What makes one a historian?

I am a boxing historian. Self-proclaimed, of course. But does that really lessen the achievement?

 

Watching a lot of boxing over the years.

 

I consider myself historically inclined, I love studying the history of the sport(and many other things) but with absolutely no body of work worth speaking of that I could point to, and with an inferior set of knowledge compared to people who really know their stuff, I'd not call myself worthy of the title "historian" when it comes to boxing. Doesn't stop me from enjoying a good discussion or throwing my two cents in now and then, but I know my limitations.

 

Basically it means that a person is recognized by others who know the sport and its history as being an expert on the topic.

That’s unlikely to happen without being published by a respected (as in real) publishing house or in recognized boxing or sports publications (in print or online). I don’t think self-publishing a book makes one an expert or historian ... it means they have the financial means (which isn’t a lot) to pay someone to publish their book.

 

Been a boxing nut/fan for 50 years, read 1000s of Mags, dozens of books, watched 100s of fights, so didn't give it much thought, but yes, I would say I am a Historian, in fact don't really watch much these days, prefer books .

 

Same here.

 

Bert Sugar was considered a boxing historian...

I'd rather not have the honor.

 

the best historians are the ones who dont call themselves historians, but have simply followed the sport for many years and have studied fights from before their own time.

the ones who proclaim to be historians have a bad habit of trying to inject their own politics and narrative into the story to try and set a tone that honestly has no place in being there.

a perfect example of this would be Bert Sugar. you cant just simply get an objective breakdown of a fight from the guy, he's always trying to ad some political social angle to everything.
a more modern example of this would be the trio of Lampley, Merchant and Kellerman.

thank god for youtube, I had been following the sport already a good 20 years before youtube, and in those days it was very hard to catch old fights unless they were broadcast on ESPN classic, and even those would only be the most famous fights, not the lesser known. also back in the day in Ring Magazine you could order fight tapes from guys that had huge boxing libraries for around $30 to get about 30 or so rounds of various fights on a VHS, but outside of that, you had little hope to watch fights from by gone eras.
once YouTube came out I spent a great amount of time watching any and every old fight or fighter I could think of. it really blew the narrative out of the water for many of the fights I had read or heard about from the so called historians

 

Haven't tried the fedora and cigar route, but I can personally confirm that the degree in history is utterly worthless to possess unless you're good enough, hard working enough, and lucky enough to make use of it. Your mileage might vary on that front.

 

It’s a term that means different things to different people. In theory, just about anyone who researches and writes about boxing history can claim to be a “boxing historian.”

 

In real history, it is a doctorate degree and publications.

In boxing history, a cigar and fedora will suffice.

 

If through no lobbying or self-proclamation of your own, a significant number of other people knowledgeable about a topic generally agree that that you are an historian, then you can begin to lay claim to the honor. But always remember that you and the others may be wrong.