Generally, historians will check a source's account against independent evidence. If you can verify what they tell you, that's a good sign that they might be relatively honest. Especially if they admit embarrassing or inconvenient facts regularly. They might also have a reputation for honesty among the people who know them. I'm sure there are plenty of ways you might establish that a source's (relative) honesty.
I never really thought much of Gene Tunney as a fighter, so I'll give him a shout out. He seemed pretty honest about things.
You couldn't be more wrong there. Him and Jim Corbett, were two of the most successful ever, at rewriting history in their favor. A lot of their best work was outside the ring!
Multiple Actual Reports, Live from the Time of Fighters Career, from leading Newspapers and Boxing Magazines, is like Treasured Archaeology, they are a MUST!
A lot of fighters have two sides to them in this respect. They are consulate trash talkers as fighters, but when they take a job as a reporter or commentator, they call it as they see it!
He's gone through phases, of late he has distanced himself from the drugging thing. By the way if you look back a long time (pre-WW2) it seems like every other fighter claimed to be drugged when they lost. Has anyone ever been caught? Are there any documented boxing druggings?
I mean, from his twitter he's very up front about it, every post about the Ali loss is "I've made excuses, but I simply lost"
It's seems that a lot of people like this post, So do you guys believe that Ingemar Johansson hits harder than Liston? Patterson said that he hit the hardest