Farr vs Braddock A Raw Deal?
Farr vs Braddock A Raw Deal?
Watched the Braddock-Farr fight again on Youtube. Wonderfully clear video it is too. That old woman Referee Johnny McAvoy really seemed to have it in for the Britisher, constantly warning Farr for invisible infractions but ignoring Braddock when he blatantly held behind the head while punching with his free hand. You can plainly hear McAvoy whine to Farr about breaking clean or keeping his punches up round after round. [Good thing McAvoy never saw Baer or Galento in the ring apparently, he would've fainted dead away.] In the opinion of the foreign press and many at ringside, Farr was given an unfair decision. Judge Charley Lynch, who died three days later, voted for Farr, while judge George LeCron and the faint-hearted McAvoy sided with the sentimental local favourite and former world champion Braddock over the betting favourite from across the pond. Most of Braddock's big right hands sailed through empty air throughout the fight, only his good left landing with any effect, while Farr wailed away at the bigger man's body, or snapped his head back with his own left time and again. More than a few experts figured that, fighting in New York before a pro-Irish crowd at a time when Britain was extremely unpopular, Farr needed a knockout to win. Try as he might though Farr couldn't get one. The Welshman was so disgusted with the verdict after giving his all that he turned his back on Braddock and left the ring. Get a load of the smile on Joe Gould's mug before the decision is announced.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Farr vs Braddock A Raw Deal?
Will have to view the video for myself and determine whether it was a 'raw deal'.
Some fights, aren't always screw jobs, or controversial in the sense the wrong man won.
Some fights, just are not that competitive on either end, and judges will sometimes favor the older man over the younger man, in such cases. It's warranted, in my view, that if indeed Farr won it, he didn't do much to actually snatch it away--- else they wouldn't of given it to Braddock, who was older, slower, and suffering from pretty bad arthritis in his back and joints.
Some fights, aren't always screw jobs, or controversial in the sense the wrong man won.
Some fights, just are not that competitive on either end, and judges will sometimes favor the older man over the younger man, in such cases. It's warranted, in my view, that if indeed Farr won it, he didn't do much to actually snatch it away--- else they wouldn't of given it to Braddock, who was older, slower, and suffering from pretty bad arthritis in his back and joints.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Re: Farr vs Braddock A Raw Deal?
The film doesn't show full rounds, but most of the ringside accounts scored it to Farr, and Braddock was a huge sentimental favorite. Going by the film Farr won at least 7 rounds. I think he definitely deserved the decision. Instead of matching Farr with some mid-level guys after the fight, he went in vs Baer, Nova, and the under-rated and streaking Red Burman afterwards to finish his American tour. Tough tough schedule, especially after a very tough 15 round battle with arguably the greatest heavyweight of all time.