Harry Greb Footage

The reason is probably the same that led newspaper journalists to start scoring fights when no official decision was given. It's not natural for people to watch a fight and then assume that nobody won, or nobody got the better of it because both are standing at the end, in my opinion.

I think it's about best one can do depending on a situation.
Preferably, I'll watch the fight myself to make a judgement (while still checking official scorecards, as well other opinions to see if I'm not an outlier)
If that's not possible, I'll go for an official result (While still checking if there are no controversies around it)
If that's not possible either, I'll go for the avaible opinions, preferably from the insiders - like Newspaper journalists at the time.

So in all circumstances I'd put some value in what is a "Newspaper decision" on a given fight, even if it's let's say Jermain Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins, which was recently discussed in that context here and is easily avaible for one to judge for himself.
When all You can do to get some idea about what happen in a fight is reading newspaper reports on it, then that's where You have to go if You want to assess fighter's career properly.

 

I guess it's settled then.

 

A no-decision was an official result.

I think I've said that 100 times in the last two days.

No decision (was announced because there was no scoring system in place and no judges scoring). You had to win by KO.

That's it.

It was NOT a no-contest. It was NOT a draw (a draw signifies there were judges and they came to the conclusion it was a tie). It was its own result. Like a win is a result. And a loss is a result.

A no-decision WAS A DEFINED outcome. An official result. There WAS NO WINNER, because NO ONE scored a knockout.

That's the only way TO WIN.

You guys just keep ignoring or refusing to accept a no-decision was an OFFICIAL RESULT that all of the participants ACCEPTED all the time.

They knew if they didn't score a knockout, they DID NOT WIN.

So why do you insist on naming a winner when no one scored a KO?

Why do you guys keep insisting that a winner be named when NO ONE WON according to the rules they agreed to fight under?

I can't keep saying the same thing over and over.

Nobody back then had a problem with no-decision official results. Nobody.

Newspaper decisions were used primarily as a way to make additional wagers on a fight other than the official result, or what round someone may get KOed in.

A no-decision official result was fine. You don't need to arbitrarily change the rules they fought under and make up a new scoring system, and count newspaper accounts, to find a LOSER and a WINNER ... in a fight where NO ONE WON and NO ONE LOST because NO ONE SCORED A KNOCKOUT.

Don't change official results.

 

If nobody had a problem with no-decision fights, as you claim, then why did every single newspaper render their own decision? Why was the law changed? Why do we even have decisions today? Clearly, whether you agree or not, nobody thought no-decisions were ideal. The only reason they were implemented in the first place was to combat gambling.

 

Yes they did. Look @ the below account of the 2nd Langford-Flynn fight - from start to finish, it's characterized as a "win" or "victory" for Flynn w/ no concession @ all to its no-dec status.

"FLYNN CHASES LANGFORD AROUND RING, WINNING GRUELING CONTEST"
"No hairline decision was required last night to name the winner of the Jim Flynn-Sam Langford ten-round bout, because the fighting fireman won in every round, from bell to bell, and had such a decided margin at the final gong that nobody, except Joe Woodman and Sam Langford, could be found to dispute the general verdict. When the final gong rang, officially ending the fight, the thousands of fans present arose and cheered the fireman for several seconds, giving vent to their practically unanimous decision in his favor.
Thousands of dollars changed hands on the result, as considerable money had been wagered on the knockout proposition, but even the losers, who had figured Langford so much of a cinch that they made him a prohibitive favorite and forced betting on the question of a knockout, were willing to concede after the fight that Flynn had won a decisive victory."
"Langford loses little prestige by reason of the defeat, but may be able to get a few more matches that he would be unable to land had he won by the knockout route or by a decisive victory over the fireman."

Previews for their 3rd fight continue to report "that Flynn was given the decision over him at their last fight" & describe "the decisive victory of Flynn over Langford in their last fight."

No 1 is doing anything differently than you or others do when you discuss verdicts that you don't believe to be accurate reflections of what actually happened in a fight. for example:

 

"No decision" is not an official result. It is just what it says: no decision. The governing bodies in those localities legislated that official decisions were not to be allowed. It is not surprising that newspapers stepped into the breach to remedy an untenable edict by the legislative bodies to remedy the situation. Newspaper decisions are as close as we can get to an official result. A governing body's rule banning decisions is not an "official decision" about what took place in the ring. It is rather that body's decision to abdicate any right to influence the outcome of a bout one way or the other. It is merely a blanket ban against using its power to endorse a decision, and it thus leaves the field open for other free-thinking individuals to come up with another way to determine a winner. Newspaper decisions are the best tool we have come up with to interpret history. If you want to wear blinders and ignore important pieces of boxing history that is your right, but don't presume to tell the rest of us what tools to use.

 

Imagine such an important fight as RJJ - Toney where two of the supposed top three P4P faced off with one completely schooling the other to the point of many scoring all 12 rounds for him and not considering RJJ to have won the night

Guys with McCall type mandibles could be beaten pillar to post in dozens of fights and never "lose". Thankfully there were people with common sense out there, which can be exceedingly rare.

 

@Dubblechin I see you are posting in thos thread again, but despite my answering your questions as above, you haven't had the decency to answer my 1 x question.

I'll ask for a 6th time and to make it easier for you to comprehend, I'll rephrase and give you three options, so you just have to respond with a 1, 2 or 3 - as a result of the entirety of Greb's no decision bouts that went the distance, do you rank him:

1. Higher than if they'd never happened.

2. Lower than if they'd never happened.

3. The same as you would if they've never happened.

 

You're doing considerably better in this regard than you claim.

 

Don't play with my emotions like that

 

I think everyone gets it.

If Your point is that boxrec should not be changing fighter's official records by treating "Newspaper decisions" as if They were official results, then I agree with You. Even if it's a heuristic and one can learn what They mean by it, it can be misleading to people who are not as well educated on the history of the sport, like myself.
I also understand the other point You made, about result being changed one or the other way as the editors find more newspaper scores and there are conflicting reports.

The thing is - if I assess a fighter and his career, what is important to me are not the "official" results, I want to know who got better of who. The result is usually a good "approximation" for it, but it's secondary. I don't credit Paul Williams for beating Erislandy Lara, or Jose Luis Ramirez for beating Pernell Whittaker. I find the idea of putting official result above what really happend in the ring - ridiculous.
Thus, going back to the era of newspaper decisions - I don't care if there was an official result or not. What I want to know is if despite no official result being announced after the fight, fighters fought to get better of one another - and that's whether They could score a knock-out or not.
Knowing what I know so far - I tend to believe that They did. The system was externally imposed on the organisers - and the newspaper reports served as a good substitute for refree or the judges assesment. Systems or "customs" like that develop for a reason. It's demand creating it's own supply.
I find it hard to believe that someone like Harry Greb - or any other fighter who would not regularly stop their opponent - would be just as happy after 10 rounds whether the general opinion was that He got the better of the action, or his opponent did... since at the end of a day, the result was exactly the same. 10 round no decision fight.

If I'm correct in my belief, then it's irrelevant to me whether official result was given. Newspaper decision is best way for me to get an idea of who got the better of who in a fight.
If You're correct and fighters adjusted their style to the official rules as They were and fought in complete disregard of other means of victory than stopping their opponent - then could You please lead me to some quotes from the fighters at the time that at least indicate that it was the case? It would be extremely interesting thing for me to learn.

 

Harry Greb has the greatest resume of any natural MW in boxing history. He is the very definition of P4P & one of the most enigmatic & intriguing characters to ever grace the sport. He is Nonpareil. End of.

 

Another excellent post.

You're correct, btw. There was one reason and one reason only for no decision bouts - an attempt to stop gambling. People got round this by gambling based on newspaper decisions.

Newspaper reports and decisions determined how good the public believed fighters were, what fights they got, how much their purses were, who got title shots, etc.

That a newspaper score was irrelevant to the combatants in a no decision bout, is quite literally the dumbest and most ill educated take I've seen on this forum, classic or general.

This subject matter discussed in this whole thread can be put to bed with 2 x irrefutable facts:

1. The official record of no decision bouts that went the distance is "no decision".

2. Newspaper reports, including how they scored the fight, mattered to the combatants and are therefore a legitimate guide to appraising a fighter's career from an historical perspective.

 

Thanks Greg, also for all the informative posts in this topic. Maybe it was frustrating discussion for You - but I really enjoyed following it and learned a lot in the process.

 

You're welcome mate and I wouldn't describe the discussion as frustrating for me, I've enjoyed it thus far, it's been quite revealing.