Is Boxing's history already too extensive for one liftetime to get through?

[The Old LefHook]

For instance, anyone who gave an opinion here on the results of a mythical matchup between Dempsey and Langford, did so strictly on the basis of what they have already read on he subjects of the two men. That is obvious enough. We combine these details with what we know about their respective eras and cultures. We interpret. It is fair to recognize that in all cases our interpretations are dependent on and hail from interpretations that preceded them. This provides some kind of thread of continuity to our musings.

We should not overlook that all our biases and prejudices are also wrapped into these interpretations. When I composed a short story about the Langford/Ketchel bout, I injected plenty that is not contained in the historical record. It was my interpretation of that event, of racism in America, past boxing values, certain aspects learned from psychology or sociology, etc., etc.

[QueensburyRules]

- -You knocking all the crust off yer carcass?

[Ritz Kola]

Would you rate someone who has B- knowledge in 7 of the 17 divisions a core fan: over someone who has A+ knowledge in 2?
Boxing is like life. It’s the sport for anyone and everyone. I say pick up the sport where you’re comfortable and extend beyond that at your own comfortability. There are gems out there that I don’t know about and I love finding them. Anyone under 40 like myself (23) claiming to know everything about the sport and giving the impression they never need to do research because they know it all- is a damn liar and what’s wrong amongst the fan base. Casual fans are just as important as Core fans, they’re arguably more important. Not just in Boxing but in every sport out there. I only consider one a casual when it’s clear they don’t know the rules nor the Scoring criteria (ABCs) nor what they are talking about at the given topic. Those three things combined are what I use to determine that. Casuals typically refuse to accept the scoring criteria for the sport after being educated on why the guy they favored lost. Floyd v Manny. Casuals still claim manny won. Even worse they believe he beat Floyd Mayweather with one arm. Delusional. Despite watching him use both arms and being neutralized the whole bout. Core fans can be honest because we know the three aforementioned points, and admit when the guy we rooted for lost. When Charlo lost to Harrison, I was only concerned that Tony not be robbed. I rooted for Charlo, I didn’t even know who Harrison was prior. But TH boxed beautifully and made me a fan that night. Casuals don’t understand boxing is a sport with a designated way to win, and think it’s a fight the way fights are won in their heads.

[QueensburyRules]

Would you rate someone who has B- knowledge in 7 of the 17 divisions a core fan: over someone who has A+ knowledge in 2?
Boxing is like life. It’s the sport for anyone and everyone. I say pick up the sport where you’re comfortable and extend beyond that at your own comfortability. There are gems out there that I don’t know about and I love finding them. Anyone under 40 like myself (23) claiming to know everything about the sport and giving the impression they never need to do research because they know it all- is a damn liar and what’s wrong amongst the fan base. Casual fans are just as important as Core fans, they’re arguably more important. Not just in Boxing but in every sport out there. I only consider one a casual when it’s clear they don’t know the rules nor the Scoring criteria (ABCs) nor what they are talking about at the given topic. Those three things combined are what I use to determine that. Casuals typically refuse to accept the scoring criteria for the sport after being educated on why the guy they favored lost. Floyd v Manny. Casuals still claim manny won. Even worse they believe he beat Floyd Mayweather with one arm. Delusional. Despite watching him use both arms and being neutralized the whole bout. Core fans can be honest because we know the three aforementioned points, and admit when the guy we rooted for lost. When Charlo lost to Harrison, I was only concerned that Tony not be robbed. I rooted for Charlo, I didn’t even know who Harrison was prior. But TH boxed beautifully and made me a fan that night. Casuals don’t understand boxing is a sport with a designated way to win, and think it’s a fight the way fights are won in their heads.

- -Casuals the only ones thinking the fight legit.


Ie: YOU!

[Marchegiano]

Historians spend most of their time interpreting history, yet all have essentially the same collection of facts to work with. Who tells the best stories within this common collection? Sometimes we feel some historian has finally teased out the actual truth from disparate facts. We like his style of storytelling and we like his results. Most of us are poor at distinguishing truth from what we want to believe and a good story from the truth anyway. Yet without these various interpretations of others we would be like blind men to history. We may be wrong, but at least we do have plenty of ideas about the subject, thanks to others and an ear for storytelling.

I mean, it is kinda my thing to find new stuff.

Way back around 08 there was still plenty of disconnect between rough and tumble, Russian, and ancient boxing to the modern English form.

What I was shocked to find is historians around the world do a bad job sharing. If you bounce back and forth from say English history to Russian history you will get tidbits from the other side pertaining to the former.

When I say Russian history I do mean Russian history as told by Russians not Russian history told by West Europe.

The source materials have not been shared! So by new, I don't mean new-new, I mean now known to boxing historians.

This is all verified history that has the backing of historians and societies that are respected. So, I don't feel it's up to me to prove the history. From my perspective it is proven.

Funny enough, when I go to share with places like the IBRO what I get told is that is unverified information. Since 08 and now the IRBO authors have put out a ton of work. Su****iously, they seem to 'uncover' just about as much as I have...

I'm not saying you are wrong, just, watch the money. Money does motivate. They all say they don't make any money off their books but how many freely share their information?

Y'all can speak with a few of them at ESB. You can ask questions to which they will answer "buy my book" you buy said book, usually 20-75 bucks, and get less then half a paragraph this guy could have easily just posted to the forum in response rather then buy my book. Hmm....that seems like info behind a money wall not love for sport and educating your fellow fan. They are corrupted.

I say all of this having been invited to join them no less than three times. I am not a member of the IBRO, but, I have been nominated and declined the offer a few times now. Because I do share my info freely and do not want people to pay me money for a snippet from the NY Clipper or some such similar.

Finally! Boxing historians' ********s tighten when you bring more respected histories into it. The fellas digging up mummies are a tidbit more expert then the boxing historian, dig? Just because a Harvard prof says it's history does not mean boxing historians will agree and since the IBRO basically controls boxing historical authority you're kinda stuck with their propaganda until you go with source material.

------


Let me just give a real world example. Y'all know about JJ in Russia? Was going to fight Sam for a whole lot of money? Well, I found a Russian historian who covers that. When I shared that information I was told I am wrong, the historian is wrong, and Adam Polluck is the man for Johnson.

Adam may be, but, he isn't a Russian citizen is he? I'd trust the Russian can go through their own records a little more in depth then an American. But, one shouldn't trust anything, one should look at said Russian author's work and dispute his source with a source that makes his an impossibility. What you get instead is "Adam does not mention this" Hmmmm, not much of a contradiction. That's like saying my eyes ain't green 'cause I never mentioned my eye color. They're green. If y'all had a pic of my green eyes right in front of you would "Adam never mentioned eye color" persuade you into believing my eyes might not be green? Of course not, evidence is evidence.


So, yeah, history, especially not well respected history like boxing history, is a cluster ****.

[Ritz Kola]

- -Casuals the only ones thinking the fight legit.


Ie: YOU!

My first day here and you’re a casual. I’ve already identified all the casuals and you’re the biggest one. Enjoy being a clown

[billeau2]

Was just thinking about it... Are people who are perhaps in their 70s or so, who might've been following boxing in 1970s and also didn't have all that much to catch-up with from before their time (In comparision to any younger generations) - the last true boxing historians?

I'm big boxing fan and most of my time is dedicated to keeping up with what's currently happening. I try to go back and get familiar with past decades as well, but I'm still not even close to seeing everything from 2000s that I'd like to see...
...and then You have 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s.... and the classic times with not much TV footage.

I don't think I'll ever get to see/read about everything that I'd like to..
..and the more time flies, every new fan will be faced with even more of history.

I was also trying to collect fights, but now I realised I'll never get to see it all - and the more time flies, the less people will probably care about anything other than true major, historical fights from each year.
So I guess I don't really know what's the question in this topic, just thought it's interesting and a bit sad.

Good topic.

So in boxing in my opinion we got a gift, a veritable Rosetta Stone when the seventies occured. Here is what happened: Ali ruled the roost at a time when the division was really strong. At that time, you had men around in boxing who had worked with, at least saw, and had the knowledge to compare everyone up from JJ to Ali. So we had scribes that had experienced these men when they spoke of whom reigned supreme.

As the years went by to the early eighties we had the same situation regarding Dempsey and on, which was not bad, but not quite the same as having men who could compare fighters from experience, beginning with jack Johnson and ending with Ali.

While it does not follow that having experienced, seeing a fighter, training a fighter, and even fighting a fighter makes one an absolute judge of whom is the best...I do think it deserves some consideration.

I do not know if we will ever have such a "gift" again. It took men of letters seeing Egyptian script in all three phases (Hyroglph, Heratic and Demotic (greek alphabet) to decipher how Egyptian language truly works... To understand what a great heavyweight is, which may occur only in several generations, we had men who could see Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, all the way up to Ali.

[billeau2]

I mean, it is kinda my thing to find new stuff.

Way back around 08 there was still plenty of disconnect between rough and tumble, Russian, and ancient boxing to the modern English form.

What I was shocked to find is historians around the world do a bad job sharing. If you bounce back and forth from say English history to Russian history you will get tidbits from the other side pertaining to the former.

When I say Russian history I do mean Russian history as told by Russians not Russian history told by West Europe.

The source materials have not been shared! So by new, I don't mean new-new, I mean now known to boxing historians.

This is all verified history that has the backing of historians and societies that are respected. So, I don't feel it's up to me to prove the history. From my perspective it is proven.

Funny enough, when I go to share with places like the IBRO what I get told is that is unverified information. Since 08 and now the IRBO authors have put out a ton of work. Su****iously, they seem to 'uncover' just about as much as I have...

I'm not saying you are wrong, just, watch the money. Money does motivate. They all say they don't make any money off their books but how many freely share their information?

Y'all can speak with a few of them at ESB. You can ask questions to which they will answer "buy my book" you buy said book, usually 20-75 bucks, and get less then half a paragraph this guy could have easily just posted to the forum in response rather then buy my book. Hmm....that seems like info behind a money wall not love for sport and educating your fellow fan. They are corrupted.

I say all of this having been invited to join them no less than three times. I am not a member of the IBRO, but, I have been nominated and declined the offer a few times now. Because I do share my info freely and do not want people to pay me money for a snippet from the NY Clipper or some such similar.

Finally! Boxing historians' ********s tighten when you bring more respected histories into it. The fellas digging up mummies are a tidbit more expert then the boxing historian, dig? Just because a Harvard prof says it's history does not mean boxing historians will agree and since the IBRO basically controls boxing historical authority you're kinda stuck with their propaganda until you go with source material.

------


Let me just give a real world example. Y'all know about JJ in Russia? Was going to fight Sam for a whole lot of money? Well, I found a Russian historian who covers that. When I shared that information I was told I am wrong, the historian is wrong, and Adam Polluck is the man for Johnson.

Adam may be, but, he isn't a Russian citizen is he? I'd trust the Russian can go through their own records a little more in depth then an American. But, one shouldn't trust anything, one should look at said Russian author's work and dispute his source with a source that makes his an impossibility. What you get instead is "Adam does not mention this" Hmmmm, not much of a contradiction. That's like saying my eyes ain't green 'cause I never mentioned my eye color. They're green. If y'all had a pic of my green eyes right in front of you would "Adam never mentioned eye color" persuade you into believing my eyes might not be green? Of course not, evidence is evidence.


So, yeah, history, especially not well respected history like boxing history, is a cluster ****.

Hey M!

Hope all is well and stable in your neck of the woods. Great to see a post from you again. I want to just "fly my colors" so to speak in support of what you just said. Been in the academic jungle up to Graduate work and it is indeed an ego game. No one is in it for the cause, they may have started that way, but in grad school once they f u c k you up the a s s so many times, throw you under the train against an enemy they made, destroy your health and self confidence and make sure you would never even think to utter an original thought, well lets just say people come around...when there is something left to come around that is.

I would rather do my research like you do...I even have a similar tale of woa. I won the best student paper award for the entire West coast American Academy of Religion regional competition. And was punished for not joining in where I was told to go. Love the internet and being able to trust people I trust my own self. The academy has been compromised.

[DeeMoney]

Is Boxing's history already too extensive for one liftetime to get through??

Most likely no.
Information and research is so readliy available today, even compared with 30 years ago, that someone could go through all the books and fight films in half the time it used to take. Essentially we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us; they did research condensed it down into a book, we read it and have the same general knowledge (through their lens). Moreover, I have more fights at my fingertips via the internet than any single historian had in his closet 50 years ago.

Now, if you want to be pedantic about it you could claim that having trivial knowledge about given fighters, divisions, or events is boxing history too (ie knowing the name of the kid who stole Cassius Clay's bike or Duilio Loi's mother's maiden name). But for the most part, you can get through all of boxing's history in a lifetime.

[QueensburyRules]

My first day here and you’re a casual. I’ve already identified all the casuals and you’re the biggest one. Enjoy being a clown

- -Heh, heh,You already admitted you didn't know the unified abc rules of scoring, yet managed to mangle the topic with TUE 50-0.

That's OK, we understand.