a larger skilled fighter would not have the same success or greater.

 

No one can say Walcott deserved the verdict in the first Louis fight because no one alive has seen the fight in its entirety.The referee for that one was Ruby Goldstein he gave a7-6-2 even card for Walcott one judge gave it 9-6 for Louis the other 8-6 -1 even.
None of the judges agreed on the scoring of the Godoy fight and of the two who voted for Louis, Donovan was the most generous to Godoy.Donovan was the premier referee not only in NY but in the US for many years. At the end of the 5thrd of the 1st Schmeling v Louis fight, Max his Louis on the chin after the bell had rung .Louis was fighting in a fog after this and didn't really know where he was he hit Schmeling low twice and was warned by Donovan, losing the rounds. I'd need a primary source that Donovan was pulled as the referee,he was the challenger and did not get to dictate terms he only got the title shot because Joe Baksi turned it down preferring to go to Stockholm to fight Ollie Tandberg figuring a win would up his price.There is zero evidence that Donovan ever participated in giving a crooked decision. I'm not sitting through the first Schmeling fight to score it.

 

Nova is an extremely underrated contender. People forget that after Schmeling, Nova was the big threat to the Louis reign.

The Conn fights, Galento even Godoy and Buddy Baer fights over shadow it now because Louis v Nova was a flop.

56,000 fans went to the polo grounds to watch Louis v Nova.. nobody talks about it!

Less fans went to watch Billy Conn against Joe Louis!

Aside from the Schmelling rematch it was the highest ever turn out for a Joe Louis title fight.

This was a fight of some magnitude. The receipts for Louis v nova was $583,711 and represented Joe Lous's second largest purse as a champion before the war.

Going into their fight Nova was taken very seriously. I dont think Louis gets the credit for this win.

 

You couldn't find two fighters who were less stylistically similar to the larger heavyweights that you are trying to big up base on these fights.

The fact that the only similarity that you can find is that "they threw straight punches", shows how tenuous the connection is.

That is a bit like saying that they were similar because they had two hands?