Tommy Farr vs Tom Heeney

[scorpio83]

Who would win in their prime at heavyweight between Tommy Farr and Tom Heeney? In my opinion, Farr would out-box Heeney with his left jabs and hitting him from long range to take a decision in 15 rounds. What is your opinion?

[Kalan]

WOW.....there's a burning question for you.... Who wins Farr vs Heeney??? .... I'll give you an even hotter topic for discussion:

Who would win between 33rd ranked Trevor Bryan, 18-0 and 34th ranked Oscar Rivas, 22 -0???

The winner could fight 35th ranked Otto Wallin, 18-0....

My next question: Why don't they make Heavyweight Fights between undefeated Heavyweights who've been around for years??? Why don't all these unbeaten Heavyweight prospects fight each other in good, competitive match-ups???

Instead of the relentless mismatches they shove down our throats???

[Ambling Alp II]

People have been telling you this for a long time. That is how boxing has worked for many years now. We often don't know who the best fighters are currently since they seldom fight each other; much less trying to compare them to fighters from a previous era who are much more tested.

Glad it is sinking in. If someone had asked who would win between Bryan and Farr you would have picked Bryan and sited his win/loss record as some sort of proof.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who would win in their prime at heavyweight between Tommy Farr and Tom Heeney? In my opinion, Farr would out-box Heeney with his left jabs and hitting him from long range to take a decision in 15 rounds. What is your opinion?

I would lean towards Farr. A lot of people probably have seen the Louis-Farr fight and it is hard to imagine Heeney beating that version of Farr. However, Farr was inconsistent, so Heeney would have had a chance. Farr did have some good boxing skills and Heeney was not hard to hit. More often than not, Farr probably wins a tough decision.

[Kalan]

People have been telling you this for a long time. That is how boxing has worked for many years now. We often don't know who the best fighters are currently since they seldom fight each other; much less trying to compare them to fighters from a previous era who are much more tested.

Glad it is sinking in. If someone had asked who would win between Bryan and Farr you would have picked Bryan and sited his win/loss record as some sort of proof.

I would point to his advantages in size, strength, athleticism and skills as proof... not his record... And you’re speaking from total ignorance as usual Amblin’ Alp… Most of Tommy Farr’s first 50 opponents were either making their pro debut...or had 0 wins, 1 win, or 2 wins.. In his 68th fight professional fight, Farr fought a kid who had 2 wins and he LOST!! He fought tons of guys with losing records and still managed to lose 34 fights... He wasn't a bum, but he was no a box of chocolates.

As bad as mismatches are today, mismatching was 10 times worse back in 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s.. Commissioners put a stop to a many mismatches, though it’s still a major problem.. I don't go back that far, but during the 60's and 70's I heard managers say “You have to build a kid’s confidence up by giving him opponents he can knock over.. Develop his killer instinct and build him up as an attraction.. When he fights for big money he’ll come out swinging and at least he’ll have a chance.. If you believe you can fight you can fight."

It’s not about confidence and such thinking is garbage.... You match your boxer against guys who will give him a tough fight and good competition, but you think he can beat.. It's better for the fans, and he’ll train harder and won’t slack off if there's at least a little risk.. If he makes a mistake you need an opponent who can take advantage of it and land a punch – and not just lay down for a paycheck because he doesn’t believe he can win.. Ideally you match a guy progressively with each fight. That’s not always possible, but you need to work really hard at matchmaking…

Cus D’Amato said 70% of a boxer’s success is getting on that phone, getting him enough fights, and getting him the right fights.. In his first 2 or 3 years when he’s on a steep learning curve it's the most important.. It shouldn’t take 10 years to contend for a World Title.. That’s from sitting on the shelf and waiting and waiting forever for fights.. Sitting on the shelf for 6 months when you finished your last opponent off in 2 minutes doesn’t work.. You didn’t get any real experience in that fight, so get back into action in a month or less instead of stagnating.

Trevor Byran isn’t fighting anybody and he’s unbeaten.. He’s had 1 miserable fight this year and 1 fight last year.. He’s already proven he can beat a fair Heavyweight by beating Elieser Castillo over 3 years ago. Since that fight he’s fought nobody who could possibly contend for a title ever.. Apparently somebody is too lazy to get him fights. Why was he fighting Sandy Soto again? He already knocked Soto out in the 1st round years ago. You can’t find another fight for him all year long except Soto? He’s 28 already and it seems like he’s 22 with the number of fights he’s had in his pro career.

I’ll say one thing about the old days.. If you were a good fighter and you wanted to fight they got you fights not excuses.. Good prospects didn’t sit on the shelf for years, forced to take a day job to make ends meet.

[scorpio83]

Who would win in their prime at heavyweight between Tommy Farr and Tom Heeney? In my opinion, Farr would out-box Heeney with his left jabs and hitting him from long range to take a decision in 15 rounds. What is your opinion?

I would lean towards Farr. A lot of people probably have seen the Louis-Farr fight and it is hard to imagine Heeney beating that version of Farr. However, Farr was inconsistent, so Heeney would have had a chance. Farr did have some good boxing skills and Heeney was not hard to hit. More often than not, Farr probably wins a tough decision.

Thanks Ambling Alp II, that is an opinion I want to hear.