Newspaper decisions

And yet Ive just illustrated that there were scoring systems in place. Regardless of whether YOU think them arbitrary or subjective they were there. And in fact, when boxing decisions were legalized it was years before codified scoring criteria was made official. And frankly its debatable how successfully codified scoring is implemented even today given the wide ranging disputes in decisions.

 

I never said it was a fantasy. I said he wasn't sick when he was basically lost two of 50 fights.

It's also a well-known fact that Tommy Morrison was ill. It's also a well-known fact that his own physician told him he had HIV as far back as 1989. Yet he still knocked out Razor Ruddock and decisioned George Foreman and reeled off 48 wins. Because he wasn't "sick" while he was doing it.

Miske wasn't SICK when he was fighting the top heavyweights.

Wake up.

 

YOU WON A NO-DECISION FIGHT BY SCORING A KNOCKOUT.

If you didn't, there was no winner and no loser.

You're talking in circles at this point and saying nothing.

 

In his biography, which I have, Doc Kearns is also quoted as saying on fight night: "Miske looked too healthy. I had the feeling we might have been conned. Bill started throwing punches loaded with pure dynamite."

Clearly he wasn't "dying" when he was fighting and knocking out some of the top heavyweights of the day.

Just like Morrison wasn't "dying" when he was outpointing Foreman.

 

There was a style of writing stories for newspapers, called inverted pyramid. NY Times chose to use only the top part of Associated Press wire, leaving out the rest of the report. Here's a longer version - https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042414/1918-05-04/ed-1/seq-6/

 

I know what the inverted pyramid is. I was a journalism major.

I was simply pointing out fight coverage varied from newspaper to newspaper. Steve posted articles showing writers who detailed what happened in a fight round by round to prove "some" point he thought he needed to make. So I posted some links where they DIDN'T provide much coverage. That's all.

Frankly, I could care less. He was arguing with himself at that point.

Bottom line is there were no official decisions in NO-DECISION fights. The writers weren't doing "the heavy lifting" for judges, as Steve stated. There were no judges in no-decision fights because nobody was officially keeping score.

You could only win or lose by KO.

I honestly have no idea what the argument even is with what I've said.

I think Klompton is just copying and pasting arguments he's had with others, because half the stuff he's posted has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

 

I could counter that with a notion that there were also no official champions for many decades, the lineage being a consensus of sporting writers more than anything. If we allow them to choose the champions, why not allow them choose a winner in a ND fight by consensus?

 

First, the Jackson-Touhey fight was NOT the main event. As you can see in the brief article, it PRECEDED the Norfolk fight. That's clearly stated.

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

Also, the NY TIMES is a major NY Paper, and ALL the coverage they provided was that one clip I posted. Their "detailed" description (the heavy lifting for the judges, as you described it) of Jackson-Touhy fight is limited to one paragraph.

And I know Boxrec isn't an infallible source. I'M THE ONE WHO POSTED THE LINK TODAY TO AN OBSCURE FIGHT THEY GOT WRONG, after all. You didn't.

Did you think Jackson-Touhy was the main event because it looks like it is on BOXREC? (Who's the boxrec warrior?)

I think you need to get that stick out of your bum, MR. GOOD RESEARCHER.

Finally, nobody knows what point you're trying to prove anymore.

Were there official decisions in no-decision fights? NO.

Did NEWSPAPER decisions go on a fighter's official record? NO.

So why are you arguing with me? I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

I agree.

 

That's not the point, whether the championship fight was to a decision or not. The point is who desided that this or that fighter was THE champion? There was no official organization desiding that for a very long while. But I like the way it had been then (sporting writers consensus) better than what we've had the last several decades, anyway, not only with multiple ABC titles, but now also super champion, emeritus champion, whatever.

 

Okay, what were the point totals that were printed in the NY Sun, the NY Tribune and the NY Times?

What were the final scores that they printed in those papers?

Where is the sentence that says "The NY Sun scored it (score here)."

Because I have the NY TIMES, and there were no final scores printed.

Because it was a NO-DECISION FIGHT!!!!!!!!!

But feel free to read the final scores like they were the official judges (who weren't there, because there weren't judges in no-decision fights).

Read the scores and pretend the fighters stood there and listened to the scores and one guy's hand was raised ... (EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ... because it was a no-decision fight.)

If you can't post the sentences from those newspapers that list the final scores, please stop badgering me with this nonsense.

 

Who chose the "first" champion, to start the lineage? What happened when the champion moved to another weight division or retired before he lost the title? Who desided that the champion was the champion of the world, rather than a local champion (the everlasting question of whether John L. Sullivan was the world champion or only the champion of America)?

Who desided conflicting claims? It mostly depended on sporting writers to come up with answers to these questions.

Then why do we consider that acceptable, but when the same writers choose a winner in a ND bout, it's irrelevant and doesn't matter, because there was no official decision? And when there was an official decision, but absolute majority of writers and spectators disagreed with it, is it equal to an official decision that everyone agreed with?

What I'm saying is the situation is far from black & white, official decisions are good and they count and ND are bad and they don't count.

 

I don't really understand, what the argument is about!

Back then, when 2 boxers entered the ring for a ND bout, they both did so under the assumption, that if it lasted the distance, it would appear on their records as a "ND". It would say nothing about who held the upper hand. Even if one fighter severely battered his opponent in every round, he would not get any credit for that, as "ND" is all it would say on his record.

Sure, the next day he would get credit for being the better man by the newspapers, who would tell what actually happened… but at the end of the day, only a "ND" would appear on his record.

Why is this such a contentious issue?

 

I recall Jack Britton's manager reported as showing anyone who would listen, a clipping from a Chicago newspaper, which stated that his fighter had had the better of a bout with Packey McFarland in Memphis. Which was officially a draw. He thought it was so significant, he kept running about with that clipping for a very long time.

 

I think the matters of debate, as far as I can tell, are...

- whether or not ND bouts changed the manner in which the Boxers in question approached these type of match.
- the validity of the Newspaper Decisions.

Both quite important factors, from an historical study point of view, I would have thought.

I find it difficult to imagine that the view of the Newspapermen would not be important to the fighters, who were taking part in matches seriously. At the same time, while I can see that competitors, who were seriously looking to win by stoppage, could perhaps change the complexion of a fight, I would not automatically assume this as having a negative impact on the performances.