Carlos Ortiz -- Teo Cruz

[El Intocable]

BoxRec lists the following scores:

~ Referee: Zack Clayton 145-139 | Judge: Jose Soto 142-145 | Judge: Carlos Lugo 141-148 ~

Two of these scores do not match the AP report (see below). Is this just a typo?

[Matt]

Clayton and Lugo's scorecards on that newspaper print are way out of whack, and appear to be errors.

[El Intocable]

And yet these scores were printed in quite a few major newspapers, including the New York Times. (I can provide their scan but it simply has a different text layout.) What were the scores quoted by BoxRec based upon?

The scores are indeed out of whack, but this is nothing unusual. If we stay with Carlos Ortiz, I remember watching Ortiz-Laguna I and being pretty amazed at those scores, yet BoxRec just recently posted exactly the crazy scores announced there. JJW rocks, as usual.

[Senya13]

Oakland Tribune printed the AP article too, and gave them as following:

Referee Zack Clayton scored it 130-121, Judge Carlos Lugo saw it 146-121 and Judge Jose A. Soto had it 145-142, all for Cruz.

Lots of typoes I suppose.

[Matt]

Try and find something in The Ring, or a non-AP or UP article on the fight.

[El Intocable]

There is no way that I will let this scoring gem go unnoticed.

The scores from the article above also appeared in Ring Magazine, September 1968, p.28.

Here is what Archie Moore had to say in his column on August 4:



Frankie Goodman, The Valley News, July 7:



Dave Lewis, The Long Beach Independent Press Telegram, September 24:

[El Intocable]

It seems that this topic has died a quiet death. If there is no data supporting the scores given by BoxRec, are wire reports and multiple articles on this bout, including The Ring’s article by Mario Rivera Martino, insufficient to make this correction?

I referenced Martino’s article above; it appeared in the September 1968 issue on page 28 and states the following:

“The referee, Zack Clayton, from Philadelphia, gave it to Ortiz by 131 to 130, as close as he could shave it.

“Both judges voted for Cruz, 145 to 142 by Jose Soto; 146 to 121 by Carlos Lugo.”

[wouter]

UPI reported Clayton 130-126 Ortiz, Soto 145-142 Cruz, Lugo 148-141 Cruz. The last two scores are identical to the ones at Boxrec.
Also note that two articles based on the same AP report list different scorecards: 130-121, 142-145, 121-146 and 131-130, 142-145, 121-146.
Obviously the wire reports weren't of the best quality and each paper had to decipher what exactly the scores were. I doubt that The Ring had it's own correspondent at ringside and instead had to rely on wire-reports as well. As a rule, wire-reports aren't a good source.

[El Intocable]

I did see the UPI report published in The Stars and Stripes. These scores did not match anything else and I decided to discard this report. As typos in wire reports are common, I looked at multiple versions of the AP story and they all list the 131-130 score by Clayton; I can provide several additional scans if required, including articles from the New York Times and the LA Times. The Oakland Tribune article is one notable exception; the fact that they were unable to decipher the AP report does not mean that this report was of poor quality. AP also repeated these scores in a follow-up article on July 1 quoting Teo Cruz on giving Ortiz a return bout. Please also note the commentary quoted above; these authors unanimously relied on the AP version of events.

Mario Rivera Martino covered South American bouts for The Ring at the time; I have read many of his fight reports from the sixties. He does not say whether he was present at the bout.

What are the scores provided by BoxRec based upon? AP noted that at first it was announced that Cruz had won a unanimous decision. Is this the source of confusion? Does BoxRec quote the initial announcement with the Clayton score reversed?