How good was MW Joey Archer???

Archer was a very good fighter, excellent accurate jab, I think his style gave him a lot of close fights though

 

K, I think you missed the point Archer was a boxer with no power that type tend to get decisions that are considered robberies or could have gone either way. Everybody on that lineup were solid guys nobody implied or said they were "monsters". I would say they were good solid fighters Carter at the time was feared, Gonzalez was a dirty rough-tough fighter who gave everybody hell, Holly Mims, gave anybody he fought trouble. Fullmer was rated. Give Archer some credit for stepping in with those guys, is all I am saying. I am not going to argue whether he won or lost these fights. And for being a punchless wonder he even shook Tiger in their fite. No need to put the man down as you are prone to do. Archer had 49 fites never ko'd, not all those fites were robberies. He somehow earned the TV fites he had in a primo era where there were many good fighters. If you look at the styles he fought against almost all were aggressive guys, Carter and Tiger were real good punchers. The guy did alright for a being a boxer with no pop.

 

Its easy to step into the ring with fighters when you know you can fight a negative, safety first defensive fight and still win. The comparison to ayala is perfect because at one point in his career ayala lost 5 of his last six bouts but still got the decision because bob arum kept him protected on the cards. Just like archer.

 

I've heard people say similar about Locche you know. That because of his reflexes he was able to ship little punishment but a lot of his hometown fights should have gone to the aggressor due to his incredibly low punch output.

 

So I guess the people protecting Archer were hoping he would go the distance with a still dangerous Carter and Tiger so that they could rob them. Give the guy credit for at least stepping up to the plate. I guess the Kompton of the future say 20-30 yrs will dump on the present day Cubans cos of their safety first styles. The Garden matchmaker, Teddy Brenner, at the time believed in styles make fights, and believe me Teddy destroyed as many or more prospects then he made. Again since you know boxing look at the styles opposing Archer, that should tell you something, to Brenner styles made fights. Boxer vs boxer, vs aggressive fighter, vs puncher, vs brawler, I don't remember Archer fights being boofests. Archer did what he could with we he had, he had a very good jab, and movement.

 

Why should i give a protected fighter kudos for going into fights that he knew whether he tried or not he had a better than evenshot at winning? I have no respect for "fighters" like that. If a guy goes into the ring with carter (who is monumentally overrated, the guy lost a third of his fights in his short career) and runs, and clinches, and shoe shines, and never really tries to engage but instead tries to preserve his record of not going down or being out then i have no use for you. This isnt 1990s amateur slap boxing. Its professional boxing and dismissing all of archers gifts and criticisms as "he made the most of what he had" and saying that anyone who actually shines some light on those gifts and criticisms is sling cow **** is pretty weak. I get it, you like boring safety first fighters who not only cant punch but dont even try to and would rather count on crooked officiating than actually trying to win a fight on your own merits. Im not going to apologize for not liking the archers, ayalas, and ruiz' of the boxing world. Im also not going to pretend they were anything but what they were because the have a few sensitive fans who believe they actually could fight.

And for the record i dont need to wait 20 or 30 yrs to dump on the cuban fighters who spend half their lives in the amateurs and then turn pro with 300 amateur fights but do nothing but run and slap.

 

Thats exactly right. I used to be a huge fan of Locche until i saw a bunch of his argentina fights. The guy just clowned, mugged for the cameras, and did nothing. He just got handed decisions. Im not saying he couldnt fight. When he actually tried he was great. But he did nothing in some of his fights and just got handed the W.

 

I am somewhat sympathetic to that viewpoint, I think negative spoiler type fighters often get overrated and smudge their ways to decision wins. Because they were so defensive, some people credit them more than they should.

But, on the other hand, how many of the wins can we say were definitely outright robberies ?

 

Joey Archer was a very good fighter..,and he fought so well within his limitations. He beat the guys who fought with aggression and power like Tiger and Carter, but fell short against the cleverer mechanic in Griffith. This speaks well for Griffith btw, as opposed to being a knock against Archer.

 

Everyone has an opinion...and that's great. But I can't equate the word 'protected' in the same sentences as the words Gonzalez, Griffith, Tiger and Carter et al...That's my take.

 

After reading Klompton's comments I took another look at Archer's close fights.

It seems undeniable he was the recipient of a few decisions,in NY that the press thought should have gone to his opponents.
Whether that classifies as being protected ,I leave for individual posters to decide.

 

Fine. If you want to believe archer was a fearless, hard punching monster then by all means enjoy your fantasy. I just love how you bring the tiger fight, like thats some feather in archers cap when tiger dropped him but zach clayton, one of the dirtiest refs of all time refused to call it which cost tiger the fight. Nevermind that the pro archer crowd booed him for almost the entire fight because he ran and refused to fight. Go watch it and tell me archer won. But for some reason im supposed to give archer credit for that ****. Archers record is littered with performances like that. Maybe you like safety first spoilers who dont try to win. I dont. Enjoy.

As for lom and ggg. Are they cubans? Or are you changing the discussion. But since you seem to be, no, im not impressed by two guys who have done nothing as professionals to garner the claim they have. Morons keep comparing ggg to the all time greats and the guy hasnt even fought anyone. Lom has had what five fights and lost one (which youd expect) and people act like hes destined for the hof. Why not let him prove it first. They could both very easily wind up like archer: overrated and popular in their day but with almost no substance to justify that popularity.

 

I'm trying to find where anyone claimed that so I can join in ridiculing them. :good
.... In the meantime, i'll stick my neck out at say it's probably more of your standard bullsh!t strawman nonsense

 

I agree.
I think it's reasonable to say he was protected to some extent, because it's more likely him getting all those close and disputed decisions was due to SOME of them being hometown bias/corruption, rather than pure luck.

On the other hand, Archer fought some of the best men around and protected himself well enough to see the final bell and nick rounds along the way. That takes some doing, every time out. I don't think he was ever stopped.