Boxing needs its storytellers. It has a rich history, and there's a romance to the sport that we need to keep. Unfortunately, it also has its share of humbug. Old myths, apocryphal stories by the ton. Sugar sort of epitomized both tendencies. So if Classic was going to send forth one of its own with fedora and unlit cigar in hand to take Bert's place, what qualifications and best practices would you insist upon to ensure we keep the good stuff but avoid the pitfalls? The two things I can immediately think of are: (1) Have a solid background actually boxing yourself, at least at the amateur level. (2) Draw your store of tales from historically verified incidents. Use primary sources and good professional historical methods generally. Preferably be familiar with the peer reviewed literature in the field of boxing history. It does exist; it's just not as common. ...A background in active boxing journalism, including contacts with the current people, couldn't hurt either.
I have a great idea, maybe we should vote in the most knowledgeable poster on this Classic Boxing Site as the next Bert Sugar of Ring Magazine.
Bert Sugar took a decent (not exceptional) bank of knowledge and chose to go the shtick route with it. He chose to be a cartoon character, but we have several here that would bury him when it comes to actual depth of knowledge.