Lou Ambers

And by that same argument Armstrong never would have beaten Ambers in the first place (seeing as how a lot of people though Ambers won anyway). And for the record both fights were scored almost unanimously for Zivic. Where as both Ambers-Armstrong fights had plenty of people who felt Ambers deserved both fights. Hardly a comparison.

 

True, he beat Canzo two times. Remembered that wrong.

The first fight was very close that´s right but the second one was also very close. Ambers wouldn´t have won without those deductions. Overall I think it is evident that Armstrong was better that´s why I wrote Ambers came up short.
Great fighter and often overlooked when talking about the great lws. He was a bit unlucky beeing around in an era with so much even greater fighters.

 

Holding & hitting is okay then? Because that's what Ambers was doing the whole fight against Armstrong.

Do we agree then that Donovan's strict officiating in the second Armstrong-Ambers fight was against the ordinary?

 

Most scored the first Zivic-Armstrong fight 8-7. With 5 penalized winning rounds, that'd be 12-3 for Armstrong.

Many scored the second Armstrong-Ambers for Ambers, but were also in agreement that if not for the point deductions, Armstrong would have won.

 

Not necesarily.

Donovan tended to enforce the rules if one of the fighters wanted him to enforce the rules, but look the other way if both fighters were mutualy intent on mischeif.

He might simply have protected Ambers because he fought a clean fight.

 

Any other examples of him penalizing 5 rounds from a fighter?

Ambers did not fight a clean fight. Armstrong himself had numerous complaints after the fight about Ambers's thumbing, elbowing, and we know he wasn't one to complain. Ambers also clearly hits & holds constantly throughout the fight, keeping Armstrong's head down while throwing uppercuts, but it seems this is regarded as legal by most people here.

 

I agree with TheGreatA. There didn't seem to be too much disparity between the tactics of either man. Armstrong was just better.

 

I don't think Fritzie Zivic was ever disqualified, so your point about Greb never being DQ'd means nothing.
I think Sandy Saddler only has one DQ defeat on his record too, but he's blatantly fouling in most the film we see of him.
Zivic admitted to using foul tactics, and was an admirer of Greb's mastery of dirty tricks (although mockingly jealous of Greb being considered the dirtiest ever ).

Greb was a master.

I don't have a problem with Armstrong's fouls being called. I'm just not sure I can see all of them on film, to warrant that number of rounds being deducted. So I can't say whether the referee did right. I don't know he did wrong either.

 

I think you should go read the accounts of both fights and compare. In neither fight was it alleged by anyone but Eddie Mead, Armstrongs handler, that anything was done incorrectly. In fact Donovan warned Armstrong numerous times before taking rounds away and the papers state quite clearly that he was guilty of the tactics for which he was penalized. In the Zivic fights they are unanimous that Zivic simply beat the hell out of Armstrong.

 

Thats my point, they did him a favor by letting him stay and giving him the opportunity to win the fight. Nowadays a fighter would be DQd long before he was penalized five rounds. Futhermore, a ref doesnt call fouls based on what a fighter dictates. If Armstrong is getting warned and complaining that he is getting fouled then Donovan rules based on what he sees not what Armstrong complains about. I dont certainly dont see Ambers doing anything nearly as flagrant as Armstrong and Im glad to say that the judges, referee, and majority of those ringside agree with me. For the Zivic fight we have no film but the ringside reports are clear that Zivic beat the hell out of Armstrong and make no mention of foul tactics. Thus, the two fights are apples and oranges.

As for whether you can see all of the fouls, well, we only have about half (at most) of that fight on film.

 

Here's one such account:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=armstrong ambers thumb&pg=4922,4128975

Armstrong said it was Ambers's thumb that beat him.

Zivic beat the hell out of Armstrong in the 15th round, but it was dead even until that round. Had Zivic been penalized rounds for his tactics, he wouldn't have won.

 

"Armstrong said" ok, ya think Armstrong might have been a bit biased?

Ambers said he won the fight without deductions and would have fought even better had he not been hit below the belt so many times (more than a dozen by some estimates, which I think is conservative based on the film, and doesnt even take into account the elbows and headbutts).

I dont put much stock in what fighters say about their opponents. They have an agenda.


You keep bringing up whether or not Zivic should have been penalized but fail to show me any independant account that states Zivic did anything overtly foul that would have registered such a ruling. If Armstrong fought using the same tactics he used against Ambers then when can continue this fantasy supposition and say his imaginary fouls would have cancelled out Zivics and Zivic wins again. It doesnt work like that.

As for the scoring, it actually suggests that Armstrong was the sentimental favorite and that the scoring was wide in his favor because accounts state that by the sixth round it was evident he couldnt beat Zivic and from then on he took a beating. He collapsed after the fight and had to lay in his dressing room on a table recovering before he could leave the arena.

 

I agree. But I think you said, "In neither fight was it alleged by anyone but Eddie Mead, Armstrongs handler, that anything was done incorrectly."

Still, I don't think Armstrong was robbed. I agree with your first point.

I don't share your indignation with Armstrong's tactics though. It's professional fighting. Hank came to fight. So did Lou. It was a great fight.

:good

 

I don't know why Armstrong would lie of having been thumbed. He didn't exactly have a reputation as a complainer. It's also something that's difficult to see on film. And as Unforgiven pointed out, it was a response to your claim of no one having any complaints aside from Armstrong's handler. Armstrong himself did, so did many news reporters.

I would've thought it was common knowledge.

Zivic freely admitted to thumbing and cutting up Armstrong with headbutts.

This content is protected

This content is protected

As you can see, it wasn't pretty.

Sentimental favorite or not, he wouldn't have lost the title had even a single round been deducted from Zivic.

 

A point which no newspaper Ive ever read covering the fight argued for...