Emile Griffith's close fights

[Ambling Alp]

One thing that is interesting about Emile Griffith is the high amount of close fights that he had. Consider this:

-He had 16 Split Decisions in his career, winning 10.
-He once had 4 fights in a row that were Split Decisions, winning 3.
-He had 8 Majority Decisions, winning 7.
-He had atleast 6 close fights that were unanimous decisions, (Archer,Fernandez,Rodrigues,Tiger,Lopez, and Monzon) winning 4.

(Oddily enough, he only had two draws.)

Out of 86 fights that went the distance, more than a third (32) were very close fights.

Why so many close fights?
Maybe it's partially due to the fact that he fought so really good (and some great) fighters that were close to his level. Past his prime, he did fight some close fights with good but no great fighters that he may have beaten easier earlier in his career.
Still, that seems like a high amount of close fights.

I was wondering if anyone had theories on why he had so many close fights?

[Seamus]

Kid Gavilan was similar. 25 SD or MD's including a streak of 4 in a row. Lot's of controversial decisions.

[My2Sense]

Gavilan had a unique style that could sometimes be hard to score. A typical Gavilan fight might feature his opponent landing the cleaner/heavier punches, but Gavilan being more aggressive and throwing flashier flurries.

I'm not quite so sure why Griffith had so many, but perhaps judges found his style hard to score sometimes too. Griffith could do a little bit of everything, which meant he could be competitive with anyone, but he may not have done any one thing well enough to beat a lot of guys decisively.

Also, Griffith was hooked up with Gil Clancy, and Clancy fighters were notoriously tough to beat on decisions in New York. Clancy had a lot of connections around there.

And also, I think the welterweight/middleweight divisions were very deep in the '60s, which meant there would be a lot of close, competitive fights between contenders.

[Ambling Alp]

You may have a point about fighting in New York. I looked up Griffith's record in close fights in New York and out of New York.

In New York, his record was 12-3 (.800) in close decisons. I added the third Benvenuti fight, which I didn't list previously. One of those was decison loss early in his career before he was a big name.

Outside of New York, he was only 9-7 (.536) in close decisons.

His tough competition probably was a factor in the amount of close fights.
Just for starters, he fought Rodrigues,Tiger,Benvenuti, and Monzon a total of 11 times. 8 of those fights were very close.

He was also fighting so much that he probably wasn't 100% ready mentally and/or physically at times.

It's not surprising that he had close fights with guys like Briscoe and Lopez when he was past his best. What is a little surprising is that he had so much trouble with guys like Archer, Moyer, and Fernandez. He had a combined 7 close fights with them. All were good fighters, but you would think that Griffith would have eventually shown his superiority. On the other hand, maybe these guys are little underrated.

[My2Sense]

It's not surprising that he had close fights with guys like Briscoe and Lopez when he was past his best. What is a little surprising is that he had so much trouble with guys like Archer, Moyer, and Fernandez. He had a combined 7 close fights with them. All were good fighters, but you would think that Griffith would have eventually shown his superiority. On the other hand, maybe these guys are little underrated.

Archer had a reputation as a spoiler and a difficult opponent. He was also likewise known for getting sympathetic scoring from judges in New York (his win over Tiger was highly disputed, and his win over Holly Mims was a blatant robbery). Also, he was a full fledged middleweight, whereas Griff was still essentially a jr. middleweight at best at that time. I also feel Griffith did show his superiority in both Archer fights, particularly the second, even though they might've been close in terms of points/rounds. In the second fight, he dished out a fair amount of punishment to Archer.

Moyer and Fernandez were known for having difficult styles too. Moyer had a few good wins here and there in his career. Both of them went on to give Monzon somewhat difficult fights much later on, albeit both lost.

[I Feel Fine]

I haven't seen the Rodriguez fights, I wish ESPN Classic would show those one day. With Tiger he used his legs a lot while Tiger was the aggressor. Those kind of matches produce controversial fights. With Archer he landed the harder punches but seemed inactive at times. An imperfect comparison for that one would be Toney in some of his fights. I remember someone comparing him to De La Hoya; he was a great fighter but had a style that produced close fights. As you said alp, Griffith fought the best, and he didn't knock many guys out, and when you fight the best and go the distance with them there's inevitably going to be close, controversial fights.

[Ezzard]

Clancy often said that Griffith had the best athletic ability he worked with but that mentally he was not a ruthless man. In many ways Griffith's detrmination and compeitiveness only surfaced when he'd put himself in a psoition of 'perform in this round or lose'. It's seen throughout his career. Clancy remarked on that alck of killer instinct and was always trying to bait Emile into showing it. Then the first time he really does it ends in tragedy. Psychologically it's easy to see that Griffith wanted to be just a shade better than his opponents so as to get the win with minimal risk.

I've become a big fan of Griffith. I think he fights it out with the 147 number 2 spot with Napoles, Leonard, Walker, Armstrong and Walcott

[My2Sense]

Clancy often said that Griffith had the best athletic ability he worked with but that mentally he was not a ruthless man. In many ways Griffith's detrmination and compeitiveness only surfaced when he'd put himself in a psoition of 'perform in this round or lose'. It's seen throughout his career. Clancy remarked on that alck of killer instinct and was always trying to bait Emile into showing it. Then the first time he really does it ends in tragedy. Psychologically it's easy to see that Griffith wanted to be just a shade better than his opponents so as to get the win with minimal risk.

Great points, and in fact, this might actually be the answer to the thread question.

Griffith was infamous for having lapses in concentration/aggressiveness throughout his career.

Some people have said that this started only after (and as a result of) the Paret tragedy, but I don't agree. I see the same bad habits in his fights before that, including the 2nd fight with Paret, which cost him that fight and the title (and if that didn't happen, wouldn't have resulted in a 3rd fight that killed Paret). Griffith only showed sustained fire in fights when he had a bit of a grudge or was out to regain his title, as in the 3rd Paret fight and 2nd Benvenuti fight.

It should also be pointed out, that when he did try to put a sustained attack on Paret in their 3rd fight, he came extremely close to getting himself KO'd when he ran into a big counter left by Paret. That may be the most hurt I've ever seen Griffith (certainly, the most hurt he ever was in his series with Paret), so maybe it wasn't a totally bad idea for him to be somewhat cautious in his fights either.