Lou Ambers

Since you are so keen on taking a boxers word:

Zivic: "He hit me low, choked me, give me the elbow, and everything else. I was in good tip top shape that night. That was my first 15 round fight. I never complained. Arthur Donovan refereed the fight. The first couple of rounds I was kind of confused because he was giving me the head and everything else. Donovan never warned him."

So lets not act like Armstrong was getting the **** end of the stick. Zivic says that after he resorted to the same tactics as Armstrong Donovan stopped the fight and told them both if thats the way they wanted to fight then so be it. Fairs fair. The knee jerk reaction would be to say that Zivic was a dirty fighter and hes lying to protect his rep but in light of Armstrongs tactics in the Ambers fight which started from the first bell and continued through several warnings and five point deductions I think its safe to say Zivic may have had a point...

NOW, in the Ambers fight, which is what is being discussed, Armstrong is clearly far and away the worst and most flagrant fouler and the one instigating it. Anyone who disputes that either hasnt seen the fight or is biased. Period. Even that article you posted which was obviously from a biased writer (who attacks Ambers personally in addition to professionally, hardly the mark of a neutral observer) admits Armstrong threw low blows. Period. If he was being warned why didnt he stop? Armstrong wasnt an angel, he was just very popular and that has a tendancy to sway peoples emotions. Look, Im a huge fan of Armstrongs. I think he was awesome. But this is one scenario where I think the other guy deserves the credit he is not getting.

You dont know why Armstrong would lie and say he was thumbed? Maybe to give an argument for the case that he shouldnt have lost? I think you are reading to literally into what I was saying. By saying Mead, I was implying Armstrongs camp, people biased. In fact Armstrong later said the cut was sustained his previous fight in DC againstPhil Furr and that it was reopened against Zivic. The newspaper reports I have say his cuts were opened with straight lefts and uppercuts.

 

Not saying that Zivic should have been deducted points, only that the refereeing was rather inconsistent in Armstrong-Ambers II when compared to other world championship bouts of the era. I really don't think Armstrong did anything out of ordinary that wasn't done by the majority of the fighters back then. Shoulders, elbows, the occasional headbutt and a body blow that strayed too low, all part of the game.

Billy Conn probably hit Bob Pastor more times below the belt than he did above the beltline, but he received no point deductions. Armstrong was penalized five rounds for what seem to be rather light blows on film, and it's what cost him the fight on the scorecards.

 

A rough infight, but acceptable in my view:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEuZqccjJI8[/ame]


Intentional fouling that is deserving of being punished:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6yMfMVEkeU[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpKHFZ6ixKs[/ame]

 

The next time your favorite fighter gets repeatedly backed into a corner with the shoulder of his opponent, headbutted, elbowed, and hit below the belt at least a dozen times you tell me its just a rough fight. Was Andrew Golota just being rough to Bowe? Im curious because Armstrong hit Ambers below the belt a hell of a lot more than Golota, was continually warned for it, like Golota, but was never DQd...

 

The problem I have with this is that Armstrong fought Ambers no different from the way he fought everybody. Had every bout been refereed the way Armstrong-Ambers II was, he would've been penalized in each of his fights. He was also involved in dirtier fights with Donovan again as the referee, without being deducted any points.

Armstrong didn't do any blatant elbowing, headbutting, even the low blows were hardly intentional, a few simply strayed low. It was fought at close quarters almost all the way and wars like that tend to get rough.

Compare Armstrong's fighting style to Fullmer's for example, Armstrong keeps it relatively clean, goes shoulder to shoulder and works the body while Fullmer jumps in with his head, clinches and hits the opponent to the back of the head even while the referee is separating them. Comparisons to Golota aren't valid either, Armstrong was hardly landing three-punch combinations below the belt, all aimed with full force behind them

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lRoSTA-FQ[/ame].

 

If you dont think Armstrongs tactics were blatant then we need to agree to disagree because there is a way to fight within the rules and outside of the rules and despite the fact that the full fight does not exist on film we can clearly see that Armstrong was flagrant in his use of low blows, headbutts, elbows, shoulders, pushing etc.


Just to be clear: Is it not flagrant if a fighter doesnt land a combination below the belt? Are you saying that a fighter can throw a low blow, say, once a round for 15 rounds and he shouldnt be deducted whereas a fighter who only throws three low blows an entire fight, but does so all at once in combination, should be deducted or DQd? Im just curious because I find this logic strange. Even Armstrongs adherents ringside admitted that he was throwing numerous low blows, as well as headbutts an elbows, but because they were evenly spaced out they should not have counted against him??? I personally dont even agree that they werent numerous, or evenly spaced out, but lets take the count of a pro-armstrong writer who said Armstrong threw at least a dozen low blows. A dozen low blows doesnt sound a tad bit excessive to you? I guarantee today 2 or 3 would garner a warning, another 1 or 2 would garner another warning, and then every one after that would result in points being taken, after two or three points are deducted you usually see a DQ. It doesnt take a mathmetician to deduce that Armstrong was lucky not to get DQd.

 

I wouldn't say that they were blatant, personally. As TheGreatA said, he simply fought like Henry Armstrong. In a bang-up fight against a bang-up fighter like Ambers, in a fight contested almost entirely on the inside with two men of such rough styles, there's bound to be a lot of foul play, whether intentional or not. Once again, it's not like Ambers fought like a saint in there.

He's already posted a next-day article of the fight in review by one writer whose views seem to coincide with ours.

 

Watching Armstrong films all these years, i now think part of his greatness as a fighter was where everyone else had two hands, Henry had two hands and a head as a weapon.
His head , whether by design or not was always in his opponents chest or face,
inflicting much damage to his foes. His head in your face style was done in such an
"unintentional" way, that he was seldom penalized for this type of fouling...This I believe gave Henry Armstrong, an advantage over his opponents. That being said his
enormous stamina, made him an alltime great fighter. Albeit a fighter with an advantage...

 

Well, the referee's coincides with mine, in fact I think he was overly lenient with Armstrong. I'll take Donovans word over an impartial writer any day of the week. Like I said, when you personally attack a fighter by literally name calling it kills any credibility you might have. Whereas Arthur Donovan was for decades considered one of the best referees in the sport, he was one of three generations in the Hall of Fame, and a favorite with fans, writers, and officials. He spent fifty years as the boxing instructor for the New York Athletic Club, a post his father, former MW champ Mike Donovan previously held, and fought as both an amateur and professional himself. I think I'll take his word for it. He had refereed numerous Armstrong fights and was never accused of being biased against him. Nor was he accused after the Zivic fight which GreatA seems to think warranted points being taken away from Zivic.

 

Golota's mistake was using combinations of low blows to drop and finish off Bowe. It's hard NOT to get DQ'd when you're opponent is writhing in agony on the canvas from a blatant combo to the balls that everyone saw.
He should have spread them out a bit.

It's all about what you can get away with.
It's absurd to talk about whether it was "acceptable" when it's obvious fouling. And the best dirty fighters you can't even see them fouling, esp. on old film, but it doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

 

That's not what I was saying at all. Donovan was quite well known for his "hands off" refereeing, and the Madison Square Garden for a long time had a rule of no disqualifications except in the case of an outrageous foul (such as 'Bummy' Davis going crazy against Zivic). Even the great Joe Louis threw a lot of hard blows below the belt against Max Schmeling the first time, with no interference from Donovan.

Armstrong seems to have been about the only fighter from that era who was penalized numerous rounds for low blows. It's not that I think it was unfair not to penalize Zivic, I think it was unfair to penalize Armstrong. I thought I've made that pretty clear by now.

It's you who brought up Golota in the first place. Yes, there is a difference between landing a light low blow among numerous body blows every now and then, to throwing a three punch combination aimed to the groin with full force behind the punches.

A dozen low blows among hundreds of body blows is not much, especially when they were hardly the outrageous type, compared to the ones Golota intentionally threw against Bowe, deliberately aiming to cripple Bowe.

Even in recent times, Hopkins was never penalized for throwing numerous punches to the hip and the thigh.

 

I just watched my copy of this fight as well as listening to the radio broadcasts of both and I fail to see how anyone can say Armstrong was given anything less than fair treatment in this bout. In the first round alone he landed about five headbutts and at least one obvious, hard low blow. In the second he landed a low blow so low, and on the cup, and so hard that it lifted Ambers off the canvas and caused the ref to stop the fight and warn Armstrong who walked right back in after resuming the action and landed a combo punctuated with another low blow. All of that just in the 3 mins that exist of the first 6 minutes of the fight and this continuned throughout 15 rounds. How can anyone question Donovans handling of it other than to say he was overly lenient? After the first bout when Armstrong is announced the winner the entire crowd erupts in booing. In the rematch when they are called to ring center Donovan is giving them instructions and Amber's manager purposely points out the low blows in the first fight and tells Donovan to watch out for them at which time Donovan gets angry and tells him that he will be watching for all fouls and that he expects them to keep the fight clean regardless. You go back and watch that fight carefully, in slow motion if you must, and tell me he isnt fighting dirty as hell. The argument that thats just his style is bull****. If you cant fight fair then you have to suffer the consequences. Amstrong is one of my favorite fighters but the criticism is legit. Holyfield is one of my favorite fighters but I criticize him as dirty as well. You cant tell me that all the headbutts and elbows he has landed throughout his career is "just the way he fights" and if it is it doesnt make it right, or within the rules.

 

There's a difference between being rough and dirty, and Armstrong is fighting rough to me. The occasional headbutts are hardly all Armstrong's doing, both men are actively working on the inside and it's Ambers who is frantically moving his head while Armstrong used his traditional shoulder-to-shoulder tactics. Even when he lands a low blow in round 2, Ambers is holding his neck down with his right hand (and hitting with the other), which he did throughout the bout. Armstrong apologized immediately.

The point I'm trying to make is that Armstrong's style was within the rules 99,9% of the time, but for this one bout. It was far from outrageous stuff on Armstrong's part. I won't disagree that he could be rather careless with his head, or that he went below the belt occasionally, but he was hardly the only fighter who did in those days, or even today.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib397JHEWkU[/ame]

 

Nope. I call bull****. In the first round the two fighters are about three feet apart and Armstrong literally bends down with his arms low and barrells head first into Ambers like a billy goat. Then a couple seconds later he lands a couple of low blows. Its even worse in the fifth when Armstrong lands two blows in row and then with his directly below ambers chin pops it up violently at which point Ambers looks to Donovan with frustration and Donovan walks Armstrong back to seperate them clearly aware of whats happening. Like I said, in the second Armstrong lands a very hard low blow directly on the cup which pops Ambers up and prompts a warning.

How many times have you heard a ref tell someone to watch their head when they are coming in head first or swinging their head around in close like a third fist. Happens all the time and before long you get warnings and points deducted and DQd. I stand by what I said. Im watching it on a pristine copy at the correct speed on a 55 inch screen and Armstrong is fighting dirty as hell. Period.

Someone said "its all about what you can get away with" well, Armstrong didnt get away with it on this night and I agree with that decision. The sad thing is that Armstrong had it written into his contract that if Ambers won he would only win the LW title, the WW title was not at stake. If it had not been for that clause in the contract Ambers would have been a simultaneous two time champion (regardless of what New York said which was against the idea at the time). As it was they had agreed prior the second fight for a rubbermatch where the WW title would be at stake but Armstrong thought better of that fight and it never happened.