Early 20th Century evolution of decisions in CA: by paper, by ref, by judges

[Frankies Gal]

I've spent an inordinate amount of time on newspaper subscriptions and googling, can't find a definitive answer, and hoping you gents can help please.

I'm trying to determine, for state of California, the date or even year of when one referee being the decision maker in a bout, gave way to a referee/judges combo, and then to a full judge panel ? Assuming any changes were by boxing commission revisions ? Also, historically was the full evolution from a newspaper decision, to referee, to judges, or was a newspaper decision more of a special cases thing ...?

Thanks !
Cat

[Ambling Alp II]

Don't know how much this helps, but I thought I would give this a crack:s.

It wasn't seemless transition from newspaper decisions (actually no-decisions), to referee (as sole judge I think you mean), to 3 judges.
James Jeffries won a decision over Tom Sharkey in San Franciso all the back in 1898. There were newspaper decisions after that. (They had a state law for a few years that fights could only go 4 rounds in the 1910s but some fights did have official decisions)

Nationally, Newspaper Decisions were common during this time. Then decisions (soley by the referee) became more common again in the early 1920s and then a few years later with three judges became the norm. However, there were still some important fights that only had one judge; for example Baer-Uzcudun in 1932. Think by the 1940s three judges was almost always the case. Usually, the referee was one of the three judges.
I think in Great Britain the referee as sole judge was still occurring until at least in the 1970s.

[Chuck1052]

4 user_id=594594]ve spent an inordinate amount of time on newspaper subscriptions and googling, can't find a definitive answer, and hoping you gents can help please.

I'm trying to determine, for state of California, the date or even year of when one referee being the decision maker in a bout, gave way to a referee/judges combo, and then to a full judge panel ? Assuming any changes were by boxing commission revisions ? Also, historically was the full evolution from a newspaper decision, to referee, to judges, or was a newspaper decision more of a special cases thing ...?

Thanks !
Cat
[/quote]

In California, I believe that the big turning point for having referee/judges combos instead of having the referee as being the sole arbitrator in rendering decisions was during the early 1940s. Relatively few states had referees being the sole arbitrators by that time. I believe that the state of New York set the trend of having referee/judge combos with the passage of the Walker Law during the early 1920s. Other states emulated the state of New York in so many ways when it came to professional boxing.

- Chuck Johnston

[Frankies Gal]

Don't know how much this helps, but I thought I would give this a crack:s.

It wasn't seemless transition from newspaper decisions (actually no-decisions), to referee (as sole judge I think you mean), to 3 judges.
James Jeffries won a decision over Tom Sharkey in San Franciso all the back in 1898. There were newspaper decisions after that. (They had a state law for a few years that fights could only go 4 rounds in the 1910s but some fights did have official decisions)

Nationally, Newspaper Decisions were common during this time. Then decisions (soley by the referee) became more common again in the early 1920s and then a few years later with three judges became the norm. However, there were still some important fights that only had one judge; for example Baer-Uzcudun in 1932. Think by the 1940s three judges was almost always the case. Usually, the referee was one of the three judges.
I think in Great Britain the referee as sole judge was still occurring until at least in the 1970s.

Thanks Alp for the proper terminology! So when there were just newspaper decisions, say 1890s-1910 was there a referee in there breaking clinches and glaring at low blows, or was it a free-for-all and opponents were expected to follow queensbury rules?

Was Dempsey just the promoter or was he also referee for Baer-Uzcudun in Reno ? I'm sure conflict of interest wasn't necessarily a thing then.

I suspected the transition wasn't seamless and rather a free for all, but wanted to check ! In CA it even seemed to differ by county. I read one remark in the 20s that San Diego had just used judges for a bout and the SF editor thought that should be state-wide. Yes the 1910s is confusing to me. Seems as pre-State Boxing Commission era, that it was just leaders in the industry friendly with the Police Committee, which was under the city Board of Supervisors, as to what club was allowed to hold 'amateur' and 'pro' fights. Yes read that about the UK still using referee as sole judge, fascinating!

Thanks for your thoughts !
Cat

[Frankies Gal]

In California, I believe that the big turning point for having referee/judges combos instead of having the referee as being the sole arbitrator in rendering decisions was during the early 1940s. Relatively few states had referees being the sole arbitrators by that time. I believe that the state of New York set the trend of having referee/judge combos with the passage of the Walker Law during the early 1920s. Other states emulated the state of New York in so many ways when it came to professional boxing.

- Chuck Johnston

Yes I saw over and over that post-Four-Round Era, the Boxing Commission often checked the pulse of rules that NY had enacted, and if they went over well, were adopted in CA. I found a 1926 and a 1931 CA Rules & Regulations books to check and it was still only speaking of referees as the sole arbitrator. Need to check for later versions, I appreciate the 1940s as a possible timeframe for the evolution.

Any thoughts on whether there was a particular catalyst for the change, or just CA noticing a sea change in NY and other place ?

Thanks
Cat

[Chuck1052]

In California, I believe that the big turning point for having referee/judges combos instead of having the referee as being the sole arbitrator in rendering decisions was during the early 1940s. Relatively few states had referees being the sole arbitrators by that time. I believe that the state of New York set the trend of having referee/judge combos with the passage of the Walker Law during the early 1920s. Other states emulated the state of New York in so many ways when it came to professional boxing.

- Chuck Johnston

Yes I saw over and over that post-Four-Round Era, the Boxing Commission often checked the pulse of rules that NY had enacted, and if they went over well, were adopted in CA. I found a 1926 and a 1931 CA Rules & Regulations books to check and it was still only speaking of referees as the sole arbitrator. Need to check for later versions, I appreciate the 1940s as a possible timeframe for the evolution.

Any thoughts on whether there was a particular catalyst for the change, or just CA noticing a sea change in NY and other place ?

Thanks
Cat

Fewer and fewer states were using referees as the sole arbitrators in decisions by the early 1940s, so that may have been the catalyst.

Jack Hurley, the tremendous all-around boxing man, believed that the referees had a far better view of the action than judges do. Referees are constantly moving around in the ring to get a better view of the action while the judges are simply sitting in one place during bouts.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

Don't know how much this helps, but I thought I would give this a crack:s.

It wasn't seemless transition from newspaper decisions (actually no-decisions), to referee (as sole judge I think you mean), to 3 judges.
James Jeffries won a decision over Tom Sharkey in San Franciso all the back in 1898. There were newspaper decisions after that. (They had a state law for a few years that fights could only go 4 rounds in the 1910s but some fights did have official decisions)

Nationally, Newspaper Decisions were common during this time. Then decisions (soley by the referee) became more common again in the early 1920s and then a few years later with three judges became the norm. However, there were still some important fights that only had one judge; for example Baer-Uzcudun in 1932. Think by the 1940s three judges was almost always the case. Usually, the referee was one of the three judges.
I think in Great Britain the referee as sole judge was still occurring until at least in the 1970s.

Thanks Alp for the proper terminology! So when there were just newspaper decisions, say 1890s-1910 was there a referee in there breaking clinches and glaring at low blows, or was it a free-for-all and opponents were expected to follow queensbury rules?

Was Dempsey just the promoter or was he also referee for Baer-Uzcudun in Reno ? I'm sure conflict of interest wasn't necessarily a thing then.

I suspected the transition wasn't seamless and rather a free for all, but wanted to check ! In CA it even seemed to differ by county. I read one remark in the 20s that San Diego had just used judges for a bout and the SF editor thought that should be state-wide. Yes the 1910s is confusing to me. Seems as pre-State Boxing Commission era, that it was just leaders in the industry friendly with the Police Committee, which was under the city Board of Supervisors, as to what club was allowed to hold 'amateur' and 'pro' fights. Yes read that about the UK still using referee as sole judge, fascinating!

Thanks for your thoughts !
Cat

To answer your question, "Was Dempsey just the promoter or was he also referee for Baer-Uzcudun in Reno ? I'm sure conflict of interest wasn't necessarily a thing then."

Dempsey was the promoter and referee of the fight. It gets better. He was also a friend of Baer's and actually trained him for some of his fights. (Dempsey always thought that Baer had a lot of potential that wasn't always used.).

Nevertheless, Dempsey was the referee and sole judge of the Baer-Uzcudun fight. And Dempsey awarded the decision to Uzcudun!

[Frankies Gal]

To answer your question, "Was Dempsey just the promoter or was he also referee for Baer-Uzcudun in Reno ? I'm sure conflict of interest wasn't necessarily a thing then."

Dempsey was the promoter and referee of the fight. It gets better. He was also a friend of Baer's and actually trained him for some of his fights. (Dempsey always thought that Baer had a lot of potential that wasn't always used.).

Nevertheless, Dempsey was the referee and sole judge of the Baer-Uzcudun fight. And Dempsey awarded the decision to Uzcudun!

Once upon a time I was the world's expert on Baer, so yes very familiar with Dempsey's love/hate relationship with Max. Jack must've wanted to head butt a wall that Max wouldn't take it seriously. I read an article last night from 1933, where supposedly Max was romancing Jack's recently ex-wife. Of course both denied it.

The Baer-Uzcudun fight was such a snore. About fifteen rounds of clinching hah !

Fun fact: Dempsey had actually taken Frankie Campbell under his wing and was going to take him for some seasoning to Chicago, where he was in cahoots with Paddy Harmon, in development of his Chicago Stadium as a premier fight center. When Frankie was killed, Jack pivoted to Max.

[Frankies Gal]

Fewer and fewer states were using referees as the sole arbitrators in decisions by the early 1940s, so that may have been the catalyst.

Jack Hurley, the tremendous all-around boxing man, believed that the referees had a far better view of the action than judges do. Referees are constantly moving around in the ring to get a better view of the action while the judges are simply sitting in one place during bouts.

- Chuck Johnston

Got it, thanks Chuck ! Yes agreed the refs had 'a better view' than the judges. Literally ... what physics ?? comes into play, just a better angle. I wonder how much, if any, one of the reasons to transition to judges, was the potential that it was easier for gamblers and mob types to get to the one guy, the referee, vs multiple judges? I don't know how it is today, but one thing I continue to be shocked over and over is how openly crooked everyone was during the Golden Era. Just this blase, eh, waddaya gonna do attitude across so many levels of the game.