Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 Mar 2021, 15:24
Yes it does mean less if it is a Newspaper Decision. First of all, it's unofficial. There might have been 15 newspaper writers there. there may have been one. There may have been some fights in which we never got the opinion of every single newspaper writer there.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, if the fight is unofficial, one or both of the fighters might have have given it their all. They might not have trained as hard as they would had their been a official that would count.
Let me put it this way. Fighter A and fighter B fought one time and Fighter A won a newspaper decision. With nothing else to go on, fighter A would be considered the better fighter and had the edge in the series.
But lets say they fought one more time and Fighter B won an official decision. I would argue that Fighter B won the series.
Official decision trumps Newspaper Decision.
You can also certainly argue that Greb's wins over Tunney and Gibbons don't count as wins over a heavyweight and should not be factored in when rating Greb strictly as a heavyweight. Tunney and Gibbons each were light heavyweights at the time of the fight.
In this era most towns had at least two or three newspapers. Its easy to track what newspapers existed in each town for a given time to determine if sources are missing. If you think myself or anyone else is missing sources which would swing newspaper decision tallys in favor of Grebs opposition then by all means step forward but thats simply not the case. Newspaper decisions, particularly as they pertain to Greb, were remarkably consistent and while “we” (whoever your “we” is supposed to refer to) may not have a complete picture of the sources, I do and cited them in my book for posterity. Anyone questioning those results is invited to follow the breadcumbs. Your point about fighters not trying as hard because no decision was rendered is not born out by any fact of the era. The fighters were paid to try their best. If there was any suspicion of a fighter not giving his best it was not uncommon for fighters to be tossed out of the ring, their purse withheld, and a ban placed on them. That was a sufficient deterrent to “dogging it” in no decision fights. The are called prizefighters (then and now) for a reason. Nevermind the fact that it was universally understood that newspapermen (who in this era were often far more expert in the sport than the vast majority of judges today) would render the unofficial decisions. Wagers were placed on these outcomes, title fights were given to fighters based on their performance in these fights, and indeed a title could even change hands in these fights by KO or DQ. Fighters took pride in these fights and nearly to a man they carried around huge scrapbooks which told the tale of their ring exploits written entirely by the newspapermen youd have us believe nobody cared about. Men suffered injuries and even died in ND fights. All of that aside it still does nothing to offset my point that Greb beat most of those men easily in official decisions and the ones he didnt youd be hard pressed to find a dissenting opinion. While we are trumpeting the greatness of judges decisions lets not forget that in the second Tunney fight the VAST majority of newspapermen present, Tunneys hometown newspapermen, stated that Greb was an easy winner and had been robbed. So goes the infallibility of “official” judges. If we are going to toss out Grebs wins over Tunney and Gibbons because they weighed 175 in an era when the HW champion barely weighed ten pounds more than that then lets be fair about this. Toss out all of the wins Tunney, Gibbons, Dempsey and everyone else had at or below 175. That makes things interesting doesnt it? Because suddenly Tunney only has a handful of wins at HW and yet hes easily considered a top five HW for the 20s. Gibbons only weighed 175 1/2 for Dempsey, does that 1/2 pound make that much difference in his performance or do we toss that as well? If we toss Gibbons and Carpentier who only weighed 172 (and reputedly they fudged his weight up four pounds to make it look like less of a mismatch) suddenly Dempsey has only four winning fights in the 20s: Brennan who Greb dominated four times, once in a 15 rd decision, Miske who had had one fight against a total nobody in the previous year since retiring due to his kidney disease and who hadnt won against a good fighter in a couple of years, Firpo who wasnig but thats it, and Sharkey who kicked the shit out of Dempsey until he was fouled. Thats hardly the stuff of legends. You really have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to disqualify Greb but consider Renault, Tunney, Gibbons, Brennan, Miske, etc. Your point about official decisions is particularly vexing. Im curious, in 2017 or 2012 did you consider Horn or Bradley better fighters than Pacqiaou? Both men got what most considered to be terrible decisions over Pacqiaou. Tunney and Greb had three official fights and two ND fights. Greb beat the hell out of Tunney in the first, beat him nearly as bad in the second but was robbed as pointed out almost universally, lost the third, won the fourth (when Tunney was a HW btw) by the reckoning of the majority of newspaper opinions and lost the fifth. So do you just have tunnel vision and refuse to acknowledge a fighter is better if hes robbed and slavishly adhere to the judges as infallible? My guess is no if we are being honest. There is certainly an asterisk by Tunneys second win over Greb which even if you ludicrously toss out newspaper decisions leaves doubt as to the old story that Tunney emerged as the victor of their series. Again, one must close the door entirely on logic to suggest Grebs name shouldnt be considered but men like these others (many of whom he beat well and proper) should.
