How Did Tommy Farr Do So Well Against Prime Louis ?

1 ) BS. 2/3 of the reporters are ringside said Walcott won the first fight. The surviving film shows Walcott is the better. Louis knew he lost. He left the ring early.

Yes, Donovan was pulled as the ref for the first Walcott fight. They ( the Walcott camp ) knew better and insisted!

If this was one of those news decisions, Walcott wins here. No questions. On the 10 point must system, Walcott wins easily as well. He was robbed. The Pro NY City Joe Louis crowd gave a thunderous boo when they hear the decision. And anyone alive can hear that today.


2 ) I do not trust the judges when a foreign-born man is going for the title vs a home nation man...in most nations, especially the USA in the 30's. Godoy vs Louis 1, is very close on the surviving film, and Louis looks terrible.


3 ) Donovan's score card in the Farr fight as you might say was bollocks! Pure incompetence or very bad unpurpose. Take your pick.

4 ) Now I ask you if Donovan had given Louis too many rounds in the first Schmeling fight, don't you think there is enough crud out there to suggest he was pro-Louis?

 

A good straight punch is the same technique wise whether it's a jab or right hand. Both land too easily on Louis. The difference is there are dozens of larger and more skilled heavyweight who hit harder than Farr.

What exactly makes Farr so different from dozens of top-ranked guys who fought in the 40's-10's. He ( Farr ) was hardly unique in terms of style. You'll have to tell me, details please.

 

Louis is on record in his autobiography as saying he had no doubts he won the fight ,he also stated it on national TV for the programme," How It Was".
You need a primary source for your contention that Donovan was pulled from the fight ,or that he was even the first choice , you haven't provided one.
The surviving Walcott film shows an incomplete fight, no sane ,objective observer would give a positive verdict one way or the other on that! Ten ringside reporters voted for Louis and one scored it even.The scorecards are in Louis' autobiography.If Louis needed Donovan's assistance to retain his crown he would have been the ref in the return with Godoy , but he wasn't, Billy Cavanagh got the call.
Similarly after his close call against Conn, Louis could have asked for Donovan in the return, he didn't and Frank Forbes got the job.
Donovan was only required to give his score card twice in Louis' defences.
Louis had his pet referee alright,it was in his right fist!

 

What an absolute load of **** from Trump Mendoza. Typical nonsense. Of course, as usual you are judging his fight with Walcott based on less than half of the footage which was edited specifically to have the most competitive and exciting parts for public consumption giving a skewed view. In the radio broadcast, which is complete, you get a completely different view of the fight. In fact the color commentator makes the comment before the decision is announced that its a close fight but that Walcott put on the retreat from Moscow, giving the impression that he ran out what lead he might have had. Also, Louis started to leave the ring but in his post fight interview its clear he did so not because he lost. He was clearly confident he won and also makes the comment that Walcott, based on his showing, deserves another shot. Doesnt sound like a guy who was worried about losing. Farr fought a plucky fight but anyone who thinks he deserved the victory over Louis has his head up his ass. We have that entire fight and Farr lost it convincingly. He was competetive but even in the rounds he where he was giving Louis problems he was losing most of them. Godoy was just an awkward spoiler. Another easy fight to score. Anyone who tries to hold these fights as evidence that Louis was overrated or got gift decisions is reaching much too hard. The only fight you could come close to saying that in is the Walcott fight and to Louis credit he gave Walcott the immediate rematch and knocked him out.

 

Hey, K-Pri@k. As a historian who researches the sport, you should be ashamed of yourself!

1 ) A ringside poll of 32 boxing writers had 21 scoring the bout for Walcott, ten scoring it for Louis and one calling it a draw. They were there, you were not even alive. As I said if this was in the ND era, it would have been a " news decision " for Walcott. 32 people is a huge sample. END OF.

2 ) The Video shows Walcott as the better. No issues there.

3 ) The coward at hand boos the daylights out of the decision, and Walcott's corner is clearly upset.

4 ) Louis was so disgusted by his performance that he attempted to leave the ring as soon as the fight ended, but he was restrained by his handlers.

Now sherlock, tell us why your opinion matters over all of the above. This ought to he a hoot! What a fighter says in a post interview means jack. They lie or can be overcome by the moment. Ya know Louis himself said he could never beat Marciano because he crowded him. Do you believe him there too? Do tell. Do tell!

You're such a joke and that's too bad because you can add here if you take your ego and personality out of the equation.

PS: I think Louis beat Farr, but it was competitive. Don't try to put words in y mouth. I did say Farr's exposed Louis lack of footwork, thinking on the fly and defense with jabs and straight punches. Farr did not get a re-match.

 

Farr did not get a rematch because he lost his next 4 fights to Braddock,Baer,Nova and Burman,all Louis ko victims!lol
You cannot judge a fight from highlights, surely even you can see that? Louis did not say "he could never have beatenMarciano either ,he just said when asked about his chances , "I don't know, I didn't like to be crowded".Seems it's you putting words in people's mouths.

 

I have a question for you guys....how do you think Farr would have done against Tunney?
Similar sized fighters. Slightly different ears but not by much.

 

Tunney would win a clear decision imo ,faster of hand and foot and more agile about a ring.

 

Why? Because I dont cherry pick my information, lie on a constant pathological level, and use incomplete and select sources to support my skewed vision of the history?

I never said that there werent a lot of people who thought Walcott won. But the fact remains that plenty thought Louis won and the divergent opinion was that Walcott hadnt "taken" the title from the champion, which was the expectation of the day, particularly in light of his trying to run out his lead a la DLH. Furthermore, as I said, Louis, from immediately after the fight insisted he won, regardless of what the armchair psychologist in you wants to read into his leaving the ring. The facts dont lie, you just dont have them all.

No issue? Except for the elephent in the room that is that less than 1/3 of that fight exists. Nobody could possibly judge a fight based on two thirds of the footage missing.

And Louis disagreed. Why is Walcott's opinion more valid than Louis'

Being disgusted with a performance does not equate to believing you lost. No more is this in evidence than when Louis is interview IN THE RING IMMEDIATELY AFTER the event you just described. But youve never heard that interview so you wouldnt know that.

It doesnt matter any more than anyone else accept you. Simply because your a complete nincompoop and a racist jackass who is only ever correct out of pure coincidence just like the broken clock.

And yet Walcott's words mean so much to you above. Curious.

Farr didnt get a rematch with Louis because immediately after losing an easy to score decision to Louis he lost four straight fights to four fighters who Louis knocked out.

 

klompton2, Why? Because I dont cherry pick my information, lie on a constant pathological level, and use incomplete and select sources to support my skewed vision of the history?

>>>Um, yes you do and you ignore information.


klompton2: I never said that there werent a lot of people who thought Walcott won. But the fact remains that plenty thought Louis won and the divergent opinion was that Walcott hadnt "taken" the title from the champion, which was the expectation of the day, particularly in light of his trying to run out his lead a la DLH. Furthermore, as I said, Louis, from immediately after the fight insisted he won, regardless of what the armchair psychologist in you wants to read into his leaving the ring. The facts dont lie, you just dont have them all.


>>Fess up, most felt Walcott won, and like I said the video and the crowd did too. You have no come back here. Facts smack you silly...




klompton2: No issue? Except for the elephent in the room that is that less than 1/3 of that fight exists. Nobody could possibly judge a fight based on two thirds of the footage missing.


>> If you use the 10 point must system, which the fight wasn't scored on, Walcott really can't lose. If you want to use News scoring, Walcott wins again! While 1/3 of the fight is missing, the 2/3 shown show Walcott is the better. Are you suggesting Louis, the money maker and cash cow of the time had his best moments edited out? LOL. I could argue Walcott had some of his better moments edited out too. Louis was a hero. Walcott wasn't. Fans just want ring justice. The wrong man won.





klompton2: Being disgusted with a performance does not equate to believing you lost. No more is this in evidence than when Louis is interview IN THE RING IMMEDIATELY AFTER the event you just described. But youve never heard that interview so you wouldnt know that.


>>>Any comment on Louis not being able to beat Marciano? You can't take Louis at his word and disregard it when its politically expedient. NO NO NO! Stop it, its rather pathetic.


klompton2: It doesnt matter any more than anyone else accept you. Simply because your a complete nincompoop and a racist jackass who is only ever correct out of pure coincidence just like the broken clock.

>> I never said anything remotely like that here or ever. Tell me again why there's coming in Italians that make them cheat. You said that. You racist ****. I don't want Trump to win, but if he by chance does, there will be one quick moment to smile as you hate him . There is a reason why multiple posters have had issues with you, and why you have been banned before.



klompton2: Farr didnt get a rematch with Louis because immediately after losing an easy to score decision to Louis he lost four straight fights to four fighters who Louis knocked out.

>>> Losing to Louis does not exclude anyone from a re-match. The Braddock fight was a robbery, even you must know that.

Pretty pointless correcting you.

 

So should we also retroactively change the results of other past fights based on scoring systems they werent using at the time? What utter nonsense. The fight was fought under the rules it was fought under and judged under those rules. The fact that you want to apply a different standard to that fight just shows how weak your argument is.

A 15 round fight excluding rest periods and pre and post fight runs 45 minutes. There are less than 15 minutes of actual fight time existing of Louis-Walcott 1 when you cut out the pre and post fight, slow motion highlights, and intertitles. That means less than 1/3 of the actual judging portion of the fight exists. That was edited down to the most exciting portions of the fight to make it more marketable. I say again, anyone who is judging the outcome of the fight based on such an edited and skewed film is a complete ignoramus, and of course youve shown yourself to be just that on a near daily basis here.

No Im saying that long stretches of the fight showing Walcott running, clowning, and posing but not scoring and not engaging as Louis stalked and made the fight were edited out because they were boring and frustrating to watch. Who do you think would suffer more in those clips?

You would be wrong, which seems like a position your comfortable with seeing as how often you find yourself in it.

Walcott had a chance to prove that point and couldnt do it. Thats exactly what rematches are for: to see if the right guy won and sure enough he did.

No because what Louis said about Marciano has no bearing on this point. If your point was that Louis was a liar and cant be trusted because he lied about not being better than Marciano and as such he lied about being better than Walcott one could easily twist that argument on its ear and say that when he was actually beaten Louis could be magnanimous and give his opponent a world of credit. His comments against Walcott show that he didnt feel he was beaten and as such didnt feel the need to be more than generous by saying Walcott deserved a rematch. That seems a lot more in keeping with Louis' character than your weak attempt to paint him as a liar.

Youre a racist agenda driven ***** and you know it. Im not sure how I can be racist against Italians seeing as how I am one. As for people who "have issues with me" **** em. I couldnt care less what a bunch of nameless faceless morons think about me because they got schooled on a boxing forum by someone who actually does his homework and doesnt sit in moms basement eating cheetos. You of all people should know better than to point their finger for getting banned LOL. I wear it as a badge of honor because when I have been banned I was in the right, was sticking up for myself, was banned with several other excellent posters, and would gladly do it again and revel in the consequences. My life doesnt revolve around this little boxing forum.

No but losing to Louis AND Braddock AND Baer AND Nova AND Burman bumps you pretty far down the list of contenders and when you do nothing after those five straight losses to work your way back up then its pretty weak to pretend your were robbed of a rematch.

 

It says Joe Louis just turned 23, he was a new heavyweight champion, he'd just won the title two months earlier, and he had a lot on his mind.

Not much more.

 

You guys are worse than the Trump vs Clinton debates.

 

Jesus that was as one -sided as Dempsey v Willard!lol

Being of Italian descent does not preclude you from being racist towards them.
According to Mendoza I am racist towards white people even though , as my avatar shows, I am white myself ! Don't expect logic from Klan Man.lol

 

Obviously you can be racially prejudiced against your own racial group.