The International Boxing Research Organization Journal

[Ric]

This is just an alert to those of you who really, truly enjoy learning more about old-time boxing history. The BoxRec Wiki page devoted to the International Boxing Research Organization's quarterly Journal and Online Newsletter has been updated today. It now provides links to free PDF samples of a Journal and Online Newsletter. That just might entice some of you latent boxing historians who are not yet IBRO members to become one.

[Senya13]

I wonder why there's so much love for NY Times articles.

[Ric]

I wonder why there's so much love for NY Times articles.

Senya: The IBRO is much-loved by many, but not merely for its reprints of the NYT--published from the Mecca of boxing of those yester days.

True, the IBRO's quarterly journals and online newsletters have thick sections reprinting old-time NYT newspaper articles. But this is not because the IBRO doesn't have better things to publish. Its journals, each averaging some 120 pages these days, have lots of other stuff that its membership enjoy--including original articles researched and written by its members, who usually are not professional writers but enthusiastic in their enjoyment of boxing history.

The IBRO could just as easily issue journals half the size, without those NYT reprints. I remember when I subscribed years ago to Boxing Collectors News at some $25 a year, for a publication that consisted mostly of advertisements. Or a boxing history fan could also subscribe to The Ring magazine, a fine publication. But at what annual cost and for what number of pages--compared to an IBRO Journal?

Why those old-time NYT newspaper articles are "much-loved" by many of today's IBRO's membership is because they provide a contemporaneous eye-witness account of past boxing history, without the distortion of today's lens. They are just so much fun to read!

[Senya13]

I should have made myself more clear. Why not include more reports from rarer publications than the NY Times, was what I wondered about. It's not that its reports were bad (from 1910s on), but, for example, consider the following - the comment box for Benny Leonard-Jack Britton bout says: "by a reading of about fifteen accounts by New York sportswriters (supplied by Jack Kincaid)". Now, I would have loved to see fifteen different local accounts of that bout. That'd make it much more valuable to me, than reading the easily accessible (at least they were in the past, they have since fixed that bug in the authentication system on their website) reports from NY Times.

Some of the articles you mention that were originally included in the journals have become available for free at certain web-sites/forums, and they were not as thoroughly researched as I'd have liked them to be, most of them not even listing the publications they borrowed from, but I know or often can guess a lot is coming from secondary sources. A lot of people will find them excellent all the same, but from academic historiographic standpoint not good enough, IMHO.

Yeah, I know it's easy to criticize, and I've gained a bad reputation for doing that on some forums, but I'm just being honest, when expressing my opinion about this or that write-up, and am backing it up with actual proof (reports, quotes, etc) most of the time.

[Ric]

I should have made myself more clear. Why not include more reports from rarer publications than the NY Times, was what I wondered about.

Hey, Senya? Why not become a fellow member of the IBRO? You are a major contributor to the IBHOF's book, aren't you? The IBRO could use your boxing history researching skills. Such as the stuff from the rarer publications that you mentioned above. It is from folks like you, who truly do love researching, writing, and reading about old-time boxing history, that make the IBRO Journals so much fun.