What qualifies a boxing historian 'n who's best?

Stonehands is my favourite boxing historian.

There are a few others I regulary read like Mike Casey and Douglas Cavangh (I spelt that wrong) who I also think are brilliant.

As far as British historians, Brian Donald has done a great job in profiling Scottish boxings rich past, as well as Jim Glen who has helped 'revive' interest in Bert Gilroy. Also Harold Alderman is a very well reknowned historian although I personally have nevr come across him or his works. Barry J Hugman has profiled boxing in the BBBofC boxing yearbooks and has taken a keen interest in the bareknuckle boxing era and helped cross reference bare knuckle fights on each side of the atlantic. Also Boxing News 'Old timers' section writers Simon Euan Smith, helps readers keep in touch with the past and profiles lesser remembered greats of the past as his predecessor (whos name escapes me right now) also did.

What Allen Rosenfeld did with his book on Burley was superb, he basically researched and presented the whole 30 to 50's Welterweight and Middleweight division's in a massive book. Also the work Harry Ottey has done on the Black Murderer's Row has been truly impressive.

Adam Pollack has received a lot of acclaim with his books profiling the careers of the early Heavyweight champions, although I still have to read them. Also Clay Moyle has wrote a superb book on Sam Langford.

These are 'name' historians, but there are more historians who either lived through the times and reminisce or young timers who research the past and share there thoughts on forums like these. ESB is probably the best place to be with a good mix of old timers like yourself and Burt and hhascup and some younger guys like McGrain, Stonehands, Lora and El Buija. These are the proper historians.

 

bert sugar

 

It must be Bert Sugar. He wears a fedora and smokes a cigar, like the old-time writers all did. This lends to his air of authenticity and therefore I believe everything he says.

 

Sugar is a brilliant story teller and would be brilliant to talk with, but as far as an actual historian I don't think he cuts it. Although he is very much a credit to our sport.

 

JOhnny"THe Downey Flash" Ortiz

 

Hm, I think knowledge-wise we have quite a few people on here qualify but to be an actual historian you need to do more than just have knowledge about facts. You must be able to look behind those facts and have an understanding, a feeling if you want, for them. You must do some research, find out new things or a new twist to old things and publish it accordingly.

Many people have a vast knowledge about historical facts. Many people write articles. Only few people who understand history write good articles. Those are the few I would call "boxing historian".

 

Well i was a regular listener of his when he had his numerous boxing radio shows here in Southern Cali. THen eventually became friends with Johnny, i know his history, who he knows and where hes been and this guys has a wealth of knowledge and has countless personal accounts of great stories. Been friends with him for almost 20 years and he always surprises me with a new story i had never heard before. I consider myself very knowledgeable but this guy has forgotten more about boxing than i know Long time member of the WBHOF board of directors and i think they should induct him as a historian. I especially love his stories back when he was Co- owner(with Howie Steinlers daughter) of the legendary Main street gym(now a parking lot:-()

 

Hank Kaplan was the best historian ever IMO, followed by Fleischer.

 

Hank Kaplan great historian and always respected(agreed) with his opinions. Nat Fleischer is an original and highly respected but i thought many of his opinions were extremely biased.

 

Yes, Fleischer was biased and at times purpotrated myths but he was really the first guy who chronicled boxers of the past and recorded records etc... and printed a magazine focusse dnot onl;y on present boxing but past boxing.

 

I don't think too much of Glen or Casey, to be honest. Glen's opinions are hard to grasp, and Casey can be a little shoddy himself in terms of research in preference to the better story. The most knowledgable boxing minds I've ever come across remain those I've found on forums across the net.

 

Been doing a little Chango Cassanova research i see :huh