Thought I might have found something interesting on boxing from 1762, turned out it was literally about boxes of paper. *sigh*
I was not playing gotcha. I only play gotcha when I'm debating something important. For example, I am about to play gotcha again our RK Fox debate. Debates must be conducted vigorously. When I am off-duty, and not debating, I am happy to help others in their research, when I can.
Gotchaism is not debating something vigorously, lol, it refers to stuff like intentionally ignoring the actual substance of an argument to try and catch someone on a technicality. But if you were just aiming to add a bit of info there, I'm sorry for assuming bad intentions.
In that case, I am not practicing gotchaism as you define it. I am using gotchas as the leading dictionaries define them: In accord with these definitions, I believe that I have made several unexpected, disconcerting revelations about Jim Corbett's technique, and that these revelations give me the advantage over you. But I did not debate dishonestly. I certainly did not avoid the substance of your counterarguments. That's all by the way. I didn't come to this thread to debate Jim Corbett. I came to discuss books that might help you, and others, with your research.
For my part, I agree with the general thrust of these posts. Academic social history is useful in a lot of ways, but also tends to myopically focus on a couple selected topics (social construction of the big 3 sociological categories - race, class, and gender). Sometimes it also fuzzes up the differences between historical fact and historical public perception. History that leans heavily on Continental philosophy and critical theory is particularly bad about this. If I wanted to understand the technical details of what happened in a fight or fighter's career (boxing is a very individual sport), I'd be more likely to reach for Pollack, Compton, Moyle, etc. Or the earlier generation of academic historians. That being said, it's really cool that there are more academics writing these days, and I look forward to seeing the insights from social history integrated into what we already have.
Your mistake is understandable. I am an abrasive arguer. That much is true. But I am not a malicious one.
Sometimes, newspaper directories can help figure the newspapers to look up for bout held in this or that city/town. http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/news_research_tools/ayersdirectory.html
Ask me again in a few months. I'm in the middle of a major re-evaluation of my views on boxing history.
A fine guess. But Corbett is only the tip of the iceberg. There's more coming, on a broad front. Corbett's only the first myth to fall.
Cross reference as many sources as possible. including 'local' accounts from 'smaller' papers from the town's or areas where the fight took place. these reporters weren't usually swayed as much by the party line, so to speak, and weren't necessarily seeking anyone's approval of their reports, less bias, unless of course it is a hometown boy, which may or may not factor in. but always cross reference. try and get to know who the Top Reporters were and their affiliation to the Don Kings of the sport, trying to accurately sift their work objectively. same for Managers, Referees, and fighters even. MONEY, popularity making, national hopes or bias, seedy characters or bodies who benefit from payed services and that sort of thing. Cross reference other Top fighters records and Reports on them too. Look at the Rules of play, the required title positions defence or not, times for defences, other weights to see if the same rules are being applied, other fighters to ensure the same, contention placements, and over extended periods of time and so on. Fighters facts, injury, sickness, poor showing and that sort of thing. dig and keep digging, little gems & subtleties come around. just try and be as thorough and complete as possible. Remember the Recorded History solidifies the Facts, not you and especially not others who don't know the facts don't assume and equally ENJOY the process.
Just read whatever Mark Ant and Surfinghm and Mendoza post and go from there. Surefire success awaits.
Local source doesn't always mean the same city, there are a number of cities that have a "neighbor". St. Paul and Minneapolis (Minnesota), Kansas City in Missouri and Kansas, Detroit (Michigan) and Windsor (Ontario, Canada), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) and Camden (New Jersey), Buffalo (New York) and Fort Erie (Ontario, Canada), Wilkes-Barre and Scranton (Pennsylvania), Davenport (Iowa) and Rock Island and Moline (Illinois), San Francisco and Oakland (California), Pawtucket and Providence (Rhode Island), etc. Use the map to see nearby locations that could have sent their own correspondent to report the fight or might have printed an opinion of local citizens who attended it.