Exhibition bouts and Newspaper decisions....

lets see some proof that "too many newspapers were paid" to influence the result...

 

One day, when John has the time to do this, it'll go back to previous format of W (KO/NWS)-L(KO/NWS)-D(NWS), as many editors have been asking for this to be put back.

What annoys me somewhat is when some fights (for example, in Boston) that were pre-arranged draws (if both fighters are on their feet) are recorded as newspaper decisions instead. This is not right, when there was the official decision of a draw by the referee, it doesn't matter who had the better of the fight, it should be listed a draw.

 

Isnt a judges opinion just one mans opinion, and arent those very often influenced by outside forces?

 

My take on this is I can live with a newspaper decision, but it has to be a case where most papers who covered the fight agree on the outcome. I have read the same fight described somewhat differently between newspapers. My beef is someone submits an article, and then Box Rec assigns someone a Win, and someone a Loss. Well how many sources say it was a win for so and so, and how many sources say the other person won?

 

bingo my sentiments exactly

 

Obviously, the editors don't have a possibility to research every fight like Leonard-Britton (15 NY sportswriters) or Kilbane-Mandot (9 papers). But, regardless, separating it again to official and newspaper decisions should make things much better. Whether the judges were influenced or not, official decisions are facts that have an advantage over what the newspaper men or other witnesses thought they saw in the ring. Titles change hands with official decisions, for example.

Btw, thanks for Greb-Chip info! Just changed it.

 

this is intereresting as i have just been reading up on newspaper desicions

basically a stupid law i think called the (walker law) made all fights over 10 rounds with no desicion at the end awarded however a KO resulted in a win for the fighter.

and betters annoyed at not getting a desicion would approach a newspaper writer to score the fight for them then they would bet between themselves and pay out. everyone was doing this so there was different journalists scoring the fight. it is common sense that some journalist might be 'influenced' to score it to someone by a shady individual but generally they were good desicions

 

They're a lot better than No Decisions in my book.

 

Fvck all decisions. Let them fight, title only changes in a KO. Or at least make knockdowns mean a lot... 2 points for each knockdown, whoever has the most knockdowns in the end wins. If no KO or knockdowns, it's a draw. Lose 1 point for each foul.

 

I tend to agree that all decisions are a bit suspicious, and NDs should be left as NDs.

When I say all decisions are suspicious - I mean, we should not accaept any firm claims about decisions one way or another IN FIGHTS WE HAVE NOT SEEN.
Okay, we all do it. But we shouldn't.

And, yes, press men were bought in the old days, according to many anecdotes, accounts and confessions.
Of course, many of them are bought in modern times too, but they can only hype a fighter in the TV age, or campaign for or against fighters, they don't have the same sort of power in depicting fights the way they want them depicted as they had in the old days.

 

I heard that a lot of these "newspaper" decisions where heavily influenced by the colour of your skin.