The Boxing Historian's Toolbox

I am not asking why other posters think this should stay on the front page, I am asking you.

CT hasnt provided any new information that we dont already know, and his initial post was half filled with anecdotal jokes regarding other posters.

If he was providing a thread for 'new' boxing fans to understand the history of the sport, or a breakdown of how fighters styles have evolved over the last 100 years then, yes I can understand, but to state obvious locations of boxing encyclopaedic knowledge is fruitless, thats what "Google" is for.

 

Good answer.

 

In addition to giving the testimony of other authors, I believe I answered your question as well. What's more, if doing a mere google search is all that it takes in your opinion, then maybe we need to see a few more posters employing this method. If not, then perhaps taking a different approach of some sort. Look at some of the debates here. A beginner's manual to endulging in boxing history is not a bad a bad idea in my opinion.

 

This should definitely stay on the front page; It's a great idea and will be a great help to people trying to become more knowledgable about the sport and fighters.

 

List of links to newspapers that are available online, some are free. The list is broken into several pages, separated by US states and international press.
http://www.ibiblio.org/slanews/internet/archivesindex.html

 

I think I should ad that while Wikipedia is an okay tool for doing a quick search on something, one should probably not use it as source in say a writing competition or heated debate. It has some good information, but has often been criticized for being a bit innacurate. From what I'm told, a lot of universities won't even except it as a source anymore.

 

Well first of thanks for according chinchecking an honored place among the various elements that go into assessing fighters. I should say first of all that the evaluation of punch resistance is more of an ART than a science, so it is difficult to quantify, but briefly here are some of its aspects:

1. Examining how many times a fighter has been knocked out or knocked down, i.e. the QUANTITY of KOs/KDs - this is, of course, one general rule of thumb, but in and of itself, it does not necessarily tell the whole story. Obviously, in general, knockouts would give a better indication of a potentially weak chin, because here the fighter was unable to continue. The fighter who gets knocked down, but gets up and wins may actually have better punch resistance and resliance that the one who gets stopped, even if it happens more. Think of Larry Holmes. He hit the canvas several times, but with the exception of the Tyson fight, was always able to get up and win the fight. Joe Louis is another good example here. These guys chins were certainly not rock-solid, but neither are they glass, or even really that shaky.

2. The second key factor, perhaps even more important in assessing punch resistance is the QUALITY of KOs - if a fighter gets knocked down and is completely OUT, this is the hallmark of a glass jaw. Hasim Rahman is a classic example of this. This is even moreso the case if the fighter who knocks him out is not known for his punching power, or gets a reputation for punching power primarily from rendering fighters with weak chins unconscious.

3. Scale (and here I have to also credit my colleague Amsterdam in helping develop this general framework, although his labels for the levels may differ slightly) :

Grade A China - the weakest possible chin strength. Here, a fighter is rendered completely unconscious by either grazing punches or by fighters who are known to be light hitters. A perfect example of this is Fraudley Harrison

Glass - again, a fighter gets knocked completely unconscious, although the fighters are not necessarily light-hitters. Rahman is a good example of this level.

Shaky/Questionable - here fighters may either get TKOd, or perhaps stopped by a hard-hitting fighter. Wlad Klitschko is a good example of this.

Average - doesn't hit the deck very much, but if they do, they always get up. Never is rendered completely unconscious, but may suffer the occational knockdown or TKO.

Solid - rarely hits the deck and has little or no TKOs; may get knocked down, but typically gets up to win fights. Larry Holmes and Joe Louis are good examples of this.

Iron - never knocked down, and only TKOd on cuts or referee discretion while taking multiple punches. Rocky Marciano might be a good example here.

Granite - goes entire career without ever being off their feet. Can take punches and keep coming. Oliver McCall is perhaps the best example of this.

Again, there is, of course, an element of judgement in making these assessments. A person needs to have a good knowledge of fighters' careers, when they were knocked down, how many times, how devastated a fighter was when stopped (i.e. were they unconscious for the ten count, TKOd, etc.) and so on. Like many things in boxing people may disagree about the relative weighting of different factors - but this is a good general guide, I think.

Punch resistance is a, in my view, an EXTREMELY important factor in the fight game, perhaps the most important - for if a fighter doesn't have it, they are not going to be too successful in boxing. It is also an important element in assessing fighter's careers. Again, the relative weight analysts assign to it can be debated - but that it is one of the important criteria to consider both in predicting fight outcomes, and in rating fighters historically, imo, can not be debated.

 

what exactly makes a 'historian' though? I could sit here as a keyboard warrior and claim to be a 'historian' and given the magic of the internet come up with answers to all kinds of boxing questions but does that make me a historian? I've known plenty of posters on the internet who knew lots of things about boxing's past but it was obvious their knowledge of the game was seriously flawed. would doing original research make me a historian? after all, everything we know about fighters now dead is because of something someone else has written, unless said fighter is on tape and then you have the arguments about that with speed of the film, clarity etc.

otherwise it's a good base to start, and fitzsimmons was the man.