Emile Griffith - setting the record straight on his close fights

I'm surprised to see so much criticism of Griffith as a "boring" fighter.

Yes, he was involved in some notably boring fights, but I think in many cases (such as Paret and Rodriguez) those had to do with his opponents as much as himself.

His fights with Benvenuti, Archer, and Ortega, to name a few, were all very lively and entertaining fights, and the third Paret fight (tragically) was an all-out war. I've enjoyed watching a good many of his fights. He was also a very popular crowd pleasing attraction at Madison Square Garden, whose fans are notoriously tough to please.

 

his fights against napoles were ATG.

 

I had it the same way. I thought Archer won. Griffith was a strongly connected fighter ( Howie Albert and Clancy) I agree Archer/ Bevuti was one I wanted to see but Archer got disgusted and quit after Griffith 2. I think what hurt Joey was his lack of power, yet Joey would trade with anyone when he got his irish up. Emile was also a busy fighter and was solid. ( the quick KO by Carter) could happen to anyone but Archer handled Carter pretty well

 

Interesting thread. I have a lot of Griffiths fights and without scoring them for this thread Ill give my impressions:

I actually just watched Rodriguez 2 last night and thought Emille got off to an early lead and continued to land the much harder punches througout but Rodriguez was more elusive and had Emile pretty well figured out by the midway point.

I thought his first fight with Ortega was a fairly clear win for Emile as was the second fight with Paret. I personally think Griffith was jobbed in the Paret fight, he deserved that one IMO.

A really good one is his fight with Holly Mims. Mims is trying to knock Griffiths head off and does very well early on but Griffiths pressure gets to him and by about the midway point Griffith is walking him down. One of Griffiths better fights and yes I agree Emile can be hard to watch sometimes.

 

Ok cool, from the doco i have seen he seems like a good person.

 

definitly a nice guy. Has responded to everything and is genuinely intrested - for example i asked him to check out one of my fights on Youtube and he watched it and gave me tips etc.... a very nice man.

 

JOEY HAD THE STYLE TO BEAT HIM BUT NINO HAD THE BETTER PUNCH, It did not matter though because Archer had a hell of a chin, I saw him take shots from Holly Mims and Ruben Carter as well as Tiger and Griffith. When Carter rocked Archer, Joey dug down and slugged...then forgot he was Irish and got back with the Jab...Joey Won, he also beat Tiger legit and he beat Griffith IMO...shame is Joey was not a Champ. The Griffith fights disgusted him and he said goodbye to the game. Joey's only other loss was to Gonzales ( Joey was headbutted) but Joey won the rematch and a horrible decision loss to Don Fulmer and that to the controversial Griffith loss. Archer was never stopped.

 

Well, while your having a Joey Archer lovefest lets not forget he got a gift decision against Mims. The real crime for Archer was that Carter got a shot at Giardello and Archer didnt.

 

Though i don't agree with it myself, i can't help but think it might have been rodriguez' emphasis on the flurries and general volume punching to the body that did him in on the scorecards....as well as the usual Griffith favouritism that is.

It's easy to imagine it being viewed as relatively inconsequential shoeshining, especially by the blood and guts dig heavy left-hooks into the ribs basilio loving types of the day.

I don't like the aesthetic of the Paret/Rodriguez bodypunching style myself(one of the main reasons i prefer watching Laguna and Marcel, to Rodriguez), but i've no bias against the fighters and can see that they are mostly effective scoring punches, but i can also see more biased or different minded types of the day thinking otherwise.

Just speculating on why the cards might have ended up as they did.I've only seen the 2nd and third fights myself, and did find Rodriguez held the edge.

 

I don't have exact scorecards handy, but I don't think Rodriguez was a clear winner in any of the fights he lost. I thought at best, the fights could've gone either way; and personally, I thought Griffith deserved the edge as he usually scored the harder and more hurtful punches.

I know you've made the point that Griffith often wasn't effective with his aggression, and I agree to some extent, but the flipside to that is that Rodriguez was often reduced to just throwing quick little flurries in the clinches to try to steal rounds. It was enough to give him the rounds where Griffith laid back and didn't open up, but in rounds when Griff did cut lose I felt his genuinely hard punching gave him the edge.

 

Having re-watched the fight only a couple weeks ago as it happens, I thought Griffith could've won about 5 out of the first 6 rounds and also the last 2 or 3. I thought the fight could've been scored 8-7 either way or (perhaps more appropriately) 7-7-1. I don't think it deviated too much from that in either direction.

The key word there is slapped though. Neither fighter punched particularly or consistently effective IMO.