For example, on the first Ezzard Charles-Elmer Ray fight, the account listed is the RING Magazine's, which says Charles "apparently won handily," depicting the fight as a flagrant robbery. However, after reading more and more accounts, I've found this to be an unrepresentative account which should, if one is attempting to provide a completely unbiased representation of history, be listed alongside other ringside accounts with differing views; the United Press had this fight 5-4-1 for Ray. The Associated Press had it 5-4-1 for Charles(scoring it for Charles, but hardly "handily"). The Nevada State Journal account says that Ray secured the decision by finishing stronger, and describes the 8-2 scorecard for Charles as being "surprising." The Marion Star has the following account:
Similarly, the encyclopedia account of Marciano's first fight with LaStarza seems misleading and unrepresentative. It quotes Monte Cox's "Marciano: Is He A Top Five Heavyweight" article(a piece written with the specific purpose of convincing people who rank Marciano highly that he should be placed lower), depicting the decision as having been extremely unusual and giving the impression that it was a pure robbery. Again, there are a few accounts which hold to this opinion, but it is far from some overwhelming, resounding majority which should be held up above all others- most of the accounts of this fight I've seen have either not commented on the accuracy of the decision, simply described it as very close, or described it as close and given the opinion that one guy or the other deserved it narrowly. For example, according to the United Press:Violent Ray Tips Charles In Close Bout
“The smart money screamed and the heavyweight powers smiled unctuously today but there was no joy in the heart of Elmer (Violent) Hay, a man with a mission who for the second time had met a spoiler. The gallery gods went into ranting hysterics last night when the burly negro who once wrestled alligators for a living smashed the myth which was Ezzard Charles. The boxing bigwigs, who had been grooming Charles for a fight with Joe Louis, laughed. Once more they had given Joe Louis, the heavyweight champion, an excuse to dodge the violent one. For from 10 rows back it looked like Charles all the way. He danced and jabbed and landed a lot on Ray's bobbing pate and Elmer's busy elbows. But inside 10 rows you could see the devastation wrought by Ray's jarring hooks, blasts which raised the sheaf of Ezzard's cheek. “No holding,” was the continual admonition of referee Eddie Joseph. But Ezzard, of the winged retreating feet, had to hold for his life, and in doing so he made of Elmer Ray a modern Sam Langford. You remember the Boston Tar Baby. He was a guy heavyweight champion Jack Johnson dodged and dodged during the six years he held the title some three decades ago. Langford tried desperately to get a bout with the champ, but Johnson never would have a part of him. Louis is that way with Ray. It’s silly to say that Louis, the man who has made so many valiant defenses of the crown, is afraid of Elmer. But it is a fact that he won’t fight the burley puncher from Hastings, Florida. "Yeah, I’m a Ray said as, absolutely unmarked, he sat in room after winning over Charles. "Charles, huh! He's good light heavyweight and fast, but he couldn’t knock my hat off. If Louis still refuses to meet me I’m going to hang up my gloves.”
Middlesboro Daily News, July 26, 1947
The Modesto Bee called it "exceptionally close," and many other accounts describe it as being "close" or "very close" or have it narrowly for one guy.Marciano Improves Heavy Standing by Topping LaStarza
Unbeaten Rocky Marciano, the awkward but accurate slugger, appeared the best of a very poor crop of young heavyweights today because of his split victory over previously undefeated Roland LaStarza before 6580 at Madison Square Garden.
You see, it's apparent to me that most very close fights, particularly ones between promising high-level fighters with heavily contrasting styles, like the two I discussed above, create a wide variance of opinion among observers. Observers will often strongly prefer one fighter and/or that fighter's style going into the match, and will score differently based on their stylistic preferences and preconceptions. You'll see a few sportswriters yelling that one guy or the other clearly won or won by a wide margin, some saying that it could've gone either way but scoring it for one guy, and some sitting on the fence or scoring it a draw.
Anyway, these are a couple examples, and there are a few more like them that I've noticed. In general, I think this site is great, both in terms of the amount of data it catalogues and the generally objective way it presents it, and, in fact, most of the descriptions tend to be very balanced, but I do see occasional flaws like the ones above, so I felt compelled to point some out(and make a little reminder to try and give a full representation when presenting reports of decisions or the content of fights).