Newspaper Decisions

[Ambling Alp II]

Newspaper Decisions were common in the early 20th century. How much should they count when rating a fighter?

[Onetimeonly]

It's pretty much the same. Boxing had legitimate journalists then. It's not like the official judges cover themselves in glory all the time. With the corruption in boxing those newspaper decisions might have been more valid then.

[DrDuke]

Judging has always been subjective and corrupt, be it newspaper or official.

[chrisjs1985]

I count them. I mean, the fights happened right? And there’s a consensus view and it’s based on more judges? As in there’s more hour is than judges so harder to “buy.”

[DavidKehler]

In his autobiography, Jack Kearns talked about paying off reporters to get favorable newspaper decisions. Remember, sometimes bets paid off depending on the newspaper decision of a particular newspaper.

[Ambling Alp II]

That is an interesting story.
Even if this is true though, (and who knows with Kearns) you could also say that there have been fights where the official judges have been paid off.

To some extent, I can see why some people disagree about this.

You could argue that in some fights there was one newspaper writer, and in some there 25. Odds are better than if there were 25 and they were pretty in agreement that Fighter A won, he probably did. Just one guy that you don't know anything about? I'm more skeptical.
Did both fighters fight at their best knowing that there was no official verdict?

On the other hand, you have two guys battling it out. The fight could have ended by KO, but didn't which means that there had to be some effort on their part. The fighters probably didn't want to hurt their reputation in front of a crowd and have reporters ripping their poor performance.
This wasn't an exhibition. It has to count for something.

Anyway, there were so many fights in boxing history that were no-decision fights that I think it is worthwhile to discuss how important they were. Would like to see more comments.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I always assumed they should be counted.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think this could be a factor on why people rate some fighters so much differently.

For example, elmer discounts them entirely. klompton counts them as much as an official decision. Wanted to know what more people thought.

[bwu]

Personally, my thinking has come around quite a bit on the topic. At one time or another, I probably could’ve answered any of the choices in the affirmative.

I understand why others have differing views, but now I’m in Camp Klompton (or maybe Kamp Klompton?). Those fighters gave too much of themselves for the bouts not to be given the same consideration as those to which an official decision could be awarded.

[klompton]

One of the things that seems puzzling to me about morons who dont count ND bouts as legitimate is this asinine argument which essentially goes "well, since no decision was being rendered how do we know the fighters were actually trying? Or that the fight who lost the newspaper decision didnt just phone it in because he knew no official decision was being rendered?" Besides the fact that this is simply not supported by the facts as they were on the time. It ignores the inverse of that argument: If we only accept ND fights that ended in knockouts how can we consider the knockouts legitimate if the fighter who was knocked out may not have been trying his best and as a result was knocked out? That argument is equally ridiculous of course because the historical record illustrates overwhelmingly that the fighters in the ND took those fights very seriously and considered the outcomes a point of honor. They knew going in that if they didnt perform their best they could get banned and have their purse withheld. In addition to the simple fact that they were moving up or down in esteem based on their performances and knew it. It effected every aspect of their livelihood.