Robinson wrote:Well when you have boxing drunks... i mean writers telling the same
stories over and over again.
Those that do not watch the sport, but merely read it get it in their
minds as to what the truth is.
In any case, boxing has a lot of falsehoods that have become
truth. Who would know with that era of boxing and Jack Johnson.
In any case, the result is still the same.
Johnson KO Ketchell.
Kym! Are you suggesting Bert is a smelly old piss head who is merely acting out a boring part? I couldn't have put it better myself!
Never would I say anythingof the sort about some one who is considered
a boxing institution. ;)
Senya13 wrote:In this particular case.
Newspaper article written at the time (it may be same day, or several days distance, while the memory about it is still fresh) of the event (being described by it) has taken place - primary source.
Autobiography that is written long time after described events - secondary source. Unless the autobiography is to large degree based on a diary/diaries, then it can be considered primary source too.
I would have thought that strictly speaking the primary source would be the film of the fight and the word of Johnson. Obviously the issue here is that Johnson is unreliable because sportsmen will generally try to paint themsleves in a better light.
I would have thought that a secondary source would be someone who witnessed the fight and gave a recorded account of it (like a newspaper article)?
Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, I have a PhD and I'm not sure that your definition of primary source and secondary source is correct. Different disciplines may define things differently so I'm interested to know.
Ezzard wrote:Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, I have a PhD and I'm not sure that your definition of primary source and secondary source is correct. Different disciplines may define things differently so I'm interested to know.
Obviously, in this case we are talking about primary source as it is understood in historiography.
Ezzard wrote:Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, I have a PhD and I'm not sure that your definition of primary source and secondary source is correct. Different disciplines may define things differently so I'm interested to know.
Obviously, in this case we are talking about primary source as it is understood in historiography.
if the film is available then surely it is the main primary source? Autobiographies and eye-witness accounts would be primary sources pre-film???
This is a very interesting discussion. The meaning varies between disciplines, but in history the term "primary source" means an artifact, document, recording, or other source of information created at the time under study. If it is a narrative account, one can classify it as a primary source if written or told by an eyewitness or someone with direct personal knowledge. A secondary source is an item which builds upon primary sources. For example, a newspaper account of the Johnson-Ketchel fight is a primary source, as would be the film itself; Bert Sugar's commentary on the fight would be a secondary source. Many historians consider an autobiography as a primary source since it was written by a participant in the event - albeit composed some years later.
Primary sources, though essental for historical research, are not always completely reliable. Marwick has written: "Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous and very difficult to analyse and interpret." Likewise, Iredale has said, "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." Indeed, you have to evaluate the source using your own knowledge and common sense. For example, although it is primary source, one might rightfully discount an autobiographical account of a fight. In evaluating primary sources, you have to look at things like the intended audience, the purpose of the writing, whether the author agrees or disagrees with other reports of the same event, and, of course, bias.
Obviously, the analysis of primary sources is quite subjective.
raylawpc wrote:This is a very interesting discussion. The meaning varies between disciplines, but in history the term "primary source" means an artifact, document, recording, or other source of information created at the time under study. If it is a narrative account, one can classify it as a primary source if written or told by an eyewitness or someone with direct personal knowledge. A secondary source is an item which builds upon primary sources. For example, a newspaper account of the Johnson-Ketchel fight is a primary source, as would be the film itself; Bert Sugar's commentary on the fight would be a secondary source. Many historians consider an autobiography as a primary source since it was written by a participant in the event - albeit composed some years later.
Primary sources, though essental for historical research, are not always completely reliable. Marwick has written: "Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous and very difficult to analyse and interpret." Likewise, Iredale has said, "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." Indeed, you have to evaluate the source using your own knowledge and common sense. For example, although it is primary source, one might rightfully discount an autobiographical account of a fight. In evaluating primary sources, you have to look at things like the intended audience, the purpose of the writing, whether the author agrees or disagrees with other reports of the same event, and, of course, bias.
Obviously, the analysis of primary sources is quite subjective.
One of the principles is objectivity, that is lacking in memoirs-autobiography kind of sources, one has to always be thinking of psychological aspects that are affecting the author. Newspaper journalist is most often a less biased observer of the event, than one of the participants, although he may be lacking the "inside information", of course, which could show the event in different light. Also, the chronology in this kind of memoirs is often lacking exact dates and is distorted (or totally wrong), unlike the diary kind of memoirs (that are not originally intended for publishing and for public access), where the above issues are less prevalent.
Senya13 wrote:One of the principles is objectivity, that is lacking in memoirs-autobiography kind of sources, one has to always be thinking of psychological aspects that are affecting the author. Newspaper journalist is most often a less biased observer of the event, than one of the participants, although he may be lacking the "inside information", of course, which could show the event in different light. Also, the chronology in this kind of memoirs is often lacking exact dates and is distorted (or totally wrong), unlike the diary kind of memoirs (that are not originally intended for publishing and for public access), where the above issues are less prevalent.
That does not mean it isn't a primary source - it only means that, depending on the intended audience and bias of the author, it may be an extremely unreliable one.
Well, let's say I don't fully agree with calling the boxers' autobiographies primary sources, at least where their fighting career is concerned. But this is more de facto, than de jure.
I was reading some of the newspaper articles over at google newspapers, that appeared shortly after the fight.
One reporter said the right landed on Johnson's arm and he went down.
A few days later Ketchel said(or it was written in a newspaper)that he had knocked down Johnson with a "left swing to the jaw".
(This was of course before the film was shown at the movie houses about a week later.)
Without a replay it is sometimes hard to detect what punch did the job, it's no big deal. Take that Dempsey-Flynn bout, I recall one newspaper wrote a left hand did that, the others - a right. Or vice versa, I don't have time to look it up right now.
Jack Johnson also stated in his 1927 autobiography that he alone decided to allow Ketchel to knock him down before going into the ring
Johnson told his sparring partner Bob Armstrong not to be alarmed if he saw him on the canvas in one of the rounds.
raylawpc wrote:
That does not mean it isn't a primary source - it only means that, depending on the intended audience and bias of the author, it may be an extremely unreliable one.
That's it, Ray. I think the confusion is that a primary source and a secondary source are not defined by how reliable they are but by their relationship to the event/text/artefact etc…
raylawpc wrote:
That does not mean it isn't a primary source - it only means that, depending on the intended audience and bias of the author, it may be an extremely unreliable one.
That's it, Ray. I think the confusion is that a primary source and a secondary source are not defined by how reliable they are but by their relationship to the event/text/artefact etc…
Yes. At least, that's what I was taught by my history professors in college.
Sometimes it is a difficult thing to decide how reliable a source is.
When reading a book, sometimes the info is not that accurrate. As others have mentioned, especially in autobiographies, fighters especially tell tall tales and make up excuses. That is not to say that they are always totally useless.
Newspapers are good in that what happened occurred recently and the journalist is writing something that is fresh in his mind.
However, often you don't know how reliable the newspaper writer is. How biased are they toward the fighters? How knowledgeable are they about boxing? ie-Just becasue Joe Smith from the Daily Bugle says the decision is bad doesn't automatcially mean it was.
(With say a 300 page book, you get an idea how good the author is)
If you watch a fight today, and try to read a newspaper (in a newspaper that still covers boxing) article the next day, how accurrate is it? Some times it is and sometimes it isn't.
Also, newspaper writers only have a certain amount of space. Often crucial details are left out.
One primary source perhaps would be George Little's August 1910, 4 page "confession",that his lawyer typed up for a law suit against Jack Johnson shortly after Johnson had fired Little as a manager ,
were Little claimed that everyone was involved, including Sunny Coffroth(promoter) drove everyone to Willie Britt's house(Ketchel's manager),
were Johnson practiced being knocked down.Little also claimed that Ketchel was there practicing with Johnson,but since Ketchel could not act like he was knocked out convincely ,so he thought it would look better if Johnson just really knocked him out(!).
source UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS by Geoffrey Ward,page 163.
Brutu wrote:Jack Johnson also stated in his 1927 autobiography that he alone decided to allow Ketchel to knock him down before going into the ring
Johnson told his sparring partner Bob Armstrong not to be alarmed if he saw him on the canvas in one of the rounds.
With all due respect, anything that appeared in that autobiography almost has to be presumed false. Have you ever waded through the whole thing? It's one preposterous statement after another.
Jack Johnson would later give yet another version of the circumstances of the knockdown some years later,where he claimed he was approached by
Willis Britt,who asked Johnson that if he would take it easy on Ketchel in the ring ,Ketchel would promise not to try and knock him out.
But according to Johnson,Ketchel went back on his word in the fight in round twelve and tried to knock him out with a big right.
source:
HOW KETCHEL TRIED TO DOUBLE CROSS ME,
by Jack Johnson.
BOXING& WRESTLING JULY 1957.
( This would appear to be the version that has been accepted by modern boxing historians and revisionists ,apparently this written account was purchased for publication from Johnson and then just filed in a drawer until published some 10 years after Johnson's demise.)
Actually it would appear that Johnson's double cross story predates(?) the other version that Johnson gave in his 1927 autobiography.
There is a 1925 and 1930 newspaper referances as to quoting Johnson that there had been a 'Gentlemens agreement" between Britt and Johnson,were as Johnson promised not to knock out Ketchel if Ketchel didnt try to get violent in the ring.
It would be interesting to know if the double crossed story is even older then 1925,as that was still 16 years after the actual fight.
Since Johnson also claimed to have dumped the Willard fight shortly after it.
A newspaper writer at the fight reported that in the 12th round Ketchel rushed Johnson who then"'stumbled".
According to same writer,Ketchels best punch of the fight was instead a terrific left to Johnson's jaw in the seventh round,
which caused a lump to form on his jaw almost immediately.
also another good punch by Ketchel had been a left to the body also in the seventh round.
Last edited by Brutu on 14 May 2010, 19:08, edited 2 times in total.
I came across a newspaper article published a day after the fight that said that it was rumoured just before the fight that George Little
had told some of his friends that Johnson had agreed to go 12 rounds for the moving picture cameras and then cut loose.
Brutu wrote:Jack Johnson would later give yet another version of the circumstances of the knockdown some years later,where he claimed he was approached by
Willis Britt,who asked Johnson that if he would take it easy on Ketchel in the ring ,Ketchel would promise not to try and knock him out.
But according to Johnson,Ketchel went back on his word in the fight in round twelve and tried to knock him out with a big right.
source:
HOW KETCHEL TRIED TO DOUBLE CROSS ME,
by Jack Johnson.
BOXING& WRESTLING JULY 1957.
( This would appear to be the version that has been accepted by modern boxing historians and revisionists ,apparently this written account was purchased for publication from Johnson and then just filed in a drawer until published some 10 years after Johnson's demise.)
I read in a contemporary newspaper article of old that Willus Britt was said to have taken the teeth Johnson had knocked out from Ketchel's mouth and made them into a pair of dice. Has anyone else ever read that?
