Tommy Loughran All Time Great?

You have a question mark against the statement, for the life of me, I cannot see why.
Loughran's resume is terrific.

 

Tommy Loughran an ATG???? Of course.

 

I forgot to say...THREAD CLOSED!!!:hi:

 

He defeated Jack Sharkey, Max Baer and Jimmy Braddock, three of the five heavyweight champions between Tunney and Louis. At least one newspaper, the Inquirer, had him beating Tunney in 1922. He has been argued for as the best LHW to wear that crown. (Charles and Tunney never topped the ranks at 175.) If Sharkey had not come from behind to catch him in the biggest knockout win of Jack's career, Tommy almost certainly would have become the only light heavyweight champion to claim the heavyweight title between Fitz and Michael Spinks.

Between Tunney's retirement and his own knockout loss to Sharkey in September 1929, Loughran may well have been the best heavyweight in the world as well as light heavyweight. Loughran UD 15 Braddock in his final defense of the LHW honors was the closest thing to a world heavyweight title fight over the championship distance contested in 1929. A case can be made that Loughran SD 10 Walker in March 1929 was a showdown between the world's two best heavyweights in the wake of Tunney's departure. In 1929, Tommy Loughran was the heaviest reigning world champion following the retirement of Gene Tunney.

Many consider him a top five ATG lock at 175, some place him among the top three. Corbett, a man who might be expected to favor competitors of his own era, was a big fan of Tommy's. Stribling got the shot in Schmeling's only appearance and title defense during 1931. If one other contender deserved a shot at Max that year aside from Sharkey, it should have been Loughran (especially after Tommy's schooling of the Larruper), on fire with a 12-0 streak during that period.

 

Loughran could conceivably have become the heavyweight champion after Tunney's retirement.

 

While I agree with your overall post I have some issues with some of your statements:

His defense against Braddock was a joke. More because of Braddock' ineptitude than because of the overall historic bearing of the event. I realize Braddock won the HW title eventually but he was god awful against Loughran and the films show illustrate this quite well. Loughran and Braddock fans will say it was because Loughran was that damn good. I disagree. Braddock simply was that bad. He looked like an amateur.

Against Tunney even Loughran admitted he lost that fight on the same night. He attributed his loss the disparity in weight but he did admit he lost it.

I also disagree that Tunney never topped the LHW ranks. From probably late 1924 to early 1925 je was in my esitimation the best LHW in the world. the only reason he didnt officially top those ranks was because the official LHW champs wouldnt face him and because he was dabbling off and on in the HW division.

You not that Stribling got a shot at Schmeling over Loughran with some indignation but fail to mention that Loughran was beaten by Strib a couple of times and knocked down in the process at least once, the first bout was somewhat controversial but the second in San Francisco was conclusive. In essence Stribling could boast 2 out of 3 against Loughran for better or worse.

In reality of the three guys who most deserved a shot at Schmeling based on their records and name recognition Strib had the best claim outside of Sharkey. Strib had lost on points to Sharkey in a fairly competetive match while Loughran, whether ahead or not had been conclusively knocked out very early against Sharkey more recently than the Strib loss. If you are looking for the next best thing to Sharkey, logically an argument can easily be made for Stribling be the more marketable fighter (and Im a bigger fan of Loughran than Strib by a long shot). The Baer win wasnt even that big a factor because of the fact that Baer was still being considered a "comer" and certainly wasnt 12-0 as you state. In his last two fights he had lost to Ernie Schaaf and won over Heeney in controversial fashion after his promoter, Jack Dempsey acting as ref, had counted Heeney out in controversial fashion. Only two fairly non-descript fights (some people will point to his victory over Campbell but the only reason that fight is remembered today is because of Campbells death) prior to the Heeney victory Baer had lost to completely unheralded Les Kennedy. In no way, other than 20/20 hindsight, should Loughrans victory over Baer be considered a title shot victory.

Like I said, I agree with the basis of your argument which is that Loughran is an all-time great, I just have a couple of issues with the way you frame it.

 

He would be damn near untouchable today... as he damn near was back in the day.

You take a Roy Jones, Jr and put him thru 95 fights before he was 32 or 33 and see how many fights he loses, especially considering so many were heavyweights.

 

Loughran ran rings around Braddock true ,but Braddock was the number one contender at the time

 

Definetly.

Just read Mike Casey's latest article on Loughran and it confirmed my thoughts completly.

 

I suppose if he was matched with Braddock or an apathetic Baer.

 

how old was loughran when he met tommy farr ??

 

I pretty much agree with this. Did not know Loughran admitted he lost to Tunney. The fight reports are close, with the main difference being Tunney scored a knockdown. The fight happened in Loughran's home town, I believe.

 

He was thought of as a big punching future star at the time, which makes it sound the most impressive. But Klompton has a very interesting view point on the fight, would love to hear him expand on it.

Loughran basically admitted he was inexperienced and if they fought again Loughran would whip him and get revenge. He really did not like Gene.