Sam Langford Vs Dave Holly

[BitPlayer]

It says "It was agreed beforehand that a draw would be given, the equivalent of no-decision. " Then gives it as a NWS win for Langford, I don't disagree with that, but I think it'd need to be applied consistently.

e.g "Hall undertook to stop Creedon in 8 rounds-failed-stakes awarded to Creedon" would be a NWS win for Hall

[Senya13]

Official decisons are just that, a draw is a draw, regardless of who the newspapers thought was better. The editor who started adding them as newspaper decisions was wrong in the first place.

[wouter]

Official decisons are just that, a draw is a draw, regardless of who the newspapers thought was better. The editor who started adding them as newspaper decisions was wrong in the first place.

You're absolutely right. A predetermined draw is just that. To treat it as a ND fight is 21st century editorializing.

[Senya13]

On the other hand, cases where the boxer, who stayed the full distance, was to receive the stakes, don't have an easy answer. Such clause in the articles of agreement only determines the division of the money, but not the question of the bout's result, in my opinion. I think they should be treated as no-decision bouts, but others may disagree.

Another difficult example that comes to mind, was the Chicago bout between Kid McCoy and Tommy Ryan. Did the club have the authority to overrule the referee's decision (in favor of McCoy)? I think not, but traditionally it's recorded as a draw, in accordance with the articles of agreement that the referee was unaware of. Yet another difficult case was when one referee in a bout held in New York in 1910s declared one fighter the winner, violating the no decision rule (for which he was punished by the state commission). Should it be recorded as official decision, or should it be treated as a no decision in accordance with the law?

[claudevsq]

I have no clue about historical bouts, but "in accordance with the law" always sounds good to me...