Something has bothered me for awhile about a bit of misinformation perpetuated by Boxrec, a site I otherwise admire enormously. Under the entry for the 1910-04-27 Langford-Ketchel fight the following quote is given when referring to the reaction of the New York papers. "The World, the American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel..." (Marion Daily Star) I went to the archive of the New York Times and found a detailed description of the fight in the April 28th edition. It most assuredly does NOT "give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel." Here are some quotes from the excellent report. "The only apparent damage was Ketchel's bloody face, the result of Langford's straight jolts on the nose and mouth. Langford was the finished boxer who landed clean and hard on the white man... Langford lost a clear title to the fight by his slowing up in the last part of the last round. He was entitled to a draw, however, and the doubt still remains whether or not he is Ketchel's master. Up to the last round he demonstrated this fact, but his slowness in the last round took a lot of credit from him. Many thought he was stalling, but only he could know that with any certainty."
Clearly, this account does not "give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel." On the contrary it points out that the only damage done was to Ketchel's face and that Langford demonstrated he was "Ketchel's master" until he "slowed up" in the last round. This article also questions whether or not Lanford "stalled" in the second half the last round which supports traditional anectodal evidence that Langford carried Ketchel in this non-title fight in hopes of getting a real shot at the title later. Ketchel was killed later in the year.
After I read this account of the fight, I looked around at other sources and was shocked to find that The Hall of Fame Boxing Register lists this fight as an unqualified victory for Ketchel. Clearly, that is incorrect. The fight was either a draw or a victory for Langford.
Boxrec, by quoting the Marion Daily Star's summary of the reaction of New York papers, took a short cut that gives an inaccurate account of what happened during that fight and I hope Boxrec changes that. The injustice endured by the great African American fighters of that era was all too real and it's wrong to perpetuate the white hope nonsense by careless research.
I'm not accusing BoxRec of anything but sloppiness. The Marion Daily Star obviously did a poor job canvasing the New York newspapers and BoxRec in quoting them has continued the poor reportage. Also, this is not an attack on Ketchel's rep. I have a photo of the Assassin next to my speed bag platform and I have always admired his willingness to fight anyone, anywhere. I'm only interested in the truth.
Langford v Ketchel
Welcome aboard, sharkeysboy.
Good post. I had seen the actual newspaper accounts from other sources, so I didn't buy that unqualified victory stuff.
But, if you think about it, the source sounds like something from newspaperarchive.com. The smaller newspapers in that service relied on larger wire services for their stories and maybe something got lost in the transition. It's not a direct report from a major paper.
BoxRec is a continuously evolving system, and always for the better. I bet someone sees your post and makes the change.
Good post. I had seen the actual newspaper accounts from other sources, so I didn't buy that unqualified victory stuff.
But, if you think about it, the source sounds like something from newspaperarchive.com. The smaller newspapers in that service relied on larger wire services for their stories and maybe something got lost in the transition. It's not a direct report from a major paper.
BoxRec is a continuously evolving system, and always for the better. I bet someone sees your post and makes the change.
re
It's not something that boxrec perpurtrated, but instead something that the Marion Daily did as it states...
"The World, the American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel..." (Marion Daily Star)
It doesn't say "The World, the American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel" (Boxrec)
I have several different accounts of the fight including three, or four different accounts from Philadelphia newspapers where the fight occured...some voted in favor of Ketchel, some voted in favor of Langford, but several were in agreement that Langford was holding back, or it looked like he wasn't giving his best effort and considering that Langford was hoping to parlay that bout into a 20+ round bout versus Ketchel for the middleweight title in California I would bet that Langford did not give it his all, but again...that is just as much specualtion as who really won the bout.
I agree that the quote should be removed from that bout and any other bout that has a quote from a secondary paper should be removed as well unless it is an actual ringside account of a battle, but then again, just like it is with the Ketchel-Langford bout...hardly ever did all the papers agree with one another. I don't know what New York newspaper reports I have for the bout, but there was so many different papers in New York that the Marion paper might have confused the names, but if someone wants a good account of the bout read all of the various Philadelphia newspaper reports. All in all from the sources that I have read, the bout should be called a draw because the result was split down the middle as to who won.
"The World, the American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel..." (Marion Daily Star)
It doesn't say "The World, the American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel" (Boxrec)
I have several different accounts of the fight including three, or four different accounts from Philadelphia newspapers where the fight occured...some voted in favor of Ketchel, some voted in favor of Langford, but several were in agreement that Langford was holding back, or it looked like he wasn't giving his best effort and considering that Langford was hoping to parlay that bout into a 20+ round bout versus Ketchel for the middleweight title in California I would bet that Langford did not give it his all, but again...that is just as much specualtion as who really won the bout.
I agree that the quote should be removed from that bout and any other bout that has a quote from a secondary paper should be removed as well unless it is an actual ringside account of a battle, but then again, just like it is with the Ketchel-Langford bout...hardly ever did all the papers agree with one another. I don't know what New York newspaper reports I have for the bout, but there was so many different papers in New York that the Marion paper might have confused the names, but if someone wants a good account of the bout read all of the various Philadelphia newspaper reports. All in all from the sources that I have read, the bout should be called a draw because the result was split down the middle as to who won.
re
I went back and looked at the quote as I thought that what you stated was all that was listed under the bout, but it wasn't and you are wrong in trying to accuse boxrec of laziness as the editor put forth a little more detail than just what you mention and boxrec certainly does not give the impression that Ketchel won, much less won easily...as is evidence by the bout remaining a ND...the editor that added the quote added much more than just the above statement, which had me thinking why would someone just list the quote that is mentioned above as it would plainly be wrong, but that's not the case...the entire quote reads like this:
""Ketchel and Langford will have to fight again to settle the question of supremacy. They went a hard six-round bout at the National athletic club here and were both on their feet, able to continue, with plenty of strength and aggressiveness when the battle ended, with no decision by the referee. No knockdowns were scored in spite of the terrific hitting power of both men, and while there seems to be no doubt that they tried to do their best , they will probably come together in a longer fight in California next July for a large purse. (…) New York fight critics today disagree as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford fight in Philadelphia. The World, American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel. The Sun, Press and Tribune call it a draw, though the Tribune says Langford had a shade the better of the battle. The Herald alone gives the victory to the Boston ‘Tar Baby.'"(Marion Daily Star)"
The New York statements at the bottom could be erased, but the recap, as it is now, pretty much sums up the bout as it was. I entered the bout a long time ago, but I didn't add the quote, so I'll leave that to whoever did, but the only thing that should be erased would be what the New York papers thought because New York is irrelevant in a bout that occured in Philadelphia!
""Ketchel and Langford will have to fight again to settle the question of supremacy. They went a hard six-round bout at the National athletic club here and were both on their feet, able to continue, with plenty of strength and aggressiveness when the battle ended, with no decision by the referee. No knockdowns were scored in spite of the terrific hitting power of both men, and while there seems to be no doubt that they tried to do their best , they will probably come together in a longer fight in California next July for a large purse. (…) New York fight critics today disagree as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford fight in Philadelphia. The World, American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel. The Sun, Press and Tribune call it a draw, though the Tribune says Langford had a shade the better of the battle. The Herald alone gives the victory to the Boston ‘Tar Baby.'"(Marion Daily Star)"
The New York statements at the bottom could be erased, but the recap, as it is now, pretty much sums up the bout as it was. I entered the bout a long time ago, but I didn't add the quote, so I'll leave that to whoever did, but the only thing that should be erased would be what the New York papers thought because New York is irrelevant in a bout that occured in Philadelphia!
-
sharkeysboy
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:52
Re: re
You say "The New York statements at the bottom could be erased." That would be fix it with me but I think you're dead wrong to say the New York papers are irrelevant to a fight in Philadelphia. If you read the article in the New York Times the reporter was clearly at the fight. Why wouldn't his opinion be as important to quote accurately as the Philadelphia reporters. When I lived in New York back in the fifties my father and I would jump on a train and whiz over to Philly to watch the Giants pound the Phils in Connie Mack and they definitely had trains back in 1910. Obviously, the Marion Star writer thought people would think the New York opinions were relevant. And I don't think I was wrong to say that using a secondary source to inaccurately represent the New York papers' opinions is a lazy short cut. If I could look up the New York Times' article in seconds, why couldn't the editors of BoxRec. At the least it would have alerted them that the Marion Star summary of the New York reportage was inaccurate. Finally, my comments were not made in a BoxRec vacuum. The Boxing Register for the International Boxing Hall of Fame has listed under Sam Langford's record a No Decision-Loss for the Ketchel fight. That suggest they feel it was newspaper loss for Langford. You agree that's wrong. So why not remove from BoxRec a statement that inaccurately supports that unfair assessment.
re
>>>>You say "The New York statements at the bottom could be erased." That would be fix it with me but I think you're dead wrong to say the New York papers are irrelevant to a fight in Philadelphia. If you read the article in the New York Times the reporter was clearly at the fight. Why wouldn't his opinion be as important to quote accurately as the Philadelphia reporters.<<<
I stated as such in my first response,---
“any other bout that has a quote from a secondary paper should be removed as well unless it is an actual ringside account of a battle”----
>>>Obviously, the Marion Star writer thought people would think the New York opinions were relevant. And I don't think I was wrong to say that using a secondary source to inaccurately represent the New York papers' opinions is a lazy short cut.<<<
What if the Marion Star was the only source that the editor had…it certainly would not be the lazy way out and the editor, whom I believe is the one who added the quote, would be far from lazy as he has entered a ton of bouts into the database...actually he has been one of the most active editors we have. The editor could have very easily just left the comment section completely blank, but instead he typed out the recap of the fight as it appeared in the source that he used, so lazy certainly does not fit and is wrong to say…lazy would be doing nothing at all. After all, the only thing wrong was that it was listed that the New York Times, along with a couple other papers, thought Ketchel had the better of the bout, whereas other papers were in favor of Langford.
>>>If I could look up the New York Times' article in seconds, why couldn't the editors of BoxRec. At the least it would have alerted them that the Marion Star summary of the New York reportage was inaccurate.<<<<
Not everyone has quick access to various newspapers and other sources, so they have to make due with what they have at the moment and then go back later on when a primary source has been found, but as far as win and losses...that era in boxing is like a train-wreck to sort out. Many people don't like to have a newpaper results listed because it is nothing but opinion to begin with that determined who had the better of a bout, unless it was just a clear-cut victory for a fighter, but a lot of the time it was close bouts and in many instances the writer had an agenda for a certain fighter and even though the bout was a draw, the certain writer gives the winning approval to the fighter on his agenda. Personally, I like to list ND-W, ND-L and ND-D in the records that I compile and when I do not have the primary source, I use a secondary source until I come accross the primary, which I'm sure was the case with the editor using the Marion Daily Star.
>>>Finally, my comments were not made in a BoxRec vacuum. The Boxing Register for the International Boxing Hall of Fame has listed under Sam Langford's record a No Decision-Loss for the Ketchel fight. That suggest they feel it was newspaper loss for Langford. You agree that's wrong. So why not remove from BoxRec a statement that inaccurately supports that unfair assessment.<<<
We certainly want the records to be as accurate as humanly possible, but sometimes people don’t always get around to editing a certain request right when a person wants it. I went ahead and deleted the bottom part about the New York papers as the editor that added the quote may not see this thread.
I stated as such in my first response,---
“any other bout that has a quote from a secondary paper should be removed as well unless it is an actual ringside account of a battle”----
>>>Obviously, the Marion Star writer thought people would think the New York opinions were relevant. And I don't think I was wrong to say that using a secondary source to inaccurately represent the New York papers' opinions is a lazy short cut.<<<
What if the Marion Star was the only source that the editor had…it certainly would not be the lazy way out and the editor, whom I believe is the one who added the quote, would be far from lazy as he has entered a ton of bouts into the database...actually he has been one of the most active editors we have. The editor could have very easily just left the comment section completely blank, but instead he typed out the recap of the fight as it appeared in the source that he used, so lazy certainly does not fit and is wrong to say…lazy would be doing nothing at all. After all, the only thing wrong was that it was listed that the New York Times, along with a couple other papers, thought Ketchel had the better of the bout, whereas other papers were in favor of Langford.
>>>If I could look up the New York Times' article in seconds, why couldn't the editors of BoxRec. At the least it would have alerted them that the Marion Star summary of the New York reportage was inaccurate.<<<<
Not everyone has quick access to various newspapers and other sources, so they have to make due with what they have at the moment and then go back later on when a primary source has been found, but as far as win and losses...that era in boxing is like a train-wreck to sort out. Many people don't like to have a newpaper results listed because it is nothing but opinion to begin with that determined who had the better of a bout, unless it was just a clear-cut victory for a fighter, but a lot of the time it was close bouts and in many instances the writer had an agenda for a certain fighter and even though the bout was a draw, the certain writer gives the winning approval to the fighter on his agenda. Personally, I like to list ND-W, ND-L and ND-D in the records that I compile and when I do not have the primary source, I use a secondary source until I come accross the primary, which I'm sure was the case with the editor using the Marion Daily Star.
>>>Finally, my comments were not made in a BoxRec vacuum. The Boxing Register for the International Boxing Hall of Fame has listed under Sam Langford's record a No Decision-Loss for the Ketchel fight. That suggest they feel it was newspaper loss for Langford. You agree that's wrong. So why not remove from BoxRec a statement that inaccurately supports that unfair assessment.<<<
We certainly want the records to be as accurate as humanly possible, but sometimes people don’t always get around to editing a certain request right when a person wants it. I went ahead and deleted the bottom part about the New York papers as the editor that added the quote may not see this thread.
-
sharkeysboy
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 107
- Joined: 23 Aug 2005, 16:52
I apologize for the lazy comment.
I commend Barry for making the deletion of the passage that rattled my cage so much. Clearly it proves the editors of BoxRec are not lazy but, on the contrary, very conscientious. I apologize for using that L word. In retrospect I would have done better by simply using the word "shortcut" which I think would be accurate. Anyway, it wasn't BoxRec that got me really going on this. It was that dumb entry into the International Hall of Fame Registry which real boxing folks probably don't even look at but unfortunately the general public does. I don't know who to approach about correcting that one.
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
Re: re
barry wrote:>>>>You say "The New York statements at the bottom could be erased." That would be fix it with me but I think you're dead wrong to say the New York papers are irrelevant to a fight in Philadelphia. If you read the article in the New York Times the reporter was clearly at the fight. Why wouldn't his opinion be as important to quote accurately as the Philadelphia reporters.<<<
I stated as such in my first response,---
“any other bout that has a quote from a secondary paper should be removed as well unless it is an actual ringside account of a battle”----
A very good thread this and some very interesting points made with regard to tthe usage of news reports and the problems they may and do create.
I think the summation by Barry is very good and also the other comments made on this topic. The people who enter the information do so with what information they have and do so in good faith. I have a fair number of reports on this sort of issue and you do think they are talking about a different fight - barry and others have covered this.
I think the most important point been highlighted during this debate - as opposed to slanging match - is that the issue can be raised, talked about and resolved.
I am sure that there must be many such issues on such a vast database and it is good to see them being talked about by people.
however this will not prevent me from showing extreme bias over any reports about my dad
>>>Obviously, the Marion Star writer thought people would think the New York opinions were relevant. And I don't think I was wrong to say that using a secondary source to inaccurately represent the New York papers' opinions is a lazy short cut.<<<
What if the Marion Star was the only source that the editor had…it certainly would not be the lazy way out and the editor, whom I believe is the one who added the quote, would be far from lazy as he has entered a ton of bouts into the database...actually he has been one of the most active editors we have. The editor could have very easily just left the comment section completely blank, but instead he typed out the recap of the fight as it appeared in the source that he used, so lazy certainly does not fit and is wrong to say…lazy would be doing nothing at all. After all, the only thing wrong was that it was listed that the New York Times, along with a couple other papers, thought Ketchel had the better of the bout, whereas other papers were in favor of Langford.
>>>If I could look up the New York Times' article in seconds, why couldn't the editors of BoxRec. At the least it would have alerted them that the Marion Star summary of the New York reportage was inaccurate.<<<<
Not everyone has quick access to various newspapers and other sources, so they have to make due with what they have at the moment and then go back later on when a primary source has been found, but as far as win and losses...that era in boxing is like a train-wreck to sort out. Many people don't like to have a newpaper results listed because it is nothing but opinion to begin with that determined who had the better of a bout, unless it was just a clear-cut victory for a fighter, but a lot of the time it was close bouts and in many instances the writer had an agenda for a certain fighter and even though the bout was a draw, the certain writer gives the winning approval to the fighter on his agenda. Personally, I like to list ND-W, ND-L and ND-D in the records that I compile and when I do not have the primary source, I use a secondary source until I come accross the primary, which I'm sure was the case with the editor using the Marion Daily Star.
>>>Finally, my comments were not made in a BoxRec vacuum. The Boxing Register for the International Boxing Hall of Fame has listed under Sam Langford's record a No Decision-Loss for the Ketchel fight. That suggest they feel it was newspaper loss for Langford. You agree that's wrong. So why not remove from BoxRec a statement that inaccurately supports that unfair assessment.<<<
We certainly want the records to be as accurate as humanly possible, but sometimes people don’t always get around to editing a certain request right when a person wants it. I went ahead and deleted the bottom part about the New York papers as the editor that added the quote may not see this thread.