Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CANDID CRITIC

LO’JSKRAH OH BRITISH EfIXIHG DOUBTFUL DECISION FOR WELSHMAN Supporters of British _ boxing, ‘‘ ngat or wrong,” delighted vvlitu the American, rommy Loughran, cun(jueror of Maurice Strickland, the New Zealander, in recent months, was outpointed by Tommy Farr, of Wales, at the Albert Hall recently (states L. F. M'Jlraith, ,London representative of the Sydney ‘ Referee ’). Loughran had recently given some candid criticism of the" British ring, but the majority of the critics were fair-minded enough to admit that the decision treated Loughran very unfairly. Most of them agreed, too, with the American’s very frankly-expressed views. .There was a prolonged outburst of booing at the decision of the referee, who seemed to think Farr’s crude, vigorous onslaughts better than the polished boxing of the American. The day after the fight, Loughran’s manager, Joe Smith, protested to the British Boxing Board of Control against the referee’s decision, and stated later that he understood the board would consider his protest shortly. Loughran said to reporters, “I am no squealer, but I do think I won that fight.” As he was giving away about 10 years to his opponent, Loughran had to 'retreat before Farr’s fierce rallies now and again, but even in retreat he seized every opportunity to score. The American showed to advantage when rushed to the ropes. He would calmly take an avalanche of wild swings and emerge master of the situation. All the same Farr deserved credit for his sturdy fighting, which lent the contest a good deal of interest. Loughran had created a sensation two days before the fight when, at a luncheon he gave to Loudon sports writers, he declared he had never seen a good fight in this country. He pointed out that British boxers were allowed to hit “on the break,” which resulted in boxers remaining in a clinch far longer than they should, each trying to beat the other to the punch on the way out. He thought the American rule of the clean break was far better.

Loughran condemned the heavyweight novice competitions held in this country, stating that inexperienced, .unburdened young fighters were expected to provide sensational bouts to please the crowd. As a result, many promising boxers were punch-drunk am", ruined before they got very far in the game.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19360228.2.23.6

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 22275, 28 February 1936, Page 5

Word Count
377

CANDID CRITIC Evening Star, Issue 22275, 28 February 1936, Page 5

CANDID CRITIC Evening Star, Issue 22275, 28 February 1936, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert