Second best British Heavyweight

You could make an argument for Bob Fitzsimmons being British. Outside him I like Farr, pushed Louis all the way.

 

Some include Bob Fitzsimmons as British.
But if we leave him and Lennox aside, I'd probably say Tommy Farr.

 

Where would you guys rank Henry Cooper?

And why is it Scotland had never produced a good heavyweight?* This has puzzled me for ages.

*To my knowledge, that is.

 

Post-war I would say Bruno.

Not sure of the Scottish HW thing to be honest :good

 

Henry Cooper would probably figure in the top 5.

No idea why Scotland has lacked heavyweights.
Britain as a whole hasn't exactly excelled with that division, in fact we didn't really have a solid answer to the American jibe of "land of the horizontal heavyweight" for many decades before Lennox Lewis. It's a pretty weak division for Britain historically.

Wales has produced some of the best of the rest (Farr, Erskine, Richardson etc.), so I dont know why Scotland hasn't.

 

I think you would have to recognise Bob Fitzsimmons as the second greatest British heavyweight of the gloved era simply by virtue of the fact that he held the lineal title.

He was the best heavyweight on the planet for a couple of years and I don't think that any other British heavyweight prior to Lewis could have made that claim.

If you omit Bob Fitzsimmons from the list due to questions about his nationality then the place naturaly falls to Tommy Farr on the grounds that he beat Max Baer. Farr had five fights against lineal campions (Loughran, Baer, Louis and Braddock) and none of them realy produced a dominating win over him including Louis.

On that basis I would say that of all the British fighters between Fitzsimmons and Lewis Farr probablyt came the closest to being the best heavyweight on the planet. If he had got his title shot a couple of years earlier against sombody weaker than Louis then you never know.

 

"Aussie" Joe? Surely he doesnt count. :hey

 

You can keep him.

 

not saying farr is not the second best as not sure myself but do think he deserves credit for taking louis the distance but he was not even close to winning ,will watch it again in the next few days to see if i am being unkind to farr

 

I would say Farr too, but not on the grounds of who he beat or how high up the ratings he went. I think Frank Bruno has a claim on those grounds too, he beat McCall and should have been rated highly off that win in 1995 before Tyson got him again.
I just think Farr was a better boxer.

Fitzsimmons emigrated to New Zealand when he was 9 years old, and as far as I know never boxed in Britain. Hard to say whether he really qualifies or not.

 

I think Tommy Farrwas robbed versus Braddock.
Admittedly beating Braddock is no special feat at all.

 

Braddock is regarded as one of the weaker lineal champions but how many British fighters would actualy have beaten him at thi stage of his career?

You also have to ask how many of them would have hung with Max Baer even on an off night?

 

I dont know, British heavyweights haven't been a particularly good group.
I think Max Baer loses to a lot of ordinary fighters though, on his "off night".
And Braddock was durable but otherwise ordinary.

Braddock v. Baer, incidentally, is one of the worst heavyweight championship matches I've seen. Disgracefully bad considering they were both world champions in the days when they was only one such thing.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder why I rate Tommy Farr highly now.