[Deleted by user.]

You'll find that most historians are quite biased. The versions of things like the so called "Holodomor" are taught in our countries are very different, for example. I think there's less of a difference in bias in boxing vs normal history than you might realize.

 

Almost everyone who writes about boxing has an axe to grind. Otherwise, they wouldn't be motivated to write at all.

 

No offense, but I think you have a very idealized vision of the academic world. As a professor put it, "seniority beats reason in nearly all cases". This is true even in the hard sciences, it's hard to fathom the amount it affects the inferior trades. A lot of what you read online through news, Wikipedia and in textbooks is never published in a peer reviewed journal, and of course, there are openly and proudly revisionist movements which host peer reviewed journals. You will see opposite claims about the exact same historical events published multiple times a year, and the supports of each side will hold their article up and criticize the other. Obviously the average poster isn't putting in anywhere near the same level of research as a professional historian, but many of them use similar methods for that research. This forum is them publishing their claims to their peers and fellow historians.

*Edit, I'm not meaning to argue against you seriously. You're one of my favorite posters, so I should say that I really do hope you take no offense, and I meant nothing as an insult.

 

Confirmation bias can often be a pitfall - and unconsciously so (though sometimes deliberate). so a preemptive conscious effort has to be made to avoid and eliminate same.

Such bias has often found its way even into the stringent, rigorous and empiric world of science - and sometimes the “proofs” can
appear impressive in method and legit enough on the surface.

However, on closer examination, they’re found to have only called in the data and analyses to suit the premed conclusion.

 

I try to find as many local primary sources as I can, so the sources I use are the ones that are available to me. If a guy was there at the fight, I like to use him; regardless of what he said. I do try to do more leg work and find more sources if it is a controversial fight. Yes, I have used the NPG, but not to the exclusion of other sources. Certainly the NPG gave a nice weekly overview of the sport, and usually relied on at least one local source. But you are correct, they weren't perfect, and like all sources, didn't always get it right.

 

It's not a real criticism of the work you have done, it's just my take on that particular source, they have nice images, and it's indeed an easy overview of past week's events, but I think it bordered yellow journalism even in their boxing write-ups, so, personally, I'd abstain from using it as anything other than a hint of what to look for in other newspapers (dailies).

But if people do like it, well, it's their choice. It's available online up until 1906, in very good quality.
https://archive.org/details/pub_national-police-gazette

 

Depends on your agenda - that is, if you have any!

There are posters here, who completely dismiss the old-timers - arguing they were too "primitive" to even be pro boxers today!

On the other hand, we have those who claim that boxing is dying, and that truly great fighters are a thing of the past.

It's up to the individual posters here to educate themselves - thus forming their own opinions, rather than believing all the biased nonsense being presented in a place like this!

 

more is hero worship of modern fighters
there are so many ' world titles " around & even persons of who have understanding of the history of boxing
seem to still give some too much credibility of ' world titles ""
& not critical enough of " the boxing politics ' '

 

A lot of history is understanding the uncertainty.

It's a lot easier to take a handful of sources at face value, than to think critically about a lot of sources.

 

My book begins in the Primordial Ooze and ends in 1822. For most of that time a written account of boxing was a rare and precious thing. I intended initally to do a brief biography of every man with a reasonable claim to "Heavyweight" champion of their place and time. By the time I was grappling with the explosion of sources as the printing press became more prevalent I got buried in it.

By the time I got to like bareknuckle Boxing's recovery from the 2nd "dark age" after the Jack Slack bribed a guy to throw a heavyweight championship fight. By the time of like Mendoza vs Humphries I realized if I kept to my original goal the book would be a thousand pages.

I cut it off at 1822 because
A The first "Championship belt" was created for Tom Cribb from Lionskin.
B. Bill Richmond becomes the first black man to serve an official function during the coronation of an English Monarch.
C. Bill dies shortly after. He visited Tom Cribb who was the last person to speak to Richmond alive.
D. Tom Cribb wrote the most ****in' ruthless yet heart felt eulogy.

It just felt like the place to leave it in terms of narrative and history.

 

that sounds an incredible journey, I should like to read your work...

for my own research I started with a base of 600 Reports copied from said subjects Scrapbook and by the time I finished, I had nearly tripled the amount of Contemporary Reports to around 1500 or so. Now, many years later, I have over 4000 Reports. But I only had to travel back to the 1930s & 1940s...

not the "Dawn of Time" like you Sir.

WELL DONE!