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

How would one quantify this? Is your question in a better context when extended to bias for and against other ethnicities and to nationalities? Did the press provide a counterbalance to this first with newspaper decisions and later with AP scorecards and the like? Of course it was a factor, but one of many non-performance factors and tempered a bit by other agencies.

 

That's doubtful.

 

There has always been a progressive element in the press. In less enlightened times I think it was far better to have half a dozen newspapers render a decision than one potentially biased referee.

 

It's always better to have more than a single opinion, yes.

But if we're really going to suspect/acknowledge racial or nationalistic biases, we have to face up to the reality that the majority could be afflicted with this prejudice. When that's the case, bigger polls are less helpful than smaller ones.

Bottom line : unless we saw the fight, we can't know for sure.

As for the OP's general line of inquiry, I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it matters. If a judge/referee shows clear bias or favouritism, it's wrong, whatever the motive. We know it happens, and often. It's bad. It's wrong. etc.

 

Racism played a role in most facets of American society in this period and we know the colour line was seen as acceptable.

Fight decisions are very often not fair sporting decisions. Racism could be one factor but there are many others, like a fighter's popularity, the local crowd supporting a fighter, the promoter having a fighter under contract etc etc.

Today it seems only half the time the true winner actually gets the decision, but maybe that's just perception.

There's certain decisions that the press scored the other way in mixed race bouts, yes. But many are hard to get the press reports on. It's probably easier to shaft younger and lower level boxers.

 

The press are capable of being bias in any direction, surely.
Unless we saw the fight, we can't assume to know who was right and who was wrong.

 

there are lots of examples of alleged results based on racism. One of the most common examples that comes to mind is Marvin Hart vs Jack Johnson. (i dont think it was a racist result). Personally, i think that actual racism had much effect on Boxers, who i firmly believe as a whole were far less racist than most of the country at the time. For example, the likes of Peter Jackson, Joe Gans etc were actually idolised and placed on a pedestal in most of the boxing circles. In Jacksons case there are dozens of articles talking about him being better as a man (not just a boxer) than most white men around.

I think that most of the crooked decisions were crooked decisions and based more on money than the colour of any skin (even if that ultimately meant that often the coloured fighter got the short end of the stick).

John L Sullivan (who is generally championed as the champion of racism and the coloured line) said it best in one of his columns (which sadly i havent been able to find lately) when he said that where you find a champion relying on the coloured line, it usually has nothing to do with honour or the challenger not being worthy but instead has to do with a champion wanting to find an excuse not to take a risk with the coloured fighter.

 

I would say that if you go back a decade or so, to 1890, it was almost ubiquitous.

Fast forward a decade or so, and we see more of a mixed picture.

 

I can't think of any examples at all, actually. Nothing even remotely provable.

 

Well you would have to define what you mean by judging/refereeing. Senya would be the man to ask about it but I think the circumstances surrounding the Gans Nelson fight, where Gans was disadvantaged going in were because Gans was a black man. But I haven't done enough research to make a definitive statement.

 

By the NPD era, it seems to be neglible at the highest level of the sport. Fixes invloving money and odds were the real crime. Green has trumped black and whitr for a long time.

 

WTF are you talking about? Hagler / Minter had NOTHING to do with refereeing or judging, that was racist scum in the crowd rioting because their boy had lost.

As for your thread, I'd guess that in a country that was institutionally racist and practised apartheid it was more than likely refs and judges were also racist, and looked for excuses to give the white fighter the verdict where possible.