Don't believe everything you read..

“The greatest part of a writer's time is spent in reading in order to write. A man will turn over half a library to make a book” Samuel Johnson

So there you have it; books are a regurgitated reconfiguration of what has gone before….. Chinese whispers as it were. An author reads about a subject, maybe does some interviews, he then devises an entirely subjective premise and direction for his coming text. He then duly omits the information he misunderstands, includes the information he thought he understood but doesn’t, and ignores the information that’s at odds with what he has to say.

It is very difficult to have an original thought in the modern world. Almost everything we think has been thought before. And almost everything we do has been done before. Almost everything we write about boxing, or boxers, has been written before in one form or another, be it known to us or otherwise.

I propose that boxing books are the ultimate Chinese whisper. Great works of literary propaganda, wrote by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. Boxing books have a vested self-interest, intent on selling an image of a hero. And if they aren’t doing that, then they are a clichéd success story of man against the world, or story so sad it rivals any classic tragedy, for example, titles such as, King of the World: Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero; Men of Steel..The Life and Times of Boxing’s Middleweight Champions; Larry Holmes against all odds, or, Johnny Tapia, Ma Vida Loca, give credance to this notion.

Boxing fans are romanticists, little boys looking for a hero. Boxing books cater for these types, and advocate the fighting ability of their central character and maybe throw in a few character flaws, as to not appear bias.
In general, you don’t get boxing books saying “so and so” was rubbish, absolutely appalling. What you might get, however, is so and so was limited but look at what he achieved in spite of this. We read books about fighters and invariably they end up becoming our idols, or they at least gain our respect as a fighter, if nothing else.

Boxing books sell an idea, a dream, and we suckers keep buying them. There are so many greats in every era apart from our own? I wonder if every generation thinks the same? I think we need to “accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, children respected their elders”…. and boxers were better.

Boxing books are devoid of impartiality, they romanticise and immortalise Myths without footage, how accurate, or honest, is an author’s account? Boxing knowledge “is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth”

Boxing books are like Tate and Lyle employing scientists to prove that sugar is good for kids teeth. It’s all biased Codswhallop, written by a man, about a man, for a man, looking for a man to be the MAN!

Don't believe everything you read....(including this?)

I agree with the sentiment, although you need to read in order to learn about the past. But I would never advocaate just reading one source and taking it as gospel. Multiple and varied sources are preferable and then its just about deriving ones own opinion from the information on hand.

With boxing though, you have a multitude of books all sharing a central theme and giving similar perspectives. This lack of variety makes it difficult to formulate a balanced evaluation of any fighter.

I suppose it could be argued that these books share a unified perspective because they are portraying the reality of the matter? But my thoughts are; the majority standpoint is not necessarily correct, especially, when this viewpoint has been indoctrinated by the propaganda of "boxing's literary bandwagon".

In science we can reconstruct occurrences; and this replication allows us to formulate opinion on a present observation. In the history of boxing (or history of anything) we are not afforded such luxury.

Boxing books about guys from 1901, where no footage exists, are based on a book, which is based on a book, which is based on a book.... which is based on some newspaper clippings and a couple of interviews. And I doubt that these interviews are subject to thematic analysis, and instead what happens is; sensational snippets are used to support the central theme of the book.

Finally, each successive book adds its own hyperbole and then becomes an official source for the next generation of writers..... and so the whisper perpetuates.