First of all, I like it how people here argue about fights which happened 110 years ago and of which no footage exists. That is what I call real boxing historians. After reading lots of threads here over the last few months, I got a feeling though that it really never is possible to get an understanding how a fight went by reading articles in newspapers. Let's take for example a fight which was covered by billions of newspapers and websites: Floyd Mayweather vs Miguel Cotto: I scored this fight for Cotto by 2 points and I know quite a few people had it a draw or maybe a close Cotto win. But the majority scored it for Mayweather. So where is the truth? We have footage of that fight and from my perspective I can watch that fight a billion times and nobody will change my scorecard. What if I read ten different newspaper articles about Greb vs Tunney II. Will I know now who won? Furthermore there is a focussing on "strange" facts: I see people arguing whether a certain fighter was friends with a referee of one of his fights or not. Because think about boxing today: Do you know or care if Alfredo Angulo personally knows referee Joe Cortez or not? And if you find out Angulo knows Cortez - do you automatically assume that Cortez favored him when he refereed one of his fights? I don't think so. Of course that is not meant to be the easy way out - to just say it is "unnecessary work" to read so many articles of a 110 year old fight to find out who really won. Because no work is unnecessary or meaningless and that kind of discussion builds this forum, boxing history and boxing itself. It is just a thought I had over the last month. Adam Pollack, Klompton and the posters on this forum and others do boxing history a favor by putting in all that work. It is just that sometimes....only sometimes I think I will never find the truth about how a fight in 1906 or 1913 really went.
I definately think there are many variables that you must consider and parse out when researching these fights. Its why I put as many opinions as possible in my book in order to create some kind of consensus. A fighter knowing or being friends with a referee may not mean anything but it may also explain a lot that might otherwise be unexplained without know that fact. For instance, when Monzon was awarded a TKO over Denny Moyer in what most thought was a premature stoppage it was noted that the referee had accompanied Monzon to the fight and upon leaving he was seen actually carrying Monzon's bags. Whether it's right or not that gives the impression of impropriety and can explain and otherwise odd result.
Sorry bro, but scoring Cotto-Mayweather for Cotto is drunk style scoring. You right though, you'll never really know 100% what happened in these old time fights.
