Newspaper decisions

Miske wasn't dying? That's comical. Everyone, even Dempsey, knew and admitted Miske was dying. He had been hospitalized and ordered by his doctor to quit fighting. This isn't even conjecture its common knowledge and was common knowledge at the time. It was printed in the newspapers LONG before Miske fought Dempsey. Tommy Morrison fought after he was diagnosed with AIDS against the advice of pretty much everyone and guess what? He was ****ing dying when he did it. The only reason you refuse to acknowledge that Miske was dying of kidney disease when Dempsey fought him is because you have to push the narrative that Miske, despite not having won a meaningful contest in well over a year with one sided losses to his best opponents, was a good defense by Dempsey and not the travesty that it actually was.

 

Im talking about the No Decision era of which fighters LIKE Greb and Dundee, and others were a perfect example.

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth on the issue. In one post you say that ND fights didn't matter so fighters with a KO punch didn't try to win if they didn't think they could get the KO because a distance fight was meaningless. Then you say a fighter like Greb who wasn't a KO puncher and almost always went the distance tried harder... why? Im not clear on that. Why, if it didn't matter if it went the distance would you throw a lot and fight harder as a fighter who couldn't score a KO? The end result is meaningless right? See you are talking in circles, talking yourself into a corner.

You say: "If you had one-punch power, you looked for the one-punch and didn't worry about the scorecards - because there weren't any."

But how is this any different than a fight with a decision? How often do you think Earnie Shavers worried about going the distance? He tried for a knockout and if he didn't get it the odds weren't in his favor of winning? He lost more decisions than he won. Punchers are like that. They go for the KO, not the decision. By contrast a volume puncher looks for a points win. In your mind its a win that would never come in a ND fight so why even fight hard? Yet I can bury you in reports showing fighters, regardless of whether they are punchers or not, fighting their hearts out specifically so they could win the newspaper decision. The newspapers are filled with fighters bragging about winning the newspaper decision over this guy or that guy and they don't say "the Syracuse herald thought I won" they say "all three of the Syracuse papers thought I won" or "2 of the three Syracuse papers thought I won." If those decisions held no weight then why talk them up? Why would anyone care or even listen? Why? BECAUSE THATS WHAT EVERYONE WENT BY! Your protestations to the contrary mean absolutely nothing. Anyone who immerses themselves in this era will tell you that.

 

You live in an alternate reality. That's simply not how things were viewed in that era. Sorry, but you are wrong. You are on the wrong side of history on this and again, anyone who has spent any time researching these fights will tell you that.

 

Correct, Many of these No decision fights were exhibition like contents designed to set something bigger up. We also saw a round limitation for the most part.

 

Ahhh another troll heard from.

"We also saw a round limitation" As if we don't see that today, or in the 80s, or 60s, or 40s... What a dumbass statement from a dumbass.

 

One of the comments in Boxrec referred to "Newspaper decisions" in Packy McFarland's 70-0-5 undefeated record.

 

That would be my racket for sure...a cigar smoking newspaper reporter judging fights for my paper.

 

I could match examples all day, too, if I was an idiot. I have a trove as well. Just don't feel like converting PDFs to JPEGs in some inane pissing contest with you.

Here's an example of the NY Times coverage of Dempsey-Miske 1. (It's about 30 words.)
https://i.imgur.com/Vr9Y8FK.png

 

Here's Dempsey-Miske II. NY Times. It isn't much longer.

https://i.imgur.com/cM6fSR0.png

 

Here's coverage of the Kid Norfolk-Jack Espin fight. Boxrec lists it as a newspaper win for Norfolk and gives the NY Times as its source. But the Times actually says Norfolk won by DQ. Again, not much coverage.

https://i.imgur.com/Rv5pycJ.png

Just points out that different newspapers had different views of who won and placed less importance on fights than other papers did.

I, frankly, don't know why you started posting article links.

Whatever. I have things to do now.

 

I've heard of fighters being dead and getting a ranking. But I've never heard of boxers "dying" and fighting 51 more times and only losing twice officially. That's pretty miraculous.

It's either that, or he wasn't dying when he was beating everyone.

But if you want to go with "miracle," whatever.

 

The only people on the wrong side of history are the people who go back and look at no decisions and then try to determine who won using the rounds scoring system ... which wasn't in effect in no-decisions.

The rules in place for a fight affect the strategy of fighters.

We've seen that every time there's a rule change.

 

Those "newspaper decisions" are not part of his 70-0-5 record.

 

This isn't a first hand report. This clearly shows your lack of understanding of the era. This is a wire report which as I illustrated earlier were well known then and now to be unreliable and having very little information.

Another wire report. Not a first hand account.

This is interesting. Im not sure why you posted it because according to you this was an official decision. A disqualification rendered by an official was as final as a knockout. Meaning this was not some newspaper decision. To delve deeper into this though, notice how the most detailed report you offered was indeed a first hand newspaper report of a local fight that was scheduled to be a ND bout. One thing you might have looked for before you posted this was the fact that undercards typically got less ink than the main event. The main event for this fight was Jackson-Touhey. If you had done what a good researcher does, and not just cherry picked something off the internet for your argument, you would have seen that the main even, which ended in a ND, was covered by the majority of New York papers in detail and called Jackson the victor. Again, this proves my point not yours (And also illustrates that Boxrec is not an infallible source despite boxrec warriors like yourself relying heavily on it).

What different newspapers? You posted a report from one newspapers and quoted boxrec which mistakenly quoted the report you posted? That's not two newspapers disagreeing that's one newspaper stating the official outcome of a fight, a DQ, and Boxrec incorrectly recording that outcome.

In reality the Times report you quoted, if you had read it carefully stated "Jackson piled up a commanding lead... ... and won hands down." What kind of lead could he pile up and what could he have won if there were no points and no decision? Hmmm, seems you just helped my argument, not yours. The New York Sun's George Underwood had the headline: "Touhey Game, But Loses to Jackson" Again, loses what if there was no decision? The Evening World stated "Jackson Trounces Touhey" The New York Tribune stated "Willie Jackson Laces Touhey in Ten Rounds" Sounds like a huge disagreement between those four ringside newspapers... NOT.

 

I hate to break it to you but Kidney disease is a slow, often painful way to go in which the person suffering can see periods of "remission". Symptoms include back, side, and hip pain that often radiates up the spine and down the left leg. It also can cause nausea and vomiting among other symptoms.

It was a well known fact that Miske was ill. How ill was not entirely known but rumors, later to be proven true, stated that he was very ill. The fact that all of this happened and he eventually died from it illustrates that it wasn't some fantasy conjured up by people looking for a good story. Below are examples, mostly from before the Dempsey fight, from papers all over the country discussing Miske's illness, pay attention to the descriptions:

July 29, 1920
https://flic.kr/p/28evEP7

July 30, 1920
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuAu
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuJf
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuuN

https://flic.kr/p/NRPz9h
https://flic.kr/p/NRPz3q

Aug 1, 1920:
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuBS
https://flic.kr/p/NRPusJ

Aug 2, 1920
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuFE


https://flic.kr/p/NRPzdq

Here Miske had to quit training in the runup to the Dempsey fight because he was ill. He later tried to blame this illness on eating too much pie:
https://flic.kr/p/NRPzbG
https://flic.kr/p/2aZv7QZ

This is Miske admitting how ill he had been:
Sept 1 1920
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuKY
https://flic.kr/p/NRPz1m

This is E W Dickerson, a highly respected boxing expert who refereed the undercard:
https://flic.kr/p/NRPz7d

This one is interesting. Reading all of the above mentions of Miske's Kidney ailment. Specific references to his Kidneys being an issue so it was public knowledge. Now read the article below how Dempsey, who admitted knowing Miske was ill, put Miske on ***** street with kidney punches. Above and beyond the fact that they were and are illegal but he was using them against a guy who was publicly known to have suffered a kidney ailment:
https://flic.kr/p/NRPz5E

This is Dempsey admitting years later he knew that Miske was ill when he took the fight:
https://flic.kr/p/NRPuny

In his biography he stated that the match was quickly put together because Miske was ill and needed a payday.

No, you can argue that he continued to fight after this but the fact is that he didn't really accomplish anything earth shattering. More than one of his contests were thought to have been fixes. And then he did actually die of Kidney disease. Not something that just sneaks up on you and gets you. So yeah, I think, again, its you who is on the wrong side of history. But by all means, go on and argue that Miske was a great defense. And while you are at it make note of the references to his mediocre record, which wasn't mediocre if people weren't considering his ND fights, WHICH THEY WERE.