The best HOMEGROWN BRITISH heavyweights of all-time ?

You rip a guy for losing to Bonecrusher Smith on a final round KO, but you rate a guy who lost to nearly 40 nobodies number one?

How does that work?

I judge people on their entire careers ... not on a tiny year or two window that I insist people only look at ... and then make excuses for the dozens and dozens and dozens of other losses.

:roll:

 

Tommy Farr ... the greatest British heavyweight ever for a couple weeks in 1936 ... and that one month in 1937. :roll:

Do you also rate Roy Jones one of the best heavyweights all time because he won a heavyweight title one night and relinquished it undefeated?:good

 

Bruno was clearly not as good as Joe, but would bring something different to the table, and from what I have seen and read, I think Farr would struggle.

But maybe Farr wins a series...

 

I assumed that nobody hated Tommy Farr, but I guess that I must have been wrong!

 

Farr might win a series, if it took place within a few months span in mid to late 30s, but not too late in the 30s, and not too soon in the 30s, not 1935 ... because he was still losing, and not 1937, because he was still losing, and not in the middle of 1936 when he was struggling to draw with domestic fighter Jimmy Wilde ... not in 1938 when he was losing to all the contenders ...

It had to be just the precise right moment ... and then Farr was awesome.

But Bruno beats him 99.99 percent of the rest of the time.:good

 

I don't hate him. I rate him in my top 10. I just don't rate him number one because he hung tough with a few names for a night and lost to everyone else. There weren't alot of great British heavyweights. But Farr wasn't the best, that's for sure.

 

What is wrong with a fighters legacy being built on a three or four year run?

Especially if it was artificially cut short by a world war.

I don't see the issue here.

 

I rate him on that run.

I also lower him for all the losses he incurred.

There's nothing wrong with that, either.

What IS wrong is refusing to consider the losses of a guy you rate number one ... and rip everyone else for their losses and put their defeats under a microscope.

Use the same criteria for all.

 

I do not consider losses that fell well outside a fighters prime, when discussing who was better of two.

I think that whoever has the best prime run, is generally going to take the #1 spot, even if the other guy did better when he was green/shot.

 

A bit harsh on Farr. He started his career at a very young age, his mother died when he was nine and his father couldn't work after an accident in the coal mines so being the main family breadwinner of a large family he was literally in his early career fighting every few weeks to survive, in those circumstances it's easy to have plenty of L's on a record.
Being so young but still growing he had a lot of trouble making light heavyweight which accounted for several losses.
After moving up to heavyweight he showed he could compete with the best heavyweights in the world fair enough lost to most, although away from home, but beat some good men as well.
Later on he had money troubles and and made a comeback after 10 years which accounted for some more losses on his record.
I just think looking at a record on paper can be deceiving Farr was infinitely better than his record looks.

 

And I consider a fighter's entire career - especially when a guy like Gary Mason beat the living hell out of heavyweights for a decade, and only lost one fight - to a first-ballot Hall of Famer/ATG -- and Farr went 21-10-1 against heavyweights, and was only a world-class fighter for about two years at the weight.

He gets credit for what he accomplished. But it's not enough at all to rate him number-one.