How good was Tommy Farr?

Tommy Farr was an exceptional fighter. Many people think that he got robbed in the Louis fight.

 

Maybe the most durable ever in his prime?

He took the best from Baer, Louis, Braddock, and Nova in a 14 month span? Has any HW survived such a gauntlet of punchers in such a short amount of time? That's as hardcore as it gets.

 

Great post! Farr must have been a heck of a fighter!

 

Farr himself never claimed he beat Louis, but he told my Father that he thought he beat Braddock.Farr was a tough cagey boxey but lacked a big punch. He used to write articles for the papers and had a fine singing voice.Entertaining company.

 

The tonypandy terror was a fine fighter and good points by Mcvey. He lacked power and tended to "fence" with his jab not really commit with it, his fight with Braddock is on YouTube and I can see why he felt he won that match. The Louis fight the difference in power was telling and Joe finished very strong in the championship rounds. A competitive fight for sure but Louis won.

 

On a side note with Farr, after Max Schmeling was cheated out of his match with Braddock Farr was the number one rated contender and was offered a substantial offer from Nazi Germany to fight Schmeling. Schmeling was willing to fight him in London and it was going to be billed as the real heavyweight championship of the world. Fearing this would split the fan base on who was the true champion in the division Louis's camp came in the 12th hour and trumped Germany's offer and Louis Farr was made.

 

I'd class him as without doubt better than ****ell, Henry Cooper and Joe Bugner of the top Brit heavies that followed him - possibly even better (certainly more natural talent) than say Bruno even considering Bruno's bulk and heavy guns - for me the best Brit heavy prior to Lennox

 

Farr was a competent boxer with good toughness. He wasn't very big, and lacked power. You could say he would be able to out box Hart, or Braddock, and owned a points win over Max Bear. Sure--he could have beaten a few champions on any given night.

Farr was in robbed vs Braddock. Some of the judging on his fights in the USA were questionable.

Farr's best remembered for giving Joe Louis a tough fight. Farr likely won 6-7 rounds. His punches often had an easy time reaching Louis, thanks to Louis stick your face forward stance, low gurad, and sometimes stationary footwork.

You can view 20+ minutes of the fight here:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF2oLDZpxeo[/url]

If Farr had longer reach, or more power, he could won. A fight like this tells me Louis in in trouble vs Tunney and might be badly outclassed by the faster / longer champs such as Ali or Holmes.

 

Sorry but this is nonsense.atsch


Farr was 6'1",only half an inch shorter than Louis . Farr weighed 204.25lbs that night ,7 and a quarter more than Louis's 197!

At 78" he had 2 inches on Louis for reach!
Farr himself never claimed he won ,or that he even shared it.7 rounds to Farr? Rubbish!

Louis injured his right hand early in the fight, this hampered him and meant that he threw less power shots than usual.

Bottom line Farr never won a fight in the US:deal

 

If Farr had longer reach, or more power, he could won. A fight like this tells me Louis in in trouble vs Tunney and might be badly outclassed by the faster / longer champs such as Ali or Holmes. -Mendoza

Do you know how to read? I said IF Farr had more power or reach. Of course he did not, but it is a style flaw for Louis that even you must be able to see.

Farr did win 6-7 of 15 rounds. One judge gave him six rounds. Joe Louis ref's for 15+ fights ( Art Donovan ) only gave Farr one round. For shame!


Louis throws plenty of right hands on film. This seems like an excuse.

No one is claiming Farr won, but like I said there was no re-match.

 

He was pretty good.

He is very decisively the best British heavyweight of the 100 year span between Fitzsimmons and Lewis, and perhaps Louis’s best opponent who never held the title.

I think Louis did beat him fairly, but neither Louis, Baer, nor Braddock beat him very convincingly. The only person who really did that anywhere near his prime was Nova.

He was one of the best contenders of his era, and he might just have been able to hold the title a few years earlier.

 

Farr was good. His toughness was his chief asset. He was one of Louis better early challengers and he was definately robbed against Braddock. However he certainly didnt deserve the win against Louis. Thats ridiculous.

One thing that has always puzzled me is his first fight with Baer. He supposedly whipped Baer handily and even Baer said he didnt have it anymore after that but the footage (and its limited so that could be the problem) looks like Baer was the better fighter. Then Baer come back a year later and knocks Farr down three times in winning a revenge match that he swore he could have knocked Farr out in if he hadnt injured his hand. Im not saying the first fight was a robbery but its just odd that even in the newsreels from Britain they couldnt piece together any more footage of Farr looking good against Baer in a fight he supposedly won handily. I have several newsreels of the fight and the ones from Britain are bizarre because the British announcer is lauding what Farr is doing and yet its Baer who looks better. Again, not saying Farr didnt deserve the win though because the footage is limited and Farr is exactly the type of fighter to give Baer fits.

 

I've been reading the comments. I'd never really looked into his career; always thought he was probably a tough, cagey boxer, with a good set of whiskers who lacked a big punch (I guess I was sort of right)
I just looked Tommy up on boxrec (not always the most reliable source of info) and a couple of things completely jumped out.
He turned pro in 1926 at the age of 13???
He took a complete hiatus from boxing during the 40's?
Did he enlist during WW2?
Then came back with some fights until 1953? 40 yrs. old at the time?
I'm going to go see what else I can find on him.