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

I dont think Fleischer was a good historian at all. He was good at documenting current events in the sport but in regards to the past he made a lot of **** up and neglected to really research anything beyond holding interviews with ex fighters and buddies of his whose memories proved faulty many times. Sugar is even worse. He isnt a historian at all and he would probably admit it off the record. He let Herb Goldman (who knew ten times as much as Sugar and I still wouldnt call him a great historian either) manipulate him through Goldman's greater knowledge of the sport. It made Sugar look like a joke and now the two hate each other. A good historian should be as dogged as possible and as unbiased as possible. I think this rules out Glen who clearly has an agenda. Most of the people I consider to be great historians of boxing are for the most part not well known to even hard core fans.

 

I don't know Steve, I recently acquired a number of unpublished manuscripts written by Fleischer, including some very long works titled 'A History of Boxing in New York', 'A History of Boxing in Chicago', and another titled 'The Prize Ring in Literature'. At the same time I also purchased some old bound volumes of the New York Clipper that belonged to him and it's become pretty clear to me that he spent quite a bit of time researching that particular periodical and mining materials from it, as well as many of the works of Pearce Egan and a number of his contemporaries.

I get the impression that despite the faults you mention, he may actually have spent quite a bit of time researching boxing through various sources. For example, I also acquired a number of his personal files and came across a number of examples of correspondence with a party over in England that he was purchasing some pretty rare stuff from that I gather were for research purposes. I'm not necessarily saying I think he was a great historian, just saying that I'm learning that there was more to his research efforts than I originally thought. It's been interesting to go through some of these materials and identify some of the sources he used, and I'm anxious to find the time to get through more of it.

But I would definately agree with your last comment. There are some guys flying under the radar that are individuals that very quickly come to mind as great boxing historians that many people wouldn't know about. A prime example is a party from my neck of the woods that we both know.

 

"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."

Essentially, he had to...there isn't enough known about Burley to fill a massive book, let alone a standard one.

 

I would agree that Kaplan was the best modern historian.

There are different varieties of historians. Most of them specialize on a particular era of boxing.

Media historians example : Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant

Stone cold research historians like Lucket Davis, Mike Delisa or Tracy Callis.

Fine authors like Adam Pollak.

Rare film / photos / book collectors like Tony F, Clay M, Henry H, or Kurt N.

No man can call himself a historians, rather the honor must come from his peers. To be a historian requires 1,000's of hours of work. Writing one book does not qualify you.

 

Hank had his garage converted into a library full of shoe boxes and shelves. His collection was worth quite a bit. It was very nice of him to donate it all to the Brooklyn Library.

 

thankyou

 

I'm fully aware of Kaplan's archives, but if someone could post examples of his finer writings/books/articles/any evidence at all of his research abilities that would be helpful.

 

M, In case some ESB posters wish to see the Hank Kaplan Archives, it is at Brooklyn College[not Bklyn Library]..The phone number is 718 951 5581
b.b.

 

Thats very interesting Clay. If thats the case then it makes his continued perpetuation of the completely false myths that he and his magazine either created or continued to spread even more of a sin.

And that party you had in mind is exactly the guy I was thinking about. I have more admiration for him as a boxing historian than just about anyone if nothing else than the simple fact that he never seeks the spotlight, is criminally unknown, and never seeks the spotlight despite his incredible and enviable amount of knowledge. But dont sell yourself short either

 

The current editor of Boxing News, Tris Dixon, although not a historian per se, has tracked down a lot of boxers that have not been heard from in years and documented their thoughts/stories.

I'd say he is a good historian.

 

I'm going to be very generous and state that we're all boxing historians to varying degrees. Relatively speaking, we all know a lot about boxing history. Maybe we're not Hank Kaplans or Adam Pollacks or any number of GREAT boxing historians, but we sure know a lot more than the average boxing fan. Look at the minutia (sp?) we discuss here, relatively speaking. I'd like to give the posters here a pat on the back for keeping me entertained for hours on end combing through tons of very informative and interesting threads.

Something that's occurred to me recently is what an amazing time this is for the casual boxing historian to do research. Back in 1995, for example, I was spending (for me) lots of money on old magazines, Ring Record Books, and VHS tapes trying to piece together information on the careers of various heavyweight challengers. Now, thanks to BoxRec, Google News, YouTube, and boxing forums we have more information readily available to us than I ever dreamed of fifteen years ago. And I'm sure as time goes on it's only going to get better.

 

There are two groups of thought in regards to this...I have them separated. They are boxing historians and boxing guys. Sometimes they can be both...but it is usually one or the other.

 

dpw417...He's a bum.