Did draws used to be more common?

[eli porter]

I was casually browsing through boxrec, specifically, Sam Langford's fight history and it occured to me that the records for olders fighters sometimes tended to be far more laden with draws then what you come to expect out of a lot of the more modern fighters.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...9816&cat=boxer

there are even instances of fighters having more draws then losses and wins put together.

Is this because boxrec records are incomplete and they use "draws" to fill in gaps, or is it as a result of a signifcant shift in the approach to judging?

[NChristo]

I was casually browsing through boxrec, specifically, Sam Langford's fight history and it occured to me that the records for olders fighters sometimes tended to be far more laden with draws then what you come to expect out of a lot of the more modern fighters.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...9816&cat=boxer

there are even instances of fighters having more draws then losses and wins put together.

Is this because boxrec records are incomplete and they use "draws" to fill in gaps, or is it as a result of a signifcant shift in the approach to judging?

Back then it was complicated mostly because of the race line and betting, if the referee didn't like one of the boxers for whatever reason or betted on one of the boxers but the opponent was clearly winning then he could rule it against then and call a draw or win, judging was much different back then, some special cases particularly with Sam Langford and Joe Walcott, there were a lot of fights they was both put in were if they didn't knock the opponent out the fight would be ruled a draw and they wouldn't get a penny of the prize money.

It was mostly the race line and dodgy referees and bets.

[sonnyboyx2]

I was casually browsing through boxrec, specifically, Sam Langford's fight history and it occured to me that the records for olders fighters sometimes tended to be far more laden with draws then what you come to expect out of a lot of the more modern fighters.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hum...9816&cat=boxer

there are even instances of fighters having more draws then losses and wins put together.

Is this because boxrec records are incomplete and they use "draws" to fill in gaps, or is it as a result of a signifcant shift in the approach to judging?

Boxrec is a decent site but they are far from perfect and many fighters from pre1950 had many more fights than what are listed to them on Boxrec

[Barn]

George Dixon has the most draws with 41.

P.S - Sonny you said Boxrec does not have a lot of Dempsey fights listed, can you provide the names missing so I can rate his resume more accurately.

[Miburo]

Surprised no one has answered this correctly. The reason is because the rules were different, if a fight went the distance it was declared a draw, there was generally no official scoring. Newspapers would often evaluate who they thought got the better of it, but it had no bearing on the official record. There's a real lack of education out there as to just how different the sport was up until the late 1910s/1920s.

[Miburo]

Back then it was complicated mostly because of the race line and betting, if the referee didn't like one of the boxers for whatever reason or betted on one of the boxers but the opponent was clearly winning then he could rule it against then and call a draw or win, judging was much different back then, some special cases particularly with Sam Langford and Joe Walcott, there were a lot of fights they was both put in were if they didn't knock the opponent out the fight would be ruled a draw and they wouldn't get a penny of the prize money.

It was mostly the race line and dodgy referees and bets.

It had almost nothing to do with this in the main.

[Anthony342]

Surprised no one has answered this correctly. The reason is because the rules were different, if a fight went the distance it was declared a draw, there was generally no official scoring. Newspapers would often evaluate who they thought got the better of it, but it had no bearing on the official record. There's a real lack of education out there as to just how different the sport was up until the late 1910s/1920s.

Was there ever a time when boxers had to keep fighting until there was a knockout? Did rounds used to be longer? Before deciding on 15 rounds, what was the limit to number of rounds? Was there one before that? Speaking of education, that's why I come here, to learn about the history of the sport of boxing.

[StarshipTrooper]

Surprised no one has answered this correctly. The reason is because the rules were different, if a fight went the distance it was declared a draw, there was generally no official scoring. Newspapers would often evaluate who they thought got the better of it, but it had no bearing on the official record. There's a real lack of education out there as to just how different the sport was up until the late 1910s/1920s.

^^^^^ This right here.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Was there ever a time when boxers had to keep fighting until there was a knockout? Did rounds used to be longer? Before deciding on 15 rounds, what was the limit to number of rounds? Was there one before that? Speaking of education, that's why I come here, to learn about the history of the sport of boxing.

Under the old London Ring Rules system rounds were indefinate times: The round ended when a fighter was knocked down or a fighter's back touched the ropes. Rounds could conceivably be 10 seconds long.....or 10 minutes.

Poet

[Anthony342]

Was the number of rounds indefinite as well? And there used to be no judges, even after deciding on 15 rounds as a limit? So how long before they then added judges' scores?