Jack Johnson v Gene Tunney 15 rounds.

Well it was a matter of law. And the term "newspaper decision" is not a retrospective anomaly. It was a real thing. So a decision of sorts would generally be rendered at the usual expense to reputation.

But the audience is a little more sophisticated generally than is given credit now, I think.

 

To discourage prizefighting.

Just as different judges do today, of course.

 

Prizefighting was routed in fighting for a prize. The idea was to undermine the circumstances in which the prize was handed out.

I don't know.

Yeah, but there's a difference between professional sports reporters rendering a decision and every Tom, Dick and Harry with an internet connection rendering a decision.

But it's true that you can usually work out who won a fight (Without seeing it) from the reaction to the fight on the internet, you can also usually work out who won a fight by judging the reaction of the press.

Newspapers informed the public of the relative merits of each fighter's performance and the fighter's standing in the sport was duly affected. Newspapers didn't seek a semi-official consensus, they created a real one.

 

But if I ask you to produce evidence of this, you will produce exactly nothing?

I think, for the most part, most of these guys were on the level. The reason I say this is that in a fight where there was a clear and definite winner, contrary opinion is very rare - almost unheard of. If a one-sided thrashing occured, say, Ketchel-Papke one, it is impossible to un-earth a newspaper report where Papke is deemed the winner. Literally, it is impossible.

In other words, if newspaper reporters were corrupt, as you say, they were all corrupt, they were being paid across the board by Ketchel's people without exception.

In close fights, it is possible to find a variety of opinions. This is normal. Is it possible some news reports were fabricated? Yes. Is it likely that this was endemic? No. Is there any real evidence in support of your position? No.

Of course. Which is why it is so interesting that the early press was so rarely contradictory in extreme situations. I'd suggest that this is in part because there was little to be gained in an extreme opinion, and that trust between reader and journalist was paramount.

So if you took the LA Times, and it was the only newspaper to find for Papke over Ketchel (because the writer had been paid to say so), leading to your being embarrassed in front of friends who read one of the 12 papers who found for Ketchel, you wouldn't take the LA Times again.

I'd say no more than the New York press had through the golden age, and arguably less.

 

As i've said, there is basically no evidence for this.

And the idea that it is easier to bribe 2-15 newspaper writers than it is to bribe two judges seems a reach.

 

Based upon what? Compared to what?

Do you also assume that all jurors, judges, solicitors and policemen in all eras are corrupt? They, too, have a "incentive to fabricate".

"No reason to think they would be caught out" - why? Why would they not think they would be caught straight up lying about a fight that everyone in their industry might have seen? Ten newspaper reporters watch a fight. One lies about it. He's been caught, by his peers, by default. Not only is it ridiculous to say they had "no reason to think they would be caught" it is absolutely certain that they would be caught.

This is about a 1950's sportswriter? I'm talking about the writers who covered O'Brien-Johnson and the writers of that era generally. The "proof" you have provided is from some fifty years later? Why?

Corruption - for what it was worth - in the 1950's New York boxing scene is well documented and pretty much incontrovertible. Saying "it was true in New York in 1950, so it must have been true in LA in 1890" is patently a huge reach and would very obviously be laughed out of court!

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but in order for me to take it seriously I need to see evidence. For the second time, fights where there was a clear winner almost never kicked up contradictory reports. The scraps of film we have from the era correspond almost entirely to what was reported by journalists of the time.

SOME of the most controversial and sensational bouts of the era which were captured on film, including Johnson-Jeffries and Fitz-Corbett appear on film absolutely and precisely as they were reported in the press. One sided fights were reported almost uniformly by the press. Close fights kick up consistent disagreement. Fighters who would be the easiest to motivate the press against (such as Johnson, Dixon and Langford) repeatedly receive a fair, consistent shake in print.

Can you produce any reports at all that seem suspect to you?

Retrospectively condemning these men of dishonesty without evidence or cause other than "the incentive is there" seems outrageous actually.

Their readers, who would be aware that a given writer/paper was misleading them relative to peers and the editors, who you have no reason to presume are dishonest men apart form "politicians were doing it" and who would be aware of the possible impact upon sales.

Finally, try to understand that it wasn't the case that these writers would go "I think Johnson won the fight, he did more forcing." That's not how sports reporting worked at the time. Opinion pieces were not welcome. Newspaper writers, as you've said, took the place of television reporting. They wrote, "Johnson missed with a right and O'Brien landed a left jab. O'Brien moved off the ropes and Johnson landed two hard lefts to the jaw, Johnson's round." In your scenario (which is basically devoid of evidence), pressmen are lying in print for extra money in the most obvious of ways, making up punches that didn't land and slips that didn't happen. They are then subject to peer review (consistently the most effective way to fight any form of corruption, assuming everyone isn't doing it, which you probably do!).

Almost certainly it would have happened on occasion. But you've said it is endemic. You've also said you don't know much about this subject. It does show.

 

I don't know...I do know that O'Brien turned pro in 1995 and peaked around 1904?

What evidence?!

There is hardly anything else in the press right now.

Reports of corruption in boxing reporting in the 1940's is everywhere.

Yes, that's lovely, but where is the evidence that we can't trust sports reports on fights like Jeffries-Fitzsimmons, Corbett-Jackson, Papke-Ketchell II, O'Brien-Johnson?

If you can produce ONE report that sticks out like a sore thumb, that is severely at odds with what else was written, that contradicts surviving film? Do you have anything at all like that, or is it just a series of innuendos, presumptions and a clip from an autobiography about Jack Dempsey concerning sports reporting in a later era?

I think they were reasonably reliable as a whole - as an entity - and have yet to read a single word from you to even make me question that presumption. If nothing else could you deal with the follwoing?

If corruption was so wide-spread, why are there so few massive contradictions concerning one-sided fights between 1850 and 1910?

Why do all sports reports from the era correspond exactly with film in cases where film exists?

Why have there been so few retrospective reviews concerning newspaper reporting of the time? Many of the principles lived into the 1960's, but in spite of an ongoing historical review no booming contradictions have ever been uncovered?

In short, where is the measurable evidence of any description?