Exhibition bouts and Newspaper decisions....

[TBooze]

It annoys me that boxrec now record Newspaper decisions as actual results on a fighters record.

They are not, and should go down as no decisions. Too many newspapers were paid to influence betting, with the story of the fight written before the match had even began....

Also I see that the silly Prizefighter competition that we have to suffer in Britain is going down as part of the fighters record on boxrec.

That is just silly, this original prizefighter rubbish was done to death from the early 20th century right though in Britain to the 70s, it was tedious and boring.

But at least they were recorded for what they were, exhibition tournament bouts, they are not proper fights and should not appear as a proper fight on a fighters record.

[klompton]

lets see some proof that "too many newspapers were paid" to influence the result...

[TBooze]

lets see some proof that "too many newspapers were paid" to influence the result...

The Newspapers did not influence the result, the official result was a no decision.

If boxrec is going to be matter of fact, then that is what should be the result.

By all means have comments next to the result expressing the opinion of a writer in a paper, but do not make it out to be anything other than personal opinion or to to help with betting.

[Senya13]

One day, when John has the time to do this, it'll go back to previous format of W (KO/NWS)-L(KO/NWS)-D(NWS), as many editors have been asking for this to be put back.

What annoys me somewhat is when some fights (for example, in Boston) that were pre-arranged draws (if both fighters are on their feet) are recorded as newspaper decisions instead. This is not right, when there was the official decision of a draw by the referee, it doesn't matter who had the better of the fight, it should be listed a draw.

[klompton]

Isnt a judges opinion just one mans opinion, and arent those very often influenced by outside forces?

[Mendoza]

It annoys me that boxrec now record Newspaper decisions as actual results on a fighters record.

They are not, and should go down as no decisions. Too many newspapers were paid to influence betting, with the story of the fight written before the match had even began....

Also I see that the silly Prizefighter competition that we have to suffer in Britain is going down as part of the fighters record on boxrec.

That is just silly, this original prizefighter rubbish was done to death from the early 20th century right though in Britain to the 70s, it was tedious and boring.

But at least they were recorded for what they were, exhibition tournament bouts, they are not proper fights and should not appear as a proper fight on a fighters record.


My take on this is I can live with a newspaper decision, but it has to be a case where most papers who covered the fight agree on the outcome. I have read the same fight described somewhat differently between newspapers. My beef is someone submits an article, and then Box Rec assigns someone a Win, and someone a Loss. Well how many sources say it was a win for so and so, and how many sources say the other person won?

[klompton]

My take on this is I can live with a newspaper decision, but it has to be a case where most papers who covered the fight agree on the outcome. I have read the same fight described somewhat differently between newspapers. My beef is someone submits an article, and then Box Rec assigns someone a Win, and someone a Loss. Well how many sources say it was a win for so and so, and how many sources say the other person won?


bingo my sentiments exactly

[Senya13]

Obviously, the editors don't have a possibility to research every fight like Leonard-Britton (15 NY sportswriters) or Kilbane-Mandot (9 papers). But, regardless, separating it again to official and newspaper decisions should make things much better. Whether the judges were influenced or not, official decisions are facts that have an advantage over what the newspaper men or other witnesses thought they saw in the ring. Titles change hands with official decisions, for example.

Btw, thanks for Greb-Chip info! Just changed it.

[GPater11093]

this is intereresting as i have just been reading up on newspaper desicions

basically a stupid law i think called the (walker law) made all fights over 10 rounds with no desicion at the end awarded however a KO resulted in a win for the fighter.

and betters annoyed at not getting a desicion would approach a newspaper writer to score the fight for them then they would bet between themselves and pay out. everyone was doing this so there was different journalists scoring the fight. it is common sense that some journalist might be 'influenced' to score it to someone by a shady individual but generally they were good desicions

[Sweet Pea]

They're a lot better than No Decisions in my book.

[TBooze]

this is intereresting as i have just been reading up on newspaper desicions

basically a stupid law i think called the (walker law) made all fights over 10 rounds with no desicion at the end awarded however a KO resulted in a win for the fighter.

and betters annoyed at not getting a desicion would approach a newspaper writer to score the fight for them then they would bet between themselves and pay out. everyone was doing this so there was different journalists scoring the fight. it is common sense that some journalist might be 'influenced' to score it to someone by a shady individual but generally they were good desicions

Without Walker Law, boxing in New York would of been illegal, at least despite its no decision rule, it did legalize the sport in a very important State for boxing.

[TBooze]

Isnt a judges opinion just one mans opinion, and arent those very often influenced by outside forces?

Yes of course, but they carry the title of being officials, which the press did not.

I am not saying officials are always right and the press wrong, but surely that is half the fun of this sport, so much is subjective and rarely black or white?