We've all had our say when we see a bad decision, but how about biased reporting? One can assume you get the gist of how a bout played out by reading a fight report. But how about when it just doesn't match up when you actually see it. Here are 3 examples Vicente Saldivar v Ismael Laguna When I read about this on boxrec, I saw that they have two reports on the fight. One from a UPI correspondent and one from the Los Angeles Times. I know it was a unanimous decision for Saldivar but I don't know the scores. The UPI unofficially scored it 5-4-1 for Saldivar, but the L.A. Times screamed robbery. I will admit that I originally leaned towards the Times version figuring the UPI's was a Mexican correspondent who was leaning towards Saldivar. And then the video appeared on youtube. Well, I scored the fight 5-4-1 for Laguna in a fight that I felt was razor close. I saw nothing wrong with the UPI's score in a fight this close, but the Times would have you believe the judges wore masks with guns. Jose Napoles v Armando Muniz I When I first read about the fight, it was in Ring Magazine from a Mexican correspondent. Man, they downplayed everything Muniz did. Even almost ridiculing him saying he was an unworthy opponent. You'd swear by the report he did nothing but head-butt Napoles throughout the fight. Then they went into Napoles history. I saw the fight on the eve of their rematch and nothing they reported on reflected what happened in the ring. The butts were early in the fight and they had both come in on one another in infighting. Muniz too was cut. But once he started jabbing around the 9th which ripped open the cuts it took on a different light. Muniz almost had him at the end of the 10th, but it was not reported in the Ring's report. Nor were the blatant low-blows (I counted 9 full-blooded shots to the nads with the referee just watching). How do you simply omit this from your report? This fight was a heist, yet, if you believe the Ring report... Angel Espada v Clyde Gray I always assumed this fight was on the level. Of course I was reading the Ring's Puerto Rican correspondent's version. Finally, the video appeared recently and I watched and scored. I was not expecting anything different. Round after round I was waiting expecting Espada to explode at any minute. And I kept waiting. The last couple of rounds Espada was hanging onto Cray like he was at death's door and I ended up scoring it 144-142 for Gray. I was sitting there saying 'Wait a minute! What just happened?' One judge actually had it 148-134 for Espada. What was that? It looks like 16 rounds to 2. The report was nothing close to what actually happened in this fight. Once again, trust your baby-blues. Any other good examples of BS reporting?
I thought of a couple of more. The first fight between Hiroshi Kobayashi and Antonio Amaya fought in Japan. The write-up on boxrec from the AP gives a completely different view of the fight from what I watched. Amaya was a kind of Ismael Laguna-type fighter. Beautiful boxer, but not a huge punch. Regardless, I had it a solid 70-65 for Amaya who boxed like a dream. The AP had it 73-69 for Kobayashi who spent the fight trying to land a big one. BTW, that score is 6-2-7 in rounds. Also, Bob Foster defending his light heavyweight title against Jorge Ahumada. I had read a piece from an Albuquerque paper giving Foster the fight. I also read a piece from Ring mag giving it to Ahumada by a score of 13-2. Although its been years since I saw it (1974), I recall having it about 8-5-2 or something like that for Ahumada. I know this is a tough topic. We're more used to disagreeing with a decision rather than having access to a writer's view on things. But it is funny how the writer will distort what is actually happening leaving the reader/fan following his bias.
The one that always stands out to me is Gibbons-McFarland. I find the VAST majority of reporting to be pretty on point but there are some oddballs. Gibbons-McFarland was one. Gibbons was bigger, stronger, was hitting harder, throwing more, landing more, and more aggressive. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of eyewitnesses thought McFarland had won or at least gotten a draw. It still mystifies me.
no surprises here at all, I own thousands of reports, most correspond, some are more detailed than others, but there can be, and there are, slants or leans regularily, that's Hometown or Nationalistic need... that's why good researchers gather as much ink as possible, small newspapers too, Towns & Cities, where the fight took place can give you sometimes more level or accurate accounts, because they and their reporters are 'outside' of the gravy train and the expectations that some sell out for. it is not a revelation, I think most people know it exist, but you should always get as many as possible. Dear God, Politics, Business and PC today are 100 % like that.
