The newspaper decsions.

**Real King Kong** · 05-06-2015, 01:22 AM

I don't think newspaper decisions were official. Just a bunch of writers deciding who they thought won when there was no official decision.

**Humean** · 05-06-2015, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by stephenmc

Reading a book (as often as i can) on mike mc tigue at the moment, brilliant book il post about his career when i finish before i get off topic. But a boxer from the early 1900s, 1920s, back then their was no real decsion wins, you had the winner of the fight,but then you had like the real winner through the newspaper decsions?correct me if im wrong!!because im only learning about them now! What did you think of the newspaper decsions? Do you think their would be anyway on earth that they could come back sometime in boxing history?? And would you welcome them agin to boxing??? O i think the newspaper decsions wher their because a bout wouldnt be officaly sanctioned....dose anybody have more info on this????

The main reason for newspaper decisions was that various US States had laws against official decisions in order to curtail ******** on fights. Also champions would enact no decision rules in championship fights order to increase their chances of holding onto their title, you'd have to knock the champion out for the title to change hands.

Newspaper decisions won't come back, every now and again some journalist when writing about the incompetence of boxing judges will posit the idea that journalists should decide the outcome. They make that suggestion with the idea of fairness in mind, not in any way because they want to increase their own influence on the sport . . .

**McGoorty** · 05-08-2015, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Humean

The main reason for newspaper decisions was that various US States had laws against official decisions in order to curtail ******** on fights. Also champions would enact no decision rules in championship fights order to increase their chances of holding onto their title, you'd have to knock the champion out for the title to change hands.

Newspaper decisions won't come back, every now and again some journalist when writing about the incompetence of boxing judges will posit the idea that journalists should decide the outcome. They make that suggestion with the idea of fairness in mind, not in any way because they want to increase their own influence on the sport . . .

In the days of No Decision bouts (I am very proud to say that Australia never ever had such a farcical system, you can thank that rogue Hugh D McIntosh for that) there was no alternative and that is why from 1908 to the end of the great war the best fighters fought in Australia and why Les Darcy was the greatest fighter on earth during that time. I think most newspaper decisions were probably fair as the journalists had reputations to uphold and because they had some large crowds at most major fights during the era. Of course some were so controversial but probably an exception to the rule. Most American title holders were not actually real world champs, they were simply champions of America. As far as I know only the USA had these ridiculous no decision affairs so if Floyd Mayweather actually held a title back then he would run even faster than today but would have to fight far more often. The other thing to remember is that these N.D. fights were over just 10 rounds whereas in most countries fights were over a massive 20 round distance so you could bet Floyd would never have gone down under as nobody can run for 20 rounds. I think we need 20 round fights to come back into vogue today so that boxing can recapture the glory days and also weed out these runners who dominate nearly every division since the early nineties. Boxing today needs to change or die.

The newspaper decsions.