Hubbry Logo
Newspaper decisionNewspaper decisionMain
Open search
Newspaper decision
Community hub
Newspaper decision
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Newspaper decision
Newspaper decision
Newspaper decision
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A newspaper decision was a type of decision in professional boxing. It was rendered by a consensus of sportswriters attending a bout after it had ended inconclusively with a "no decision", as many regions had not adopted the National Sporting Club of London's rules regarding judges and referees. A "no decision" occurred when, either under the sanctioning of state boxing law or by an arrangement between the fighters, both boxers were still standing at the end of a fight and there had been no knockout, no official decision had been made, and neither boxer was declared the winner. The sportswriters covering the fight, after reaching a consensus, would declare a winner – or render the bout a draw – and print the newspaper decision in their publications. Officially, however, a "no decision" bout resulted in neither boxer winning or losing, and would therefore not count as part of their official fight record.[1] This should not be confused with the unrelated and contemporary term, "no contest".

The development of boxing scoring, initially by round scoring by the referee and two judges, to the modern three judges with the ten-point system, has eliminated this practice. Despite that, some media outlets still do "newspaper decisions" using the ten-point system. For example, in the July 19, 2025 Manny Pacquiao vs. Mario Barrios contest for the WBC welterweight championship, judge Max DeLuca scored it Barrios 115-113, and judges Steve Weisfeld and Tim Cheatham scored the contest 114-114, resulting in a draw as two of three judges declared it as such. The Associated Press, in its report, scored a "newspaper decision" of 115-113 Pacquiao based on their writer on-site, who is positioned differently than the judges.[2]


References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Newspaper decision

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A newspaper decision was an unofficial outcome in bouts, determined by a consensus among ringside sportswriters after a fight concluded without an verdict, typically in "" matches where neither boxer was knocked out. This practice emerged as a to legal restrictions on official judging, allowing newspapers to report perceived winners for their readers and to inform betting markets. Prevalent in the United States during the early , newspaper decisions were particularly common under New York's Frawley Law of 1911, which legalized exhibitions but barred referees from rendering decisions in non-knockout bouts to deter and perceived in the sport. The law stipulated that fights could not exceed 10 rounds and officially resulted in if both fighters stood at the final bell, prompting journalists to independently score and declare results based on their observations. Prominent reporters, such as Robert Edgren of the , often led these consensus verdicts, which could reflect subjective views or even hometown biases favoring local boxers. The system influenced records and legacies, with outcomes retrospectively noted in databases as "W-NWS" for wins, "L-NWS" for losses, or "D-NWS" for draws by newspaper consensus, though these lacked formal authority and sometimes sparked disputes among fans and historians. Critics argued it encouraged lackluster performances, as fighters had little incentive to pursue decisive action without risking an official loss, contributing to the law's repeal in 1917 amid broader reforms. The practice largely faded with the Walker Law of 1920, which relegalized with official judging, marking the shift to modern scoring systems overseen by commissions.

Definition and Overview

Definition

A newspaper decision in is an unofficial consensus verdict delivered by ringside sportswriters, who collectively determine a winner or following a bout that ends without an official outcome, typically due to the absence of a or disqualification. These decisions arise specifically in no-decision formats, where formal rulings are prohibited by prevailing regulations. Key characteristics of newspaper decisions include their informal nature, with results often published in newspapers the day after the fight based on the reporters' subjective observations and scoring. They carry no official weight, as they do not modify boxers' records, titles, or statistical tallies in any sanctioned database. This journalistic process could sometimes reflect regional biases, such as favoring a local fighter, but it provided an informal measure of performance in an era without standardized judging. In contrast to official decisions, which are rendered by appointed referees or judges and enforced by athletic commissions or sanctioning bodies like the , newspaper decisions lack any binding authority or regulatory endorsement. They serve solely as a media-driven assessment, offering public insight into fight outcomes without influencing the sport's formal governance.

Historical Context in Boxing

Newspaper decisions emerged as a prominent feature in during the early , particularly prevalent in the United States from approximately to the 1920s, following the sport's earlier transition from bare-knuckle contests to standardized gloved formats under the Queensberry Rules in the late . These rules, which mandated padded gloves, fixed round lengths of three to four minutes, and a ten-count procedure, were increasingly adopted across to legitimize and commercialize the sport, though enforcement varied by jurisdiction. This shift facilitated more frequent bouts but highlighted ongoing regulatory inconsistencies, as many regions lacked uniform oversight, leading to informal mechanisms like decisions to resolve outcomes in no-decision matches. The practice reached its peak in the , during the early phase of boxing's "," spanning lightweight to divisions and reflecting the sport's explosive growth amid and waves. High-profile events, such as those featuring , drew massive audiences and underscored boxing's role as a cultural spectacle tied to ethnic identities, with fighters from Irish, Jewish, and other immigrant communities symbolizing community pride. Across the , where saw similar adoption of gloved rules around the , decisions became a staple for main events, providing narrative closure to contests that official rules could not formally adjudicate. This mechanism connected directly to boxing's broader expansion, as it addressed regulatory gaps—such as New York's fluctuating (legalized in by the Horton Law, banned in 1900 by the Lewis Law, partially reinstated in 1911 by the Frawley Law (which allowed exhibitions but no official decisions until its repeal in 1917), and fully reinstated in 1920 by the Walker Law)—by allowing sportswriters to gauge public sentiment and declare informal winners through consensus in reports. By filling this void, decisions enhanced fan engagement, fueled media coverage, and sustained interest in the sport during its mainstream ascent, transforming ambiguous bouts into compelling stories that boosted attendance and commercialization. Sportswriters played a key role in this process, leveraging their ringside observations to influence perceptions and outcomes.

Origins and Development

In the early 20th century, professional boxing faced severe legal restrictions across the United States, where prizefighting was often classified as a form of assault, battery, or illegal gambling, leading to outright bans in many states. For instance, New York State outlawed prizefighting as early as 1859, with the Horton Law of 1896 providing limited legalization for glove-wearing exhibitions capped at four rounds without official decisions to avoid classification as illegal fights. This restrictive framework intensified in 1900 with the Lewis Law, which repealed the Horton provisions and effectively banned professional boxing entirely in the state, forcing promoters to operate underground or relocate bouts to evade arrests and prosecutions. Similarly, California maintained a ban on professional boxing from 1914 onward due to concerns over safety and morality, prohibiting prizefights until voter approval in 1924 established regulatory oversight. These state-level prohibitions stemmed from Progressive Era reforms aimed at curbing violence and vice, viewing boxing as a barbaric spectacle that encouraged betting and public disorder. To circumvent these laws, boxing promoters restructured professional matches as "exhibitions" or "sparring sessions," deliberately limiting them to short durations—typically six to ten rounds—without rendering an official verdict, thereby dodging legal definitions of prizefighting. In New York, the Frawley Law of 1911 offered a partial reprieve by permitting ten-round no-decision bouts under a nascent state athletic commission, but this was short-lived, as the ring death of Young McDonald in a bout in January 1917 prompted Governor Whitman to urge its repeal, leading to another ban until 1920. Such formats ensured that no financial stakes could be tied to a declared winner, reducing the risk of charges related to or , though participants and organizers still faced periodic raids and legal challenges. Promoters like navigated these constraints by scheduling high-profile "no-decision" events in compliant venues or states, preserving the sport's viability while keeping outcomes unofficial to shield against prosecution. The Walker Law of 1920 marked a pivotal shift in New York, legalizing professional boxing with standardized rules, a 15-round limit, and the authority for official decisions, while establishing the to oversee the sport. Sponsored by assemblyman James J. Walker, this legislation not only ended New York's cycling bans but also influenced other states by providing a model for regulation. For promoters, the law alleviated the constant threat of arrest, enabling legitimate operations and revenue from ticket sales without the subterfuge of exhibition labeling, though full nationwide uniformity remained elusive as states like lagged in reform. This regulatory evolution underscored how legal barriers had compelled the widespread use of no-decision bouts, shaping the clandestine nature of professional boxing during the era.

Emergence in the Early

The emergence of newspaper decisions in occurred primarily in response to legal restrictions that banned official verdicts in non-knockout bouts, a practice that took hold in the early as the sport gained legitimacy under limited regulatory frameworks. In New York, the Frawley Act of 1911 legalized exhibitions but explicitly prohibited referees from declaring winners unless a fighter was stopped, prompting sportswriters to offer post-fight assessments based on ringside observations. This workaround quickly became essential for resolving wagers and satisfying public interest in outcomes. By 1910-1915, newspaper decisions saw their first widespread use in major East Coast cities like New York and , where the format aligned with the burgeoning daily sports sections in local papers that devoted extensive coverage to amid the sport's rising popularity. In New York, up to 20 boxing shows occurred weekly by 1913, generating nearly $1 million in gate receipts from November 1911 to November 1912—second only to —and elevating the role of media consensus in the sport. mirrored this trend, with numerous ten-round exhibitions in venues like the Olympia Athletic Club relying on press verdicts, as seen in bouts involving local fighters such as Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, who amassed over 140 victories including many newspaper decisions before retiring in 1910. Key figures among promoters and journalists helped formalize and popularize writer polls during this period. Promoters like , who began organizing significant bouts in the late 1910s after earlier successes in the West, leveraged the no-decision format to build hype around matches in New York, contributing to the practice's visibility even as he advocated for fuller legalization. Journalists from outlets like and the , including Robert Edgren, whose opinions were deemed "law in the boxing world," conducted informal polls among attending reporters to establish a consensus winner, standardizing the process and enhancing its credibility for readers and gamblers. The adoption of newspaper decisions extended beyond the East Coast by 1920, reaching Midwest cities like and West Coast hubs such as , where similar legal gaps in unregulated fights necessitated media interventions to declare victors and sustain betting interest. This regional spread paralleled boxing's national growth, with radio broadcasts and fight films further amplifying newspaper accounts and solidifying the method's role until official judging systems emerged.

Mechanics of Newspaper Decisions

The No-Decision Bout Format

In the no-decision bout format prevalent in early 20th-century , fights were typically scheduled for 10 to 15 rounds and required a stoppage—such as a , technical knockout, or disqualification—for an official result to be declared; otherwise, the bout ended with no formal winner or loser if both fighters remained standing. This structure ensured compliance with legal prohibitions on decision-based outcomes in many U.S. states, which aimed to curb and unsanctioned title changes by classifying the contests as exhibitions rather than official competitions. Referees played a crucial role in maintaining order during these bouts by enforcing the Marquis of Queensberry rules, intervening to prevent excessive fouling, and halting the fight if a fighter could no longer continue intelligently, but they refrained from scoring rounds or issuing any verdict. This hands-off approach to judging contrasted sharply with contemporary , where a panel of three ringside judges tallies points per round using a 10-point must system to determine the victor, often over 12 rounds for non-title fights. In no-decision bouts, the absence of official scoring preserved the bout's exhibition status under the law, yet allowed the event to function as a high-stakes competitive test of skill and endurance.

Consensus Process Among Sportswriters

Following the end of a no-decision bout, sportswriters from multiple newspapers typically convened informally at ringside or in adjacent press rooms to discuss and evaluate the fight's outcome. These post-bout gatherings involved a small group of reporters, often 5 to 10 for prominent matches, who shared their firsthand observations to foster agreement on a verdict. The evaluations relied on subjective judgments of the boxers' performances, emphasizing factors such as aggression, visible damage inflicted, and control of the ring, without the benefit of a formalized point system like the later-adopted 10-point must scoring. This informal voting or consensus-building process allowed for diverse perspectives but could lead to varied interpretations among the writers. Once a view emerged—resulting in a win for one fighter, a draw, or even a split opinion—the decision was reported in the newspapers' subsequent editions, commonly declared as a "newspaper decision" for the prevailing boxer, for instance, "newspaper decision to Greb" in bouts involving the legendary . These publications provided the public with an unofficial but influential resolution to the contest.

Notable Examples

Harry Greb's Newspaper Decisions

Harry Greb's career was marked by an extraordinary volume of no-decision bouts, reflecting the legal restrictions on in many states during the early . Out of his 298 total professional fights from 1913 to 1926, approximately 179 were no-decision affairs, with the vast majority of newspaper verdicts favoring Greb due to his relentless swarming style and aggressive pressure. These unofficial wins, determined by consensus among ringside sportswriters, often provided the only public assessment of his dominance in bouts where official results were prohibited. A pivotal example came on July 31, 1920, when Greb faced at in in a 10-round no-decision bout. This encounter avenged Greb's two prior losses to Gibbons in 1915 and May 1920, as newspaper reports credited Greb with outworking the taller through superior volume punching and inside fighting, earning him the unofficial victory despite Gibbons' reach advantage. The win solidified Greb's rising status and demonstrated his ability to adapt against technically proficient opponents in high-stakes rematches. Another notable newspaper decision occurred on October 4, 1923, against Jimmy Darcy at the same venue. As the reigning , Greb controlled the 10-round no-decision fight with consistent aggression, outpointing the rugged fighter on most scorecards and leading to a clear unofficial triumph reported across major outlets. Greb's fifth meeting with on February 23, 1926, at further exemplified the role of decisions in his legacy. In this 10-round no-decision bout, sportswriters favored Tunney for his technical and control, despite Greb's forward pressure and effective body work, awarding him the unofficial win in a series where outcomes were often debated. These newspaper decisions significantly enhanced Greb's reputation as "The Pittsburgh Windmill," highlighting his unyielding stamina and willingness to engage elite competition without the protection of official rulings, even as they left his official record with far fewer documented victories.

Other Prominent Historical Bouts

One of the most notable newspaper decisions outside of Harry Greb's extensive record occurred in the July 27, 1922, lightweight title bout between champion and challenger Lew Tendler at Boyle's Thirty Acres in . The 12-round no-decision fight saw Leonard retain his crown officially due to the format's rules, but sportswriters delivered mixed verdicts: James J. Corbett of the Universal Service and the scored it for Tendler, Vincent Treanor of the called it a , and of the International News Service awarded it to Leonard. This split outcome, often summarized as a newspaper draw in contemporary reports, fueled intense public debate and significantly heightened anticipation for their September 1923 rematch in New York, where Leonard again prevailed by decision. During the 1930s, standout participated in a handful of -decided bouts that bolstered his image as an undefeated phenom across multiple divisions. In his professional debut-era fight on March 17, 1930, against at the Arena in , , Ross secured a 4-round no-decision victory via unanimous scoring from the , marking an early step in his rise from contender. Later, on August 18, 1937, in a non-title affair against Al Manfredo at the Western League Baseball Park in , Ross again earned a win as reported by the Hammond Times and after 10 rounds, contributing to his overall record of 72 wins (including two by decision) amid just three official no-decision outcomes. These verdicts, while not altering official tallies, reinforced Ross's reputation for technical mastery and resilience in an era when such informal rulings shaped fighters' legacies and title opportunities.

Decline and Legacy

Shift to Official Judging Systems

The enactment of the Walker Law in New York on May 24, 1920, initiated the transition from newspaper decisions to official judging by legalizing matches with official outcomes up to 15 rounds and establishing the , the precursor to the (NYSAC), to regulate the sport. This legislation ended the no-decision format prevalent in New York due to prior legal constraints, mandating that bouts be evaluated by two ringside judges, with the acting as a tie-breaker to determine the winner. The NYSAC's oversight ensured standardized scoring for all licensed events, directly phasing out the reliance on post-fight consensus among sportswriters. The Walker Law's model influenced regulatory reforms across the , with numerous states adopting similar commissions and official decision protocols in the early to mid-1920s, aligning with updates to the Marquis of Queensberry rules that emphasized structured bout governance. By the mid-1920s, official judging had become the standard in major jurisdictions, diminishing the practice of decisions nationwide as legal bouts required verifiable results from appointed officials rather than media opinion. Newspaper decisions declined sharply after 1920, becoming uncommon by especially in contests, and were effectively eliminated in most U.S. states by the as comprehensive athletic commissions enforced uniform scoring procedures. This timeline reflected broader legalization trends, with all states permitting regulated boxing by 1934 and official systems supplanting informal verdicts entirely. Further technical advancements refined the process in the 1960s, leading to the World Boxing Council's formal adoption of the 10-point must system in , where the winner of each round receives 10 points and the loser 9 or fewer based on criteria like effective aggression and defense. This structured approach, building on earlier five-point variants tested by commissions like Nevada's in the , provided greater precision and consistency, rendering any lingering unofficial scoring mechanisms obsolete in professional bouts.

Influence on Boxing Records and Modern Practices

BoxRec and other boxing databases designate newspaper decisions as unofficial results, marking them with codes such as W-NWS for wins, L-NWS for losses, and D-NWS for draws, to distinguish them from officially sanctioned outcomes. While official career records exclude these bouts to reflect only regulated decisions, incorporating newspaper decisions into broader historical tallies often inflates fighters' perceived statistics, providing a more complete but unofficial picture of their activity. For example, Harry Greb's official record is 108 wins, 8 losses, and 3 draws from 119 bouts, but including his 153 newspaper decisions results in an extended tally of approximately 261 wins, 17 losses, and 18 draws across 298 fights. This dual accounting system fuels persistent debates among boxing historians and analysts over the accurate assessment of "true" victory counts for Hall of Fame figures from the era, such as Greb, whose voluminous unofficial wins underscore his relentless schedule but complicate objective evaluations. These discussions extend to pound-for-pound (p4p) rankings in historical contexts, where the inclusion of newspaper decisions can elevate a fighter's standing by demonstrating dominance in otherwise unrecorded bouts, influencing modern retrospectives on all-time greats. In modern , the spirit of decisions endures through informal media scorecards, which outlets provide to offer alternative perspectives on controversial official judgments and echo the consensus-building role of early 20th-century sportswriters. A recent instance arose in the July 19, 2025, WBC title fight between and , officially ruled a with cards of 115-113 Barrios and two 114-114 ties, yet the independently scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao based on ringside analysis. Such media interventions persist in high-profile disputes, fostering public debate and occasionally pressuring commissions to review scoring protocols, though they lack formal authority.

References

  1. https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Newspaper_decision
  2. https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Liebman.pdf
  3. https://escholarship.org/content/qt2rh296bq/qt2rh296bq.pdf
  4. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/boxing
  5. https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/USA:_New_York_Laws
  6. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=hist_etds
  7. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/november-4/california-legalizes-boxing
  8. https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/No_decision
  9. https://www.boxingoverbroadway.com/100-years-ago-the-law-that-gave-birth-to-the-modern-era-of-boxing/
  10. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Walker-Law
  11. https://sports.nyhistory.org/tag/frawley-law/
  12. https://www.nytimes.com/1914/01/11/archives/commission-may-allow-decisions-boxing-authorities-to-consider-plan.html
  13. https://www.americanheritage.com/business-boxing
  14. https://digital-exhibits.library.nd.edu/9e62b046bc/fighting-words/showcases/80e27461ce/round-10
  15. https://www.mnbhof.org/Minnesota_Boxing_Hall_of_Fame/Billy_DeFoe.html
  16. https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Harry_Greb_vs._Tommy_Gibbons_(3rd_meeting)
  17. https://www.nytimes.com/1923/10/05/archives/greb-outpoints-darcy-champion-gets-newspaper-decision-over-oregon.html
  18. https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/21847758/partial-blindness-stop-harry-greb-taming-boxing-world-unly-death-32
  19. https://www.thefightcity.com/fight-city-legends-7-smoke-city-wildcat/
  20. https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Benny_Leonard_vs._Lew_Tendler_%281st_meeting%29
  21. http://www.nytimes.com/1922/07/26/archives/betting-is-light-on-title-contest-leonard-is-favorite-at-3-to-1.html
  22. https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/8996
  23. https://tss.ib.tv/boxing/re-visiting-the-walker-law-of-1920-which-transformed-boxing/
  24. https://www.boxingscene.com/articles/the-boxing-judge-tom-schreck-on-how-the-10-point-must-system-emerged
  25. https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/9019
  26. https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/if-we-didnt-count-newspaper-decisions-how-much-would-the-p4p-all-time-list-change.737644/
  27. https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2025-07-19/manny-pacquiao-boxing-comeback-loss-mario-barrios
  28. https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/45780217/manny-pacquiao-46-battles-mario-barrios-majority-draw
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.