When historians write history, they do so critically, even skeptically. They look for bias, errors, and underlying motives in the sources they examine. They don't take statements at face value. They're quite willing to decide, upon reflection, that a source probably lied. Or was just wrong. I wonder whether boxing makes this critical attitude more difficult than some other subjects. Here on Classic, we have an attitude of enormous respect -- sometimes hero-worship, sometimes less than that -- for boxers. Some of us have met famous boxers, or been trained by them. Others grew up watching them. We're willing to "stand up for" fighters when we think they're being attacked; we sometimes take up the challenge as if we are defending their honor. This attitude might make critical history difficult, in the same way that a religious cleric might have trouble writing a critical history of his church, a member of the military might find it more difficult to write such an account of his regiment, or a partisan political strategist might have trouble writing a critical recent history of his own political party. This isn't to say it's an absolute bar, of course, but it's something that might be worth discussing a bit. How much (if at all) do you think our attitude of respect and filial piety to past boxers affects our ability to figure out what happened in the past? Feel free to explain your answers.