No Decision bouts fiascos

As a general rule I give the victor credit but don't hold a loss against a loser.

If you win a ND fight you've still won a fight. If you lose one, well unless you got knocked out you didn't really lose.

 

Outside of Gibbons bout, McFarland's record wouldn't be any different than it is with newspaper decisions. Gibbons bout would probably be a draw.

 

I treat them as ND bouts, not "wins" and "losses". They have to count for something. If a KO counts, then going the distance should count too.

Yeah, sure. But you could say that almost any fight. Loads of fights are fake, and many of them probably fool all of us.

 

Because if a fight is a no decision bout, you only lose by being knocked out so if someone fights negatively and defensively to avoid a ko loss, it's within their prerogative to do so.

 

al mccoy came at the right time....between defences and non title bouts he had something like 40 professional fights while world middleweight champion...and losing something like half of them (newspaper decisions).
and....he'll have his name forever in the history books as the first ever southpaw champion in boxing...which as a lew tendler fan irritates me a little.

 

If a majority of ringsiders thought you won a no decision bout, it stands to reason that, more often than not, the judges would have agreed anyway had it been a decision bout.

 

But there is a man with a more merit inducing performance and for that he deserves full credit.

 

Why would you use "majority" as the guiding force?

If there is no official decison then surely if some people thought you won and others thought the other guy won, surely it is a close fight and neither fighter can claim that won the fight just because a couple of extra newspapers thought you won. If you want credit for winning a fight which you didnt win, surely you need all of the newspapers to agree (except for those on the cut or who didnt watch it, which is impossible to tell nowadays) if you are going to overturn this decision.

Marty Servo lost a split decision to a prime Sugar Ray Robinson. Apparently the crowd booed, which suggests that the decision was a bad one and most people likely thought that Servo deserved teh decision. Should we try to overturn this decision of a fight we have not seen based on newspaper reports of how the fight went down. I wouldnt have thought so.

I think that if there is not an overwhelming consensus, the fight is a draw or no decision.

 

jUst another point, particularly for those who constantly say fighter A won X rounds (which wasnt always the way to score).

If in 100 years fights are not scored on rounds, but are instead scored on punches landed or even power punches landed or some other basis. Does this mean that we should change the results of the fights we have scored under current conditions?