The Boxing Historian's Toolbox

[cross_trainer]

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



0.5) Amateur Boxing Records -- Lists of all Olympic medalists, US amateur boxing champions, and world amateur boxing champions.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]






1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



1.5) Cyber Boxing Zone -- Think "boxrec old-style" and you get a pretty good idea. This one is invaluable for finding the records of less-documented fighters in the early part of the 20th century. It even includes the career records of the bareknucklers.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



2) Ring Magazine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




2.5) IBHOF -- A reasonably good guide in establishing which fighters are and are not considered "all time greats" rather than merely top contenders. Also contains biographies and fairly interesting facts.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]







Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This video is a summary of every possible boxing flaw. The degree to which a fight looks like this indicates how good the fighters are:


XxWkmIi6exg




4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. Everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])








Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method



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.






7) Manuals and History Books -- Manuals are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. History books give much-needed (free) information on earlier fighters.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film. Ibiblio has several, although many links are broken.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




10) Photographs of Early Fighters -- Closeups of physique and facial features.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




11) Encyclopedias -- Wikipedia, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes questionable. Boxrec's boxing encyclopedia tends to be more accurate. Both are included for completeness.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[brooklyn1550]

Great...thank you:good

[mr. magoo]

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]





2) Ring Magazine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.

(****ExpertVillage appears to have some boxing videos. Any other recommendations on websites or online footage, guys?****)


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]




4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. The range is astounding--everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])




Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method -- Coming soon (whenever Zakman sees this and gives it to us).



7) Manuals -- These are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. Since that time, changes in technique have singificantly changed the way that boxing is done. Without knowledge of what came before, one is apt to make one of two mistakes--either inadequately understand today's style by ignoring its roots, or assuming that "old timers" couldn't fight because their styles were so weird.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Excellent thread CT. I always enjoy reading any material that you bring to the table.

[Mendoza]

Interesting method. I would add Historian's input on fighters with little or no film.

[McGrain]

There is some seriously great stuff up there. Does anyone else think this should be stickied? If you do maybe say so in the thread or PM CT, it's probably not easy to sticky your own work without some backing. Imagine a new member arrive, knows about about boxing or boxing history then gets stuck into that lot - it will literally make them a better more informative poster.

[Vantage_West]

Sticky

[mr. magoo]

Might be a good idea to make it a sticky thread.

[China_hand_Joe]

When assessing individuals or eras, it's good to have a few tools to help you along. This thread is for brainstorming the major tools and techniques for analyzing boxing history. Whether it's boxrec, Ring rankings, or Zakman's unique chinchecking method, POST IT!





Records



1) Boxrec -- An invaluable source. You can find most aspects of a fighter's career here pretty quickly...everything from height and weight to who he fought, and when. The rankings are a little goofy, though, so don't take them too seriously. Their encyclopedia is a nice resource as well.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]





2) Ring Magazine Ratings -- Recently, these have come under the influence of the Evil Golden Lord of Corruption (Oscar de la Hoya to civilians). For the past, though, these have proved invaluable. They give a very good idea of who the best fighters at any one point in time were, and it's a shame that they aren't used more often.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




Film



3) Flaws -- This is one of the methods brought to prominence by a cadre of revisionist Classic historians collectively known as the Amsterdamites. Rather than accepting a fighter's greatness at face value, they decide that film is infinitely more important in judging a fighter's legacy. Therefore, it is necessary for a new boxing historian to have a thorough grasp of the fundamentals of boxing--what's right and what will get you a painful right to the jaw.

(****ExpertVillage appears to have some boxing videos. Any other recommendations on websites or online footage, guys?****)


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]




4) Styles -- These are the basic building blocks of boxing literacy--boxer/swarmer/puncher. They help a great deal, though they're not infallible.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




5) Youtube -- This site is the Internet's gift to boxing. it's one thing to be able to look at a man's record on boxrec, but quite another to actually see him against his best opponents on screen. The range is astounding--everyone from Fitzsimmons to McClellan is on here.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])




Other Useful Stuff




6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method -- Coming soon (whenever Zakman sees this and gives it to us).



7) Manuals -- These are absolutely necessary to form a competent understanding of pre-30's boxing. Since that time, changes in technique have singificantly changed the way that boxing is done. Without knowledge of what came before, one is apt to make one of two mistakes--either inadequately understand today's style by ignoring its roots, or assuming that "old timers" couldn't fight because their styles were so weird.

While I can't give you an exhaustive list of pre-30's manuals, I can direct you where to look for them. Google book search has pretty much everything under the sun:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]




8 ) Irrational Hatred of a Certain Fighter -- This is essential for any good boxing historian. With Redrooster, it's Leonard. Zakman prefers Ruiz, Radar hates the Klitschkos, and Dr. Z disliked Johnson. Some industrious over-achievers like Revolver hate everyone. But in order to be taken seriously, you must have a bizarre, incomprehensible bias against a fighter or group of fighters. Me? I loathe that Fitzsimmons character.




9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

How about something relating to knowledge of the wider world. Which brings in sports science (and the progression of all sports), steroid, globalisation and general advances in communications and technology. Surely these things are relevant too?

The influx of Mexicans into the lower weight divisions that was not possible before.

[mr. magoo]

How about something relating to knowledge of the wider world. Which brings in sports science (and the progression of all sports), steroid, globalisation and general advances in communications and technology. Surely these things are relevant too?

The influx of Mexicans into the lower weight divisions that was not possible before.

Crosstrainer provided guidelines for using sources to do research. If these other principals and topics interest you, then do likewise by going out and finding resources to include in your debates.

[cross_trainer]

How about something relating to knowledge of the wider world. Which brings in sports science (and the progression of all sports), steroid, globalisation and general advances in communications and technology. Surely these things are relevant too?

The influx of Mexicans into the lower weight divisions that was not possible before.

Good ideas.

Give me the relevant sources (that have some direct reference to boxing or sports) and I'll post 'em.

[China_hand_Joe]

Good ideas.

Give me the relevant sources (that have some direct reference to boxing or sports) and I'll post 'em.

I look up something on the development and history of general sports science.

[Nemesis]

Might be a good idea to make it a sticky thread.

why?

[mr. magoo]

why?

Why not?

Take a look at the suggestions of other posters. They seem to think that it's worth keeping around permanantely. Besides, if we can finally provide people with real guidelines for doing serious research on boxing history, then maybe we'll have some valid debates around here. As it stands, there's way too much revisionism in this forum.

[cross_trainer]

I look up something on the development and history of general sports science.


...as it pertains to boxing, or at least with a reference to boxing.

[OLD FOGEY]

For records, I think another good source for Hall-of-Famers is the BOXING REGISTER put out by the Boxing Hall-of-Fame. The info here is not unique for the most part, although the essays might prove informative, but for modern fighters they do list complete records as well as whether opponents were rated at the time they were fought. It would be possible to dig such info up, but having it in one place is an invaluable tool.
Also contains records of bareknuckle Hall-of-Famers going back to Figg, with essays.

[cross_trainer]

For records, I think another good source for Hall-of-Famers is the BOXING REGISTER put out by the Boxing Hall-of-Fame. The info here is not unique for the most part, although the essays might prove informative, but for modern fighters they do list complete records as well as whether opponents were rated at the time they were fought. It would be possible to dig such info up, but having it in one place is an invaluable tool.
Also contains records of bareknuckle Hall-of-Famers going back to Figg, with essays.

It isn't available online, but the IBHOF proper is. I'll add it.

[Nemesis]

Why not?

Take a look at the suggestions of other posters. They seem to think that it's worth keeping around permanantely. Besides, if we can finally provide people with real guidelines for doing serious research on boxing history, then maybe we'll have some valid debates around here. As it stands, there's way too much revisionism in this forum.

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.

[cross_trainer]

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.

It will be more fruitful as extra stuff is added. As more posters add their pet methods of analysis, this should become a better and better resource--for experts, but especially for beginners. At the moment, I just have some of the basic stuff down, but it will grow.

It's not that this information isn't easy to locate, but often posters get locked into one or two thinking paradigms (looking at film or at boxrec or at something else) rather than looking at the big picture. This provides you a checklist of things to consider when making your points. Equally important, having it here saves you the time googling.

If historians in other disciplines have standardized methods, it would make sense for boxing historians to have a framework to start from.

[mr. magoo]

It will be more fruitful as extra stuff is added. As more posters add their pet methods of analysis, this should become a better and better resource--for experts, but especially for beginners. At the moment, I just have some of the basic stuff down, but it will grow.

It's not that this information isn't easy to locate, but often posters get locked into one or two thinking paradigms (looking at film or at boxrec or at something else) rather than looking at the big picture. This provides you a checklist of things to consider when making your points. Equally important, having it here saves you the time googling.

If historians in other disciplines have standardized methods, it would make sense for boxing historians to have a framework to start from.

Good answer.

[cross_trainer]

Good answer.
Thanks.

[mr. magoo]

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.

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.

[cross_trainer]

Stickied as per requests. However, we need to keep adding resources!

[cross_trainer]

There was some method of fighter classification that Dr. Z favored having to do with fighters' primes with different styles...does anyone remember it?

[SgrRyLeonard]

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.

[Senya13]

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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

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.

[Zakman]

6) The Patented Zakman Chinchecking Method -- Coming soon (whenever Zakman sees this and gives it to us).

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.

[cross_trainer]

Zakman's method was added.

[cross_trainer]

Added: Senya's newspaper accounts, Antekprizering photos, Boxrec encyclopedia, Wikipedia encyclopedia with respect to boxing, and a video of two terrible fighters to give you a good idea of what flawed boxing looks like.

[amhlilhaus]

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.

[cross_trainer]

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.

The best answer I can give is that there is no "official" definition of a boxing historian except that it has to involve boxing history. This thread is simply to allow people to get a better knowledge of that history.

[amhlilhaus]

I know, just trying to stir debate. count dooku is also the man, but not as much as fitzsimmons.

[janitor]

9) Newspaper Accounts -- The New York Times works quite well, though there are many other online archives of newspapers that one can refer to when assessing a fight for which there is no film. Ibiblio has several, although many links are broken.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


The Brooklyn Daily Eagle online is a godsend. Any fighter active pre 1902 you can find information on their major fights and trivia abot them.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[amhlilhaus]

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle online is a godsend. Any fighter active pre 1902 you can find information on their major fights and trivia abot them.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

does anyone subscribe to newspaperarchives online? does it work the same way as the brooklyn eagle? did a quick search on tom hyer and found several arrests of his, along with the sullivan fight.

[Senya13]

Newspaperarchive often has poor-quality scans, where the text is barely recognizable, while Brooklyn has scanned it's newspapers at considerably better quality.

[Senya13]

Some books (available online) teaching how to research history properly:
historiography ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
historical method ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[Senya13]

An essay on nostalgia ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) which oftens affects experts and fans opinions on the past. It should give a better idea why a historian should rely on primary sources as much as possible.

[Mendoza]

does anyone subscribe to newspaperarchives online? does it work the same way as the brooklyn eagle? did a quick search on tom hyer and found several arrests of his, along with the sullivan fight.

For the most part yes. The Oakland Tribune and the NY Times are decent.

[millingcove]

Rocky Marciano as an example of a fighter with an Iron Chin-ie never knocked down??? Apart from the ones he suffered against Walcott and Moore you mean?

[Brian Zelley]

Excellent information.

Using records alone to judge the greatness of a boxer is only
part of the process.

We all have our preferences regarding style etc.,
but is likely most can agree on the top boxers of all
time such as Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb,
Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross,Roberto Duran, Tony Canzoneri, Willie Pep,
Eder Jofre and Jimmy Wilde.

Likely mixed views on the likes of Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano,
Muhammed Ali, Bob Foster, Carlos Monzon, Emile Griffith, Joe Brown,
Sandy Saddler and Vincente Saldivar.

Then there are those greats that are considered by many to be
uncrowned champions such as Sam Langford, Billy Miske, & Harry Wills.

Then there are those many champions that it doesn't matter how high they are rated. They were exciting warriors such as Rocky Graziano,
Tony Zale, Jose Napoles, Carlos Ortiz, Jose Torres, and Floyd Patterson
Or, those contenders like Ruben Hurricane Carter, Henry Cooper, Joey Archer, Eddie Cotton, George Chuvalo, Yvon Durelle, and Gaspar Ortega.

[dmt]

hmgfjhgfijhu cffjdjjfdjk jk dnf sdj dsj dj d jk vd jgdfj fdj fj gjfdrd gh hgf fj h dh h hs h


dhf hd hgds gh ys dff djb vfn grfg f f hg gf h b bg hgf h hbf hjnnjhjhnn j jjfi ftu nbc jf e f gjfdj fjdjdjfujujreudfudfurjrureuuee

[PaddyD1983]

Only just seen this CT - great post!!

Thanks

[ray fredrickson]

Thanks,I love sport!!! Im 60 follower since 60. Have 300 old RINGS< box&wrestling love old RINGrecord books just love the sport from Great John L. to WLAD!!!

[McGrain]

Hello.

Are you the same JMC that just had his YouTube account suspended? No more Tiger-Fernandez :twisted:

[McGrain]

Good man! You were on such a roll there for a little while...what they get you for? It's been bothering.

Added to favourites.

[McGrain]

Tommy Morrison and Corey Williams haha it was a strike 3 sort of deal with youtube. The first two had nothing to do with boxing. Didn't know gofightlive was generating an active revenue from the fight or else i'd never of post.

Ah, I see.

Fucking shame, you wree doing a great job over there, I looked in on you every second day.

[ghoster]

For a combination of classics and europeon action I have fouund fightfranchise to be the next best thing besides the torrent sites!

[TommyV]

:bump

Why did this get unstickied?