Critical boxing history and hero-worship

Well he was a big lad at 12,, but maybe not as big as some make him out to be.

 

The way people treat fighters reminds me of guys on comic book forums arguing over barman vs (place holder) opposed to discussing the nuances of fighting beyond vague lines. I’m the worst offender and my Captain Sweden would crush your “Tire Iron” Jones.

 

It is. It is, for sure. No crazy people on this site...

 

You know @janitor sends me menacing photos of him sharpening his sword whenever I bag mouth Jim Corbett….

 

Hes being on here too long.
His mind is frazzled with Carnera threads..

 

Very good and thought provoking thread. LIke a lot of people I have my favourites but I like to think that I can judge fairly too. Muhammad Ali is my favourite boxer of all time but it does n't stop me feeling that Ken Norton won their rubber match and that Jimmy Young at least merited a draw. 54-6-1 is my own score for Muhammad's record.

 

Some mighty impressive posts on this subject, seriously thought provoking, and amongst the very best I have read since becoming a member, props to you all, and long may it reign.
As for myself, I did indeed hero worship a fighter from the long ago past, from the very first piece/article that came my way, was about 15/16 from memory, he was the Michigan Assassin ne Stanley Ketchel, I framed his photos to hang in my hallway, read anything and everything I could get my hands on, prior to YT and for decades he was the best MW of all time, forget SRR, Hagler, Monzon, ( not sure about Greb ) the best, his ferocity, his all out aggression, who could possibly stand up to this superman of the ring.
Then, oh dear, YT came about and I had my first look at my hero.....
stay safe guys.

 

I have accepted that my role is not entirely to be one of a strict historian. If I came to conflicting reports I couldn't decide on validity for then I explained as much. A major theme of my book is "I know enough to know I don't know this". Which is a far cry from "We as boxing historians don't know this".

 

that is only a problem when the Reports are few... but where there are numerous Reports - the general consensus is usually Stated and not just simply gleaned.

albeit, the further back in History one travels Reports will indeed be few.

 

It's all about being objective. The best indicator of objectivity is scoring a fight of your favorite fighter. If Canelo is your favorite and you had him beating Bivol you got a problem

 

Crazy isn’t it? I mean Ingo, sure, what’s there not to worship….but Primo?, c’mon peoples, get a grip.

 

I've seen it baaaad on here.
Primo can do no wrong
He did do no wrong!!
That's how the PC cult see it..

 

Great thread.

Coming from an academic background that was largely focused on history, my initial forays into this thing called boxing history left me laughing at works people took as stone truth. There was often the flimsiest of documentation and much unfounded embellishment to fill in the gaps. Not to say I am beyond fanboyism when trying to investigate certain fighters' careers in depth or when reading others' thoughts on them. I can be quick to agree on less substantiated accounts of fighters I like than those I don't. But I realize this and try to temper my own perspective.

I will comment that this is why I so appreciate Pollock's works. Everybody who knew or saw those fighters is dead. Film is scanty, incomplete or non-existent. We only have those reports. He seems to do a good and impartial job stitching them together to present the most cohesive picture possible given what has been lost to time.

 

Precisely my iterations, Contemporary Reports are as objective as one can be...

Let them (the Reports), speak what you are reseaching & stating, all of which too can be accessed by most of the people that so wish to do so themselves.