Dirtiest performance you've ever seen

No. Going into any discussion about Sugar assuming that he was well researched on the subject he was discussing would be giving him far too much credit. Sugar was not a historian and his "research" was limited to regurgitating the same stupid stories over and over. When he ran Ring magazine he relied on Herb Goldman's historical knowledge and Herb Goldman was such a **** poor historian with so many crazy ideas about lineages etc that he made the magazine and the record book a laughing stock which resulted in Sugar and Goldman hating each other like poison thereafter.

Im not sure why Teddy Atlas suddenly in the last few years has been given the mantle of "historian." Teddy is shitty boxer trainer who became a talking head on television his only attempt at documenting anything related to boxing history was his own life story and he got that so laughably wrong its amazing anybody would give him the time of day when trying to pontificate on other historical subjects.

People need to understand that being a historian isnt just a label someone slaps on themselves. You dont just suddenly decide that you are a historian, or that this guy over here is a historian. Anymore than somebody just suddenly decides they are a lawyer, a pilot, or a mechanic. It is an academic pursuit. Bert Sugar had no formal training as a historian and illustrated throughout his association with the sport that he cared little about qualitative or even basic research into the history of the subject he professed to be an expert on. Bert Sugar was 4 years old when this fight took place. I know damn well he didnt do any more research than read an old Ring magazine article on it which was probably written decades after the fact by someone who wasnt there and just heard the story told.

Does Atlas do qualitative research? I doubt he can even spell it much less knows what it means much less does it. Same with Casey. Im not interested in what some armchair hobbyist with an internet connection has to say about it.Im not interested in what some crusty self promoter had to say about it. Im much more interested in what the people who were actually there had to say.

And the problem with using Boxrec as a primary source is that you have no idea who wrote that entry, where it came from, etc. So for all you know that entry is based on one of the sources youve already brought up so you have these sources which arent reliable that are supported by boxrec which may have originated with one of those unreliable sources. Its circular and thats exactly how bad history gets started. Boxing is full of this type of nonsense. Somebody who wasnt there writes that Billy Papke punched Ketchel in the throat before their fight and as a result Ketchel lost. Someone 20 years later repeats this story because they read it in an old magazine and when challenged or questioned about it they refer to the old magazine. Bad, or inaccurate history is still bad or inaccurate history no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

I agree.
But, while we don't have to believe him (for obvious reasons), Al "Bummy" Davis was there and he said Zivic thumbed him.

Considering that Zivic spent much time in his retirement years boasting of his expertise at dirty tactics (esp. in clinches and on the ref's blind side), including lacing and thumbing, combined with the fact that at least one reporter even saw him "cuffing" and "roughing up" Davis ... there's a distinct possibility that Davis was fouled in some way by Fritzie.

Davis fouled himself out because he didn't want to lose. I'm sure of that. So it makes little difference if Zivic fouled first, imo.

I really do like to believe Zivic when he said he didn't foul this time, since he was seemingly so honest about fouling anyway. But maybe he slipped in a few little fouls by accident ! LOL

 

Where do you get the first hand sources from?

 

Davis was a local fighter but he was very unpopular before this fight even occured. Pre-fight previews mentioned Zivic-Davis drawing huge ticket sales crowds due to so many wanting to see Davis get beat.
One report called him "probably the most unpopular young man in all pugilism".

He was hated. He didn't yet have a reputation for being a dirty fighter though, I don't think.
He was hated due to his behaviour outside the ring. He was known as a thug and a bum on the streets and had attacked civilians.

 

Is this what you would class as a reliable source https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a...txt-txIN-Stanley+ketchel+billy+papke+-------1

 

Yes. And notice how it makes a point to mention that Papke shook hands before the fight. He refused to shake hands after the bell sounded because he maintained that Ketchel had punched him on the handshake in their first fight. Papke missed his first swing and that it was Ketchel that landed the first blow of the fight. Does that jive with the oft repeated but completely inaccurate wives tale about Papke sucker punching Ketchel in the throat when Ketchel went to shake hands? No, it doesnt. But it sure became part of boxing lore. And its a story that Id wager Bert Sugar told numerous times. A more discerning "historian" than Sugar would be able to tell you that not only is that story wrong but that it has its origins in the first Papke-Ketchel fight after which Papke claimed that he lost because Ketchel punched him on the handshake leaving Papke groggy for much of the fight. That allegation by Papke far predates any mention by anyone of Ketchel being punched on the handshake by Papke. But that doesnt jive with the whole Ketchel mythos that Nat Fleischer always sold so that story got changed into Ketchel being the victim and Papke being the perpetrator. Consider this: How much of Ketchel's legacy as an unbeatable middleweight would have changed had people been aware that Ketchel might have needed an unfair advantage in the first Papke fight, lost the second by a bad beating, won the third, and potentially got a gift in the fourth? Instead youve heard for years quite the opposite courtesy of Fleischer who idolized Ketchel. We can go on down the line of bogus boxing myths that have been told and retold to the point where they have become accepted as fact when in reality they are nothing more than falsehoods. Bert Sugar was great at telling these stories, and I have no doubt he didnt know they werent true, but being a good story teller who doesnt know his ass from his elbow doesnt make him a historian. He relished that title but he certainly didnt earn or deserve it.