Joey Archer "protected" but by who and why?

Why ? Probably because his hometown/ethnicity was "New York Irish". I guess, despite being unspectacular in his style, he'd draw some sort of interest and a crowd for that reason.

Who ? I don't know.

 

Who was he protected from?

He fought **** Tiger and Hurricane Carter on his way up, plus guys like Denny Moyer and Don Fullmer. Seems like a pretty good list for a guy who was only up there for a few years. And then fought Griffith twice for the title.

 

Why? Because he was hometown New York boy who had the looks and demeanor that 1950s/60s America was buying and selling. He was on TV all the time and TV dates were not easy to get back then. I never said he was cherry picking bums, who has to when you get every decision that's even halfway close and some that aren't handed to you? Does it really take a brave guy to get into the ring with a good fighter when you know you can run, clinch, and fight defensively and still get the benefit of the doubt? Chuck Davey was the same way. He was the clean cut all-American college boy and was in the ring with some real killers but the guy fought like a girl, was being marketed for the above reasons to TV audiences, and you will never convince me that his big wins weren't fixed. Go watch his fights with Graziano, Basilio, and Williams and tell me those guys were really trying to hurt him. Compare their performances against Davey to their other fights. You can see Graziano pulling his punches and you can see Basilio missing on purpose at time. Now, Im not saying Archer's fights were fixed to the point where his opponents were in the tank but he got every single benefit of the doubt in New York until he ****ed off Teddy Brenner and went up against a guy who was almost as popular with audiences, and could actually fight.

Go down the list of his best opponents and almost every time (particularly if they could punch) he ran and slipped and did almost nothing offensively except play tag on occasion and yet somehow always got the decision. You don't have to believe me go watch them.

Don Fullmer 1961 New York close fight yet somehow the less damaging and less effective fighter gets it

Jose Gonzalez 1962 New York whipped Archers ass to the queens taste and only managed a split decision on the cards. He had Archer's face leaking like a sieve. Archer was given an immediate rematch and in the rematch he got badly cut again. He was cut worse than the cut Gonzalez gave Carter later on after losing almost every round which prompted a stoppage and yet for some reason the ringside physician (different physician I admit but there has to be a standard there) allowed the fight to go on and Joey won on points. Four years later Joey was offered a third fight with Gonzalez, the winner to get a title shot at Tiger and Archer refused.

Rubin Carter 1963 New York. Carter was the #1 contender Carter was the aggressor, landed the harder punches, did more damage, and almost knocked Archer out in the last round and yet Archer gets the split decision. A rematch was chased for this one but Archer didn't want any part of it.

Holly Mims 1964 New York. Mims outboxed and outhit Archer, landed the more damaging blows while Archer spoiled, etc and once again Archer gets a gift split decision. You can watch this one on youtube and tell me if you think Archer won it.

**** Tiger 1964 New York Archer won the first two rounds and then when Tiger started to come on he ran, ducked, spoiled, slapped, and basically stopped trying to actually win. Once again he got the benefit of the doubt and his usual split decision that went along with it.

Now during this whole time Archer had been *****ing and complaining that he wasn't rated high enough and he should be given this and that. When Archer turned down two (at least, maybe three) elimination fights in a row that, combined with the press and audience's growing dissatisfaction with the close decisions that always seemed to go to Archer, was the straw that broke the camels back. Brenner and Markson reckoned he was biting the hand that fed him. He got his title shot (two actually) despite having lost to Don Fullmer in Boston where he wasn't protected and this time it wasn't in the bag. Combine that with the old unwritten rule that you have to take a title from the champion and Archer finally saw a fight go against him. He whined and complained like he always did and got a rematch that wasn't as close as the first fight and still whined and complained. See Joey and Jimmy had always bragged long and loud and promoted him on his largely unbeaten streak. Even when he lost to Gonzalez and came back to defeat him they said "Joey is the only guy to avenge a defeat against Gonzalez" which wasn't true. So when the bloom was off the rose and Joey has three defeats in a row what does he do? He quits. He quit boxing. And you know what his excuse was? He was angry that those close decisions didn't go his way. Now what kind of a punk "fighter" does that? The guy got all of those TV dates and all of those gift decisions and he quits because a couple of decisions didn't go his way?? Talk about taking your ball and going home.

You may give him credit for stepping in the ring with those guys but I don't because he knew going in that he was getting the benefit of the doubt. Its not like all of that ducking, dodging, running, clinching, jabbing, and slapping were designed to hurt the other guy or even win. If the above isn't a protected fighter I don't know what is. Maybe Im jaded though because I didn't grow up in an era of Floyd Mayweathers and Roy Jones' getting to become millionaires by cherry picking.

 

This post indicates there was at least some "fire" to go with the smoke".

 

I would say "excuses are like assholes, everyone has them" but you and Archer had/have a million excuses and most people aren't born with a million assholes. Sorry you cant take the truth about your hero.

 

The Garden officials. I already went over this. Archer was popular and they wanted him to fill seats. Period. He even retired at one point before the Gonzalez fight and they begged him back to sell tickets. When he lost convincingly he got an immediate rematch? Why? Because he sold tickets and was popular and he had to erase that stain on his record because that's exactly how they were promoting him. But you don't know any of this because you are just popping off.

You don't know jack **** about me pal and a fighter who steps into the ring and relies on his buddies outside of the ring to gift him decisions isn't brave and doesn't have intestinal fortitude. What Archer was was a whiney ***** who always complained and always wanted everything handed to him. Don't believe me? Go back and read the papers. He was a light hitting spoiler who did his best to minimize the action that customers PAID TO SEE so he wouldn't get hurt on his way to his perpetual gift decisions and when the favors ran out he quit. Your intestinal fortitude never got tested because we rarely got to see him fight the best when the powers that be weren't insuring he stayed in the winning bracket.

Pure boxing my ass. Robinson was a pure boxer. Basilio was a pure boxer. Sweetpea, who I was never a fan of, was a pure boxer. You can go down the list of pure boxers great, near great, very good, good, etc. and Archer is way way way down it. Archer was a spoiler plain and simple who got gift after gift after gift in his most important fights. Don't preach to me about how his pure boxing skills led him to victory when he was being protected against losses.

Oh bull****. I don't need to read the Ring magazine to know those fights were fixed. I have eyes. Davey wasn't that elusive to begin with and couldn't break an egg with his pawing girly punches. He hopped around the ring like a fop with his chin straight up in the air and his gloves tucked under like he learned to box from reading comic books. The guy was a joke. Don't sit there and try to tell me you can watch any of those three fights and believe those guys were actually trying. Ridiculous. I just watched the second Basilio fight the other day and he was clearly missing on purpose at times. Graziano was clearly not putting any steam at all on his punches. Watching those fights is like watching Nolan Ryan pitch to his five year old in the backyard. They were clearly lobbing soft*****. Graziano is a guy who went nuts on his opponents to the point that ref had to restrain him at times and he cant overpower this skinny girl in front of him who cant punch and boxes like hes 10 years old? Give me a break. Maybe you want to believe in that fantasy Davey was a fake, media created fighter who was sold to American television audiences because he was a clean cut all American college boy and had (you guessed it) an undefeated record. What a joke. If you believe that fairytale you aren't even worth talking to about boxing. Youre just like the wrestling fans who swear wrestling is not. You want to believe so bad that things like this don't go on in boxing. Well, Ive got news for you, they do.

The point was that Archer had outlived his usefulness. He had become a pain in their ass. They enabled him. They made him. And all he did was *****, complain, and want more more more to be HANDED to him. I never said there was shame in losing to him. I said that when the decision wasn't fixed and he was fighting the best he lost. Period. And when he was fighting the best and couldn't get the fights fixed in his favor he quit. Real tough guy.

So let me get this straight: If I pick a fight with a prime Mike Tyson but his hands are tied behind his back am I protected or do I have intestinal fortitude? Because that isn't apples and oranges. If you go into these fights knowing you are getting the benefit of the doubt whether you actually do enough to win, whether you run and hide or not, that is a protected fighter. Hes being protected on the cards. His record is being artificially preserved. You may want to argue semantics but there is no difference. If he can fight in a way that ensures his safety without taking the chances necessary to win the fight and still win, then he is protected both physically and on the cards. There is no apples and oranges about that.

AND HE GOT GIFT DECISIONS AGAINST THEM!!! It does not take a brave man to step into the ring with better fighters when he knows he can run and not commit and still win. I don't understand why you cant comprehend that.

 

Yes he was that popular and that important to them because when you have a fighter that has a built in fan base that can guarantee asses in the seats when you have him on the bill that's cash in the bank to a promoter. Its why they begged him out of retirement to be on their cards. Have you ever heard of a promoter, a promoter at the Mecca of boxing no less, begging a fighter who "wasn't that popular" to come fight for them. Get real. You don't know what your talking about.

Again, you miss the point. They begged Archer out of retirement for this fight. He was undefeated and favored to beat Gonzalez. Gonzalez was nothing special, he had been easily outboxed before. So when he beats the **** out of Archer and still only gets a split decision that's odd. When Archer is handed an immediate rematch on TV after a convincing loss that's odd. When Gonzalez cuts him badly again and the fight is allowed to go on no matter what to help Archer avenge his only loss. Well, somebody obviously wanted to rehab Archer's record and those somebodys were the MSG officials. Accusing Gonzalez of cutting Archer with fouls is ridiculous. Talk about a weak way to support your argument.

Here we go again "Gonzalez" cutting tactics. As if it didn't have anything to do with the fact that Gonzalez already kicked his ass once.

Whatever man. Carter was the #1 contender and it was a controversial decision. Exactly the kind of fight that begs for a clarifying rematch. Unlike the Gonzalez fight in which Archer was unranked after having been out of the ring for over a year but just had to get a rematch to erase that stain so they could keep promoting him based on his "winning" ways.

He sure was and he beat Archer and still lost because Archer was being protected on the cards.

I guess you've run out of excuses at this point so you are insulting me by trying to get me to read an article from a "historian" whose stories I wouldn't wipe my ass with?

You mean he played pitty pat and ran. That's different from sticking and moving.

Again, you don't know me from Adam. Don't pretend you do.

Jesus, talk about damning him with faint praise. Talk about a half hearted defense of all of those gifts.

Yes I did.

Are you arguing that Archer wasn't protected or that he was a stick and move fighter? The two aren't mutually exclusive. What Archer was was a guy who tried to minimize his own personal danger and stay upright long enough to get a split decision that he didn't deserve or earn on his own merits.

 

Who alleged that Archer was protected? :huh

 

^ Oh, I see. :!:

 

Archer wasn't protected, in fact he fought Hurricane Carter and **** Tiger in their primes, he also beat Jose Gonzales. Joey lost some hometown decisions Fulmer being one, I did not see it but I heard Joey won. I also thought Joey should have gotten at least one win over Griffith but Clancy had huge pull in MSG so in a close fight Joey got the short end of the stick.

Joey did not have power because of his boxing style but remember he did drop an old SRR in SRR last fight and that Robbie may still beat most of the middleweights today

In that era there was one champ with 10 top contenders so it was tough. Archer and the middleweight title was a big thing then, I remember seeing him on the news before his big fights and that's something you dont see today.

Archer was excellent and far from protected