BoxRec

This is something I have wondered about when rating fighters. When you see a fighter has a newspaper decision, what does that mean to you?

Do you count is as much as a official decision win?

Disregard it entirely?

Somewhere in the middle?

Just want to hear people's thought on this.

If it's two or more papers, I usually give it as much credence as official verdicts, with a few exceptions. They can be wrong/biased, but so can the judges/ref.

It was often the case that whichever boxer's manager first phoned in the result to the newswire got the win. Other times both fighters got the Newspaper decision in their home town edition.

To me this is an important question because there were a lot of guys who fought a lot of newspaper decisions.

It's actually kind of sad in a way, but newspaper men as whole were probably just as qualified as judges as a whole.

One thing that gives me pause is this; did some fighters not go all out because there was no official decision? I'm guessing most guys did the majority of the time once they were in the ring. However, would some guys not have trained as hard, knowing there was no official verdict?

Would really like to see some other comments about Newspaper Decisions; I know that there are some people that are big fans of the sport during this era.

Law of averages would probably show that there's a better chance of bad decision by 1 or 3 judges than from several newspapers. That's not meant to imply that there weren't bad newspaper decisions.

John wrote:It was often the case that whichever boxer's manager first phoned in the result to the newswire got the win.

This is only true for wire reports (which should not be used as a source anyway), not first hand sources.

John wrote:Other times both fighters got the Newspaper decision in their home town edition.

How often this took place is debateable. In my experience the papers were very good about handing down fair verdicts. In those days most towns, even small ones of a couple of thousand people, had more than one newspaper. If you get a consensus from all the papers you have a pretty darn good idea who won the fight.

for example http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=12179 ...

Philadelphia Inquirer / Boston Journal (same report) reported that "it was Turner's bout at every stage, and that he did not win more impressively was due to the fact that he did not care to extend himself".
Associated Press wire reported that Turner "displayed his superiority over" Gans, and that "it was Turner's bout at every stage and the fact that Gans was on his feet at the finish was due to his opponent's generosity".There is strong suspicion that the above reports were personally motivated to "hype" Turner. The Philadelphia Item, Philadelphia Record, Philadelphia North American (re-printed in Baltimore American), Baltimore American, Baltimore Sun, Pawtucket Evening Times (same report) and Trenton Times reported Gans the winner. The Washington Times, while not having a report of its own, commented that "The Philadelphia papers and the leading sporting sheets of New York are a unit in agreeing that Gans was a winner after the first two rounds and would have been clearly entitled to a decision had one been given. In the face of this, the reports in the Baltimore papers and in the local morning papers are to the effect that Gans was "outclassed" and was a comparatively easy mark for the California negro.

John wrote:for example http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=12179 ...

Philadelphia Inquirer / Boston Journal (same report) reported that "it was Turner's bout at every stage, and that he did not win more impressively was due to the fact that he did not care to extend himself".
Associated Press wire reported that Turner "displayed his superiority over" Gans, and that "it was Turner's bout at every stage and the fact that Gans was on his feet at the finish was due to his opponent's generosity".There is strong suspicion that the above reports were personally motivated to "hype" Turner. The Philadelphia Item, Philadelphia Record, Philadelphia North American (re-printed in Baltimore American), Baltimore American, Baltimore Sun, Pawtucket Evening Times (same report) and Trenton Times reported Gans the winner. The Washington Times, while not having a report of its own, commented that "The Philadelphia papers and the leading sporting sheets of New York are a unit in agreeing that Gans was a winner after the first two rounds and would have been clearly entitled to a decision had one been given. In the face of this, the reports in the Baltimore papers and in the local morning papers are to the effect that Gans was "outclassed" and was a comparatively easy mark for the California negro.

I know. Ive been arguing against this kind of nonsense for years now. I would question how many of those reports actually had a reporter on hand. For instance its highly unlikely the Baltimore American, Sun, Trenton Times, and Pawtucket Evening Times had someone on hand. Its just as unlikely that the New York papers had many if any representatives on hand. If the article doesnt have a byline why use it as a source because its almost certainly a wire report that cant be authenticated or is already being counted among the local papers. Also, it says above: "Philadelphia North American (re-printed in Baltimore American)", and then goes on to list the Baltimore American as a source immediately afterwards. This is just giving one authors opinion double its weight. Pointless. Furthermore, when you quote an unnamed associated press report you have 1 of 3 possibilities: 1. That you are quoting an unnamed opinion you have not yet quoted but 2. (and more likely) you are quoting from a local source that you have already used as a separate opinion (as in the case described above with the Philly North American/Baltimore American) or 3. You are quoting from a biased source such as a manager of one of the fighters who got to the wire first and sent out his own version of events. In any case you a better than 2/3 chance of skewing the picture.

How about this one:

NY Press- Malone outpointed Mantone, his margin of victory was slight.
NY Times- Mantone badly beaten by Malone.

Ambling Alp II wrote:To me this is an important question because there were a lot of guys who fought a lot of newspaper decisions.
It's actually kind of sad in a way, but newspaper men as whole were probably just as qualified as judges as a whole.

Well the "newspaper men" were often just a newspaper man (a stringer) or even one of the managers of the boxers. Stringers would use different names for different papers, it is not easy to attribute reports to an actual person of integrity.

John wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:To me this is an important question because there were a lot of guys who fought a lot of newspaper decisions.
It's actually kind of sad in a way, but newspaper men as whole were probably just as qualified as judges as a whole.

Well the "newspaper men" were often just a newspaper man (a stringer) or even one of the managers of the boxers. Stringers would use different names for different papers, it is not easy to attribute reports to an actual person of integrity.

In the vast vast vast majority of cases local newspapers employed a writer or writers that, whether dedicated solely to boxing or covering several subjects, could be traced and authenticated. Its extremely rare for a newspaper in the ND era to NOT have a byline by a regularly employed journalist. Even those cases (which usually emanate from the New York) where the author uses a pseudonym you can trace who that author was. I think you comparing apples and oranges here. The wire reports, which should not be used as a primary sources, could be written by a stringer or by a fighters manager, but it is not only rare but very unusual to find that taking place in primary local sources and more often that is in very small town papers which didnt employ a full time sports writer. Even in these cases, in my experience, the account is usually written by a local journalist or editor.

John wrote:Well the "newspaper men" were often just a newspaper man (a stringer) or even one of the managers of the boxers. Stringers would use different names for different papers, it is not easy to attribute reports to an actual person of integrity.

As someone who has gone through 1000s and 1000s of newspapers of the no decision era, I must say that this is absolutely nonsensical.

wouter wrote:

John wrote:Well the "newspaper men" were often just a newspaper man (a stringer) or even one of the managers of the boxers. Stringers would use different names for different papers, it is not easy to attribute reports to an actual person of integrity.

As someone who has gone through 1000s and 1000s of newspapers of the no decision era, I must say that this is absolutely nonsensical.

How do you know that a reporter is a genuine individual person and not using a stringer(s) or the manager of the boxers ?

John wrote:
How do you know that a reporter is a genuine individual person and not using a stringer(s) or the manager of the boxers ?

I think the burden of proof lies with the one making such outrageous claims. I do hope you consider me as a genuine individual person.

Considering the times, I wouldn't put it past a single "reporter" to file a description favouring the fighter he'd placed a bet on or who'd loaned him a sawbuck til payday.

John wrote:

wouter wrote:

John wrote:Well the "newspaper men" were often just a newspaper man (a stringer) or even one of the managers of the boxers. Stringers would use different names for different papers, it is not easy to attribute reports to an actual person of integrity.

As someone who has gone through 1000s and 1000s of newspapers of the no decision era, I must say that this is absolutely nonsensical.

How do you know that a reporter is a genuine individual person and not using a stringer(s) or the manager of the boxers ?

Thats what bylines are for. The vast majority of newspapers in the United States at this time, even the small ones, had dedicated writers turning their stories in to editors. Its pretty outrageous to pretend that boxing managers were controlling this process as a rule.

Ive spent a decade and a half researching this era, studying thousands of newspapers and in my experience instances of what John is talking about above occur very very very very very very very VERY rarely at the local level. This happens almost exclusively (and with regularity) across wire reports (which far more often than not have no byline) which is why they shouldnt be allowed in the wikis or details about a fight. If it isnt a verifiable first hand account it shouldnt be used.

Ambling Alp II wrote:This is something I have wondered about when rating fighters. When you see a fighter has a newspaper decision, what does that mean to you?

Do you count is as much as a official decision win?

Disregard it entirely?

Somewhere in the middle?

Just want to hear people's thought on this.

A good question with many answers. I trust the newspaper decisions when there is a clear majority 75% or more of the of sources declaring a winner. Modern boxing often has a judge's score card that is off or has the wrong fighter winning. A newspaper decision given 90 years ago can offer a similar card. A well researched historian can offer two minority reports and trick the casual fans.

I for one count a news decisions a bit less than the official winner on a filmed boxing match. We don't know where the press was seated or if the editor of the paper had his own ideas.

I have not seen the sort of managerial machinations John claims either. I find most results when looking at two papers or more to give the same result usually. Sure you see weird things from time to time, where one reporter calls an easy win, while the other goes the other way, but that happens with judges too.

Hopefully the process will improve with more information, as Klompton notes wire reports especially mentioned in columns or little bylines are the least reliable, and should be avoided unless that is all you have because a lack of a better source.

I think you have to look at the backstory for each particular fight and come to individual conclusions.

Many "no decision" fights came after big build-ups, carried title implications, and were obviously vigorously and seriously contested throughout.

However, many were essentially exhibitions that, no doubt, would have contested much more vigorously (or not at all) had the participants any idea that people would start handing out "wins" and "losses" 50-plus years after the fact. Had to be the case -- just looking at the number of fights some people had during the no decision era should make that clear. Only someone who never competed seriously himself could imagine a guy could have 3-4 fights/month for several years on end if they were real fights.

Mr E wrote:I think you have to look at the backstory for each particular fight and come to individual conclusions.

Many "no decision" fights came after big build-ups, carried title implications, and were obviously vigorously and seriously contested throughout.

However, many were essentially exhibitions that, no doubt, would have contested much more vigorously (or not at all) had the participants any idea that people would start handing out "wins" and "losses" 50-plus years after the fact. Had to be the case -- just looking at the number of fights some people had during the no decision era should make that clear. Only someone who never competed seriously himself could imagine a guy could have 3-4 fights/month for several years on end if they were real fights.

Ridiculous. Of course they were real fights. The only thing barring a decision at the time was state or city statutes. They were well aware that newspapers would be rendering decisions and fought accordingly. The instances where these fights were fought as little more than exhibitions are no more prevalent than they are today in shitty decision matches where two fighters arent trying.

On the other hand there were numerous reports of fighters in that era not really trying, with purses withheld in some cases or even a few fighters banned from certain venues. Most boxers were well aware of their limitations as title challengers and were satisfied with the purse guarantees for showing up. The elite fighters fought to win, most of the time. (See McVea vs Jeannette, Langford vs. McVea, McVea vs Wills) Some just went through the motions. Guys like Greb, Gibbons, Miske, etc knew which side their bread was buttered on. They had to please the rubes.

Cap wrote:On the other hand there were numerous reports of fighters in that era not really trying, with purses withheld in some cases or even a few fighters banned from certain venues.

It's likely the other way around, with the standards being a lot higher back then. Many of today's fights would have been halted for stalling and (one of) the principals would have been thrown out of the ring.

Wouter is exactly right. Go back and read those descriptions and you will see that fights were often stopped merely for not turning in a passionate performance. That totally bursts the argument that these were glorified exhibitions and instead illustrates that these guys were expected to perform. In that era a guy like floyd mayweather who just goes in against carefully picked opponents and fights with no passion wouldnt have been very popular regardless of all his pseudo ghetto flash.

Go back and read post-fight reports from guys like Robert Edgren describing two guys stinking out the joint. Every era has had fighters who went through the motions for a payday. But in the previous "Gilded Age" and the modern era when boxing was legalized there were official decisions not votes by local sports-writers.

I have nothing against using newspaper decisions. It was the method of the time for settling gambling wagers and it's what we got now to go by to get an idea of how a fight went.

There were reports of guys not really trying but the instances arent any higher per capita than they are today I would wager. They may seem higher since there were far and away more fights back then but the vast majority of ND fights were fought on their merit and considered legitimate fights. The idea that they were glorified exhibitions, as one poster stated, simply does not hold up. Neither does the idea that every newspaper decision carried with it inherently more bias than the average judges decision today. Boxing writers in that era were culled were often the most experienced boxing experts in the town in which they were writing. The majority of these guys writing had long histories with sport either as boxers themselves, managers, promoters, trainers, judges, or some combination of those trades. In short they were often far more experienced than the judges today that some seem to hold so infallible (until the next Pacqiaou-Bradley decision comes up) and as such their decisions shouldnt be taken lightly.