Joey Archer "protected" but by who and why?

Just on Carter and Tiger.

These were just close fights.

The Carter fight

AP poll of 12 writers-----5-5-2

UPI poll of 16 writers-----8-7-1 (edge Carter)

So ringside opinion, counting the officials comes out even.

Tiger--

Ringside polls of 18 sportswriters-----7-7-4

So counting the officials a slight edge to Archer.

*obviously, no consensus here that Archer lost either fight.

**one might argue Archer was a bit lucky to get both decisions, but he also would have been unlucky to have lost both decisions.

Over his career, Archer had five split decisions and went 3-2. He split his two majority decisions 1-1. So in these "disputed" or more accurately, close fights, he went 4-3-----hardly statistically proving anything.

***in comparison, the first Griffith-Tiger fight was a unanimous decision for Griffith, but a ringside poll of 22 writers came out 17-5 for Tiger. Now that would be a real controversial fight, not a close fight which comes out a close decision.

 

great ****ogy and very true, funny thing is Joey often stood and fought his ground and was yelled at by his corner to box=stick and move.

 

The case for any "controversy" in Archer vs. Carter sounds like it was made by people who DKSAB.

 

For ignorant ones such as I ,what is DKSAB?

 

Don't Know S*** About Boxing.

A phrase that was popularized by Roger Mayweather a few years ago during a 24/7 interview, lamenting that "most people DKSAB :-("

It has since become something of a meme/part of the boxing fan lexicon.

 

Fair point. :good

I don't particularly like fighters who nick close decisions through a safety-first or even negative approach, spoilers I call them, but it comes to a point where I have to give them credit for pulling it off so many times against good fighters who knew what to expect.

I'm reading stuff on these threads about a lot of newspaper men saying they thought some decisions were wrong, but it's kind of subjective, and unless we're talking about a lot of blatant outright robberies then there's really not much cause for complaint.
I'm yet to be convinced, from what I've seen and read, that Archer's opponents were outrageously robbed.

 

LOL at IB saying anyone else DKSAB. Ill say it again, go score those fights. No? Didnt think so. Go read a comprehensive list of fight reports for those accounts? No? Didnt think so. Now who doesnt know **** about boxing? Thats what I thought. You ignorant fans boy here a boxer being legitimately criticized and just jump without even know what the **** you are talking about. When a guy gets the benefit of the doubt utilizing a low scoring safety first running spoiling boring approach and has no power to boot against guys who actually fight, score more, land more damaging blows, etc. Then dont tell me that he isnt the benificiary of home cooking. But, like I earlier compared Archer to Ayala you ****ing idiots who supposedly know boxing probably thought Ayala legitimately beat guys like Dianzo and Adams among 2 or 3 others in a row. When that happens the man with the purse strings is on your side. Period. That **** wasnt luck and sure as hell wasnt skill.

 

Sure, it sounds crooked, and crooked is crooked. But if we're saying "benefits of the doubt" scoring rather than blatant robbery, it's hardly anything to go on about, regarding the actual ability of the fighter. I find the style distateful too, but that's part of the game.

But that's just me, I tend to accept a lot of leeway of opinion when it comes to decision and no decisions fights that go the distance.
I'm one of those who would rather see more draws in boxing, or just forget the distance and go back to finish fights.
I value KOs.
Someone should have knocked Archer the f**k out.

 

I love how many blood vessels just burst in that big dopey noggin of yours.

 

Henry Hank is one of my favourites of that era, probably his prime was late '50s and early '60s.
He really did fight all comers too, and was possibly avoided by a few of the big names.
A big middleweight, he kind of outgrew the division.