How common was RACISM in judging/refereeing in the 1900s?

And what country's great banking institutions were built on the Atlantic Slave Trade?

 

If you look at George Dixon, he seems to get jobbed constantly, to the extent that you wonder why he bothers.

By the 1900s there is much wider media coverage of fights, so it is harder to render a ridiculous decision, and get away with it.

 

:huh Was Alan Minter jobbed out of the title because he was white ?
... Or was the fight stopped because he was getting battered and had gallons of blood pouring out of his face ?

 

I think there were four contributory factors to the rioting ,the buildup with the respective flags, anthems and general jingoisim that was rampant before the fight started, the mistaken belief that Hagler may have butted Minter,the general disappointment that the fight ended so early , and the unlimited amount of alcohol that was available before the fight started.
Though there were no doubt some racists involved in the disgraceful scenes as the fight ended,
I think the rioting would have still occurred had Hagler been white.

 

Langford v Smith first fight?

 

There's countless possible examples. Firstly white fighters blacklisted black boxers and wouldn't fight them for much of half a century.

It seems likely the Murderer's Row boxers got shafted on the scorecards when they faced white fighters, the press reports point to that numerous times.

Johnson-Hart, Walcott-Maxim, Burley-Zivic and Lamotta-Lytell were most probably robbery type decisions to name 4.

 

Racism was such an overwhelming factor that the entire time period from the 1880's to the 1930's should have an asterisk next to it. The degree that hundreds of careers were impacted cannot be maximized. A level playing field would have resulted in the rewriting of the history books.

 

Not as common as you might think, because the gamblers placing wagers, including on black fighters, were white.

 

From the betting angle, if the sentimental money of the rabble is going for whitey much more profitable for the wise guys to fix it for the non white fighter. And if you think white trumps green, you are living in a fantasy world,.

 

the price for a white $£$ fighter to throw a fight would be much higher tho.

 

Yeah, in other words, there may be a hard core of racists within our ranks, but on the whole us Brits are just beer-fuelled a$$holes looking for a reason to turn hooligan !

 

Racism is an overwhelming factor is every era.
To complicate things it could be argued that hardship makes better fighters.
In professional boxing there is no level playing field, even if all people were the same skin colour or if the stupidity of racism had never been invented.
Professional boxing is pretty corrupt, through and through.

I suggest the whole enterprise from James Figg to 2015 deserves an asterisk !

 

Why so? A mere threat of violence or of railroading future opportunities was usually sufficient.

 

I would say that these are more along the lines of controversial decisions, and even if you take the view that the scoring was unfair, race might not have been the motive.

 

wouldn't the white moneymaker tend to have had some sort of backing to protect them from that? i'm sure there are examples of it tho and your right there's not much point(from gambling side) fixing for a 100/1 favorite.

the poor unknown fighter with fewer fans and more need of favour is clearly the better and more likely target tho imo, and (good) black fighters were more likely to fit that bill than good white fighters.

i wasn't initially disagreeing just saying an opposing line of thinking.

we can't be that specific when talking about general things. If the fix is from a bookmaker then it's more likely to be against the favorite than a fix from an outsider, and then there is any connections between criminals and fighters management, and criminals and criminals, so there is no hard fast rule to these things.