We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
SPORTS A Kind Word For Those Boxing Judges A NEW term of derision has crept into the bright lexicon of the fist-fight public. It is “television de¬ cision,” and it is employed always with an undertone of suspicion, as fight fans of an earlier day referred to “Jersey Justice” or a “Philadelphia Lightweight.” The implication is that when boxing moved out of the neigh¬ borhood clubs into a million living rooms, something happened to the morals of judges, who now call this boy or that the winner for reasons of their own or of the sponsors. The fact that this is nonsense has not retarded the spread of the idea. Complaints about “television deci¬ sions” make up a considerable portion of any sports editor’s mail. Viewers who never set foot in a fight club in their lives now watch a bout on tele¬ vision, disagree with the official ver¬ dict, and write angry demands of ex¬ posure of the brigands. Actually, televised bouts are judged according to the same standards, by the same men, with the same degree of integrity that obtained before the day of the cathode ray tube. By and large, they know more about boxing than the great television pub¬ lic. They are closer to the ring than the camera is, and so in a better posi¬ tion to judge the contest than the old lady in Des Moines. Television has not yet furnished a picture so complete and accurate and detailed as to enable the viewer to see each move and gauge the accuracy and effect of each blow. Even if it did, the average viewer’s judgment would be suspect because the average viewer isn’t an expert. And he gets precious little help from the voice ac¬ companying the picture. The fight announcer works under many handicaps. He fears to talk too much because he knows nothing in¬ furiates the viewer more than a chat¬ tering idiot telling him things he can see for himself. During some televised bouts, the announcer can see no more than the man at home because his seat is back on the mezzanine alongside the cam¬ era. One has explained that he could report that this boxer was bruised or that one glassy-eyed because the in¬ formation was phoned to him from ringside. In a fight, though, action is too swift for such cumbersome relays to have value. Most difficulties could be overcome if all fight sponsors would employ an announcer who knew something about fighting and seat him with a micro¬ phone at ringside. Thus placed and equipped, he could advise the viewer that this punch landed solidly and stunned the recipient; that this showy swing was blocked and did no harm; that the boy in white trunks was lead¬ ing and feinting his man into position to set him up for a finishing volley. The solution involves hiring some¬ body who knows what he’s talking about. It has not yet swept the tele¬ vision industry like a purifying fire. 23