Lineages and biographies
Posted: 09 Feb 2007, 07:33
Dear friends,
I am sporting historian, member of International Society for History of Physical Education and Sport (ISHPES) and European Committee for History of Sport (CESH).
My interest for boxing history is not that of a specialist like all of you, and for that I am sorry. I approached boxing history when I was writing a book about European history of all sports before 1914 and, in the chapter of boxing, I met some difficulties to track down undisputed lineages.
Deepening a bit the matter, I noticed that several authorities had different opinions about lineages and comparing them I was confused. My concern was then to alert historians and scholars about the difficulties to extract correct statistical data on the crucial period 1889-1914.
In particular, I astonished in reading the story of Andrew Jeptha and the bibliographical vicissitudes of Sam Langford, ‘the boxer who never received a title shot’.
I entreated correspondence with Hugman and Alderman and they answered to my questions even I disagree(d) with them. Also Bill Matthews responded to my questions. I tried to find other interlocutors, but unsuccessfully.
Now, I am ending my work and the book would be issued within 25 March, when should be 100 years from Jeptha vs. Watson.
My intendment should be have other opinions and for this reason I ask your kind collaborations. My last chapter entitles ‘Outlining historical sketches’ and I report most of it below the body of this message. Before that, I reckon useful for interested people to know a concise summary of my book.
Part one entitles ‘Sources and authorities’ and introduces the questions about lineages and used bibliography ; in the second chapter I give some lines about authorities I examined
Cyberboxingzone
Boxrec.com
IBHOF Register
British Yearbooks edited by Hugman
Bill Matthews’ book on English champions 1872-1910
Part two entitles ‘Four classic lineages’ and focuses excerpts of World, British Empire, British and European lineages which are, in my opinion, problematic and about which the above authorities emanated different data. This fact is troubling for an historian, cannot stating with certainty who was the first European champion, how many World champions were Americans, when IBU started, when British Empire titles began to be at stake, who was first coloured to conquer British title (Jeptha’s question), in sum, how consider bibliographic records.
From 1985 up to 2007 edition, British Yearbooks presented numerous changes, but apparently few of them were accepted by other authorities. Why ?
For this part, I consulted many resources and actual journals.
Now, the provisional ending words of my book :
“we affirm we do not share the opinion of boxing historians asserting in 23 August 1909 the European professional championships started with the match Welsh vs. Piet in Mountain Ash. On the same line, we do not share the opinion of who affirmed in 1887 the British Empire titles were inaugurated, we do not repute that Eddie Connolly had held the Imperial title, nor Joe Bowker conquered an European championship. We are happy to ascertain that any French book do not assert that Jean Poésy was an European champion and, but with fine distinction, we share the opinions of Gilbert Odd for British Empire titles, of Barry Hugman for World titles (except for the erroneous reconstruction of IBU start), of Victor Breyer for European championships and we suspend the judgement for British titles, albeit we basically agree with Matthews and his work, except to distinguish maybe between Open English championships and native British championships. In any case, in our opinion summer 1911 and Joseph’s name represents the start of European boxing.
(…)
“whatsoever sum aggregating the English boxers as European champion, that sum does not comprehend the names of Bowker, Stanley, Wells and for France the sum does not include the name of Poésy, nor that of Piet as first challenger for European title ; for the second, the British Empire titles were at stake sporadically from 1889 and initially on Australian side, then Britain aligned with that history in 1908, as sentenced by Odd.
Said that, we would be curious to outline historically consistent sketches about some champions and the first name which jumps to our attention is that of Sam Langford.
As well known, Langford was a gentleman, and he was loved as Johnson was hated. Probably, Johnson avoided him when Sam went through the best years of his career, albeit the IBHOF pages sentence that this deduction was exaggerated. Most of the non-coloured people would have exulted for Langford’s possible victory over Johnson. Apart the two matches against Britons, one of them inserted in the reconstruction of British Empire lineage, he did not box for a title shot, or for match entitled at least nominally for a title. However, either conjuring the Coloured title or not, most of journals and later the first international organization, the IBU, elected him as World champion ‘by office’. But, was he a World champion ? Are true the sketches depicting him as one of the greatest, even the Greatest Boxer without a crown ? In a couple of occasions he was individuated as the British champion, but we have met the difficulties to recognize him as such. How outline a scrupulous and sufficiently precise biographical sketch of Sam Langford ?
We re-propose again the excerpts of what, in the ‘cyberboxingzone.com’, is outlined a brief sketch introducing his curriculum : ‘During his career, he won the Heavyweight Championship of Mexico and the Heavyweight Championship of Australia’ then some lines ahead ‘he never fought for a World championship’. Reading British Yearbooks, we learnt that he claimed the Coloured Heavyweight Championship of the World, and, according the philosophy of British Yearbooks, this Racial title aligns at the same level of WBO or IBF title, and enjoying, albeit an unwritten status box, the support of a group of journals and individuals of pioneering era, who reckoned possible to put at stake and to consider licit the Race title. The correspondent title for White boxers had similar status, but, probably, its consistence surpassed that of present WBO or WBA, because the people who supported Coloured Heavyweight crown were, more or less, the same who supported the White Heavyweight crown. Is it then correct to consider White and Coloured titles as sharing half of the same unity or rather they were two separated entities supported by the same section of persons ? Much more, upon the basis that Johnson refused to meet him, Langford claimed, according ‘boxrec.com’ and British Yearbooks, the Coloured title which was operational (!!!) also when Johnson held the ‘ordinary’ – for all races – title. But, on the other hand, Johnson does not enjoy anymore the undisputed crown, just because the Coloured supremacy was at stake !
Shall we play ‘Boxing history’ ? In case of hypothetical interview to one of the people who reputed founded the Coloured crown, if we should have asked ‘Who’s the World champion ?’ probably this person could have answered ‘Johnson, unfortunately !’ So, take the case when two different European boxers held the World and the European title respectively, the World champion is not automatically European champion, albeit he does not keep the title, and no European think that the World holder is disputed if another European subject held the continental title. I mean, in our opinion, that, albeit hated, Johnson remained undisputed champion even another coloured boxer held the racial title.
(…)
Personally, we think that due to the various and, in our opinion, contradictory voices existing in the boxing history field, a fair biography must take into account necessarily the bibliographical elements and the ‘on paper’ debates over a champion.
Admitted the two titles, Mexico and Australia, which Langford undisputedly held, why to choose strictly the biography of ‘boxrec.com’ which suggests us that Langford was claimant to Coloured Heavyweight title for various times between 1909 and 1918, alternating the tenure with his ‘brother’ coloured McVea, Jeannette, Harry Wills, adding also the Spanish title to Mexican one thanks to his victory over Andres Balsa on 8 April 1923 and which affirms that Langford held the British version of World Middleweight title in beating Smith on 22 April 1907 or to choose British Yearbooks version with his mythical claims to Imperial title ?
(…)
Shall we play ‘boxing history’ ? In the case of Langford, after have outlined dates of birth and death, technical skills, measurements and records, gentleman’s attributes, we could play as follows : The present British historiographical authority attributes to him a claim for the World welterweight title for 1904-1905. In 1909, the official World champion Johnson avoided to meet him and some journals claimed on his behalf the title ; he claimed the Coloured Heavyweight title, a racial championship which received long the years credit and due advertisement. In the period 1909-1918, Langford won and lost this title in various occasions – He fought and won twice for billed British championships, but he did not receive authoritative and continuative recognition. One of these two matches received credit in some of the bibliography as World title in Britain’s version and in some of remaining credited bibliography as valid for British Empire title, albeit not billed for. – By office and independently by his victory over Jack O’Brien on 15 August 1911, he was often reputed by credited journals and repeatedly by IBU the World champion for Lightheavyweight.
And in the Jeptha’s case, what we could say ? We have no elements about his claims over South African titles, maybe he self-styled once in Britain. His biographical sketch pivots around his matches against Watson. His claim over English welterweight title happened in 1907 before the official introduction of this category in Britain. Some journals and people reckoned him English champion and at the moment of his death he was reputed as such by most of the related book records. In 1991, the British Yearbook purged his name by the list of British champions because he was South African. The British Boxing Board of Council approved this decision, giving its mark to British Yearbooks. Albeit this purgation, other historians and sources still keep his name as first coloured British champion of professional boxing.
Beside the clashing cases of Langford and Jeptha, also other biographies might include in their outlining the vicissitudes on paper of boxers. Fortunately, we are happy to declare that we only through this book would support a revisionist position regarding the possible but realistically improbable sketching of biographies regarding Bowker, ‘a bibliographical tradition reputed him claimant to European title following the victorious match against the French Paul Til, albeit the match had any bill for European title’, or Matt Wells, ‘a bibliographical tradition reputed him claimant to European title following the victorious match against Fred Welsh, albeit the match was billed for British title only’. Any publishing will not confer to us the task of such biographies !
But, irony and polemics apart, we hope to have contributed to alert the students of boxing history to deepen seriously over all the possible sources of data.”
Thanks for the attention. Every serious contribution will be duly acknowledged.
Best regards
Gherardo Bonini
I am sporting historian, member of International Society for History of Physical Education and Sport (ISHPES) and European Committee for History of Sport (CESH).
My interest for boxing history is not that of a specialist like all of you, and for that I am sorry. I approached boxing history when I was writing a book about European history of all sports before 1914 and, in the chapter of boxing, I met some difficulties to track down undisputed lineages.
Deepening a bit the matter, I noticed that several authorities had different opinions about lineages and comparing them I was confused. My concern was then to alert historians and scholars about the difficulties to extract correct statistical data on the crucial period 1889-1914.
In particular, I astonished in reading the story of Andrew Jeptha and the bibliographical vicissitudes of Sam Langford, ‘the boxer who never received a title shot’.
I entreated correspondence with Hugman and Alderman and they answered to my questions even I disagree(d) with them. Also Bill Matthews responded to my questions. I tried to find other interlocutors, but unsuccessfully.
Now, I am ending my work and the book would be issued within 25 March, when should be 100 years from Jeptha vs. Watson.
My intendment should be have other opinions and for this reason I ask your kind collaborations. My last chapter entitles ‘Outlining historical sketches’ and I report most of it below the body of this message. Before that, I reckon useful for interested people to know a concise summary of my book.
Part one entitles ‘Sources and authorities’ and introduces the questions about lineages and used bibliography ; in the second chapter I give some lines about authorities I examined
Cyberboxingzone
Boxrec.com
IBHOF Register
British Yearbooks edited by Hugman
Bill Matthews’ book on English champions 1872-1910
Part two entitles ‘Four classic lineages’ and focuses excerpts of World, British Empire, British and European lineages which are, in my opinion, problematic and about which the above authorities emanated different data. This fact is troubling for an historian, cannot stating with certainty who was the first European champion, how many World champions were Americans, when IBU started, when British Empire titles began to be at stake, who was first coloured to conquer British title (Jeptha’s question), in sum, how consider bibliographic records.
From 1985 up to 2007 edition, British Yearbooks presented numerous changes, but apparently few of them were accepted by other authorities. Why ?
For this part, I consulted many resources and actual journals.
Now, the provisional ending words of my book :
“we affirm we do not share the opinion of boxing historians asserting in 23 August 1909 the European professional championships started with the match Welsh vs. Piet in Mountain Ash. On the same line, we do not share the opinion of who affirmed in 1887 the British Empire titles were inaugurated, we do not repute that Eddie Connolly had held the Imperial title, nor Joe Bowker conquered an European championship. We are happy to ascertain that any French book do not assert that Jean Poésy was an European champion and, but with fine distinction, we share the opinions of Gilbert Odd for British Empire titles, of Barry Hugman for World titles (except for the erroneous reconstruction of IBU start), of Victor Breyer for European championships and we suspend the judgement for British titles, albeit we basically agree with Matthews and his work, except to distinguish maybe between Open English championships and native British championships. In any case, in our opinion summer 1911 and Joseph’s name represents the start of European boxing.
(…)
“whatsoever sum aggregating the English boxers as European champion, that sum does not comprehend the names of Bowker, Stanley, Wells and for France the sum does not include the name of Poésy, nor that of Piet as first challenger for European title ; for the second, the British Empire titles were at stake sporadically from 1889 and initially on Australian side, then Britain aligned with that history in 1908, as sentenced by Odd.
Said that, we would be curious to outline historically consistent sketches about some champions and the first name which jumps to our attention is that of Sam Langford.
As well known, Langford was a gentleman, and he was loved as Johnson was hated. Probably, Johnson avoided him when Sam went through the best years of his career, albeit the IBHOF pages sentence that this deduction was exaggerated. Most of the non-coloured people would have exulted for Langford’s possible victory over Johnson. Apart the two matches against Britons, one of them inserted in the reconstruction of British Empire lineage, he did not box for a title shot, or for match entitled at least nominally for a title. However, either conjuring the Coloured title or not, most of journals and later the first international organization, the IBU, elected him as World champion ‘by office’. But, was he a World champion ? Are true the sketches depicting him as one of the greatest, even the Greatest Boxer without a crown ? In a couple of occasions he was individuated as the British champion, but we have met the difficulties to recognize him as such. How outline a scrupulous and sufficiently precise biographical sketch of Sam Langford ?
We re-propose again the excerpts of what, in the ‘cyberboxingzone.com’, is outlined a brief sketch introducing his curriculum : ‘During his career, he won the Heavyweight Championship of Mexico and the Heavyweight Championship of Australia’ then some lines ahead ‘he never fought for a World championship’. Reading British Yearbooks, we learnt that he claimed the Coloured Heavyweight Championship of the World, and, according the philosophy of British Yearbooks, this Racial title aligns at the same level of WBO or IBF title, and enjoying, albeit an unwritten status box, the support of a group of journals and individuals of pioneering era, who reckoned possible to put at stake and to consider licit the Race title. The correspondent title for White boxers had similar status, but, probably, its consistence surpassed that of present WBO or WBA, because the people who supported Coloured Heavyweight crown were, more or less, the same who supported the White Heavyweight crown. Is it then correct to consider White and Coloured titles as sharing half of the same unity or rather they were two separated entities supported by the same section of persons ? Much more, upon the basis that Johnson refused to meet him, Langford claimed, according ‘boxrec.com’ and British Yearbooks, the Coloured title which was operational (!!!) also when Johnson held the ‘ordinary’ – for all races – title. But, on the other hand, Johnson does not enjoy anymore the undisputed crown, just because the Coloured supremacy was at stake !
Shall we play ‘Boxing history’ ? In case of hypothetical interview to one of the people who reputed founded the Coloured crown, if we should have asked ‘Who’s the World champion ?’ probably this person could have answered ‘Johnson, unfortunately !’ So, take the case when two different European boxers held the World and the European title respectively, the World champion is not automatically European champion, albeit he does not keep the title, and no European think that the World holder is disputed if another European subject held the continental title. I mean, in our opinion, that, albeit hated, Johnson remained undisputed champion even another coloured boxer held the racial title.
(…)
Personally, we think that due to the various and, in our opinion, contradictory voices existing in the boxing history field, a fair biography must take into account necessarily the bibliographical elements and the ‘on paper’ debates over a champion.
Admitted the two titles, Mexico and Australia, which Langford undisputedly held, why to choose strictly the biography of ‘boxrec.com’ which suggests us that Langford was claimant to Coloured Heavyweight title for various times between 1909 and 1918, alternating the tenure with his ‘brother’ coloured McVea, Jeannette, Harry Wills, adding also the Spanish title to Mexican one thanks to his victory over Andres Balsa on 8 April 1923 and which affirms that Langford held the British version of World Middleweight title in beating Smith on 22 April 1907 or to choose British Yearbooks version with his mythical claims to Imperial title ?
(…)
Shall we play ‘boxing history’ ? In the case of Langford, after have outlined dates of birth and death, technical skills, measurements and records, gentleman’s attributes, we could play as follows : The present British historiographical authority attributes to him a claim for the World welterweight title for 1904-1905. In 1909, the official World champion Johnson avoided to meet him and some journals claimed on his behalf the title ; he claimed the Coloured Heavyweight title, a racial championship which received long the years credit and due advertisement. In the period 1909-1918, Langford won and lost this title in various occasions – He fought and won twice for billed British championships, but he did not receive authoritative and continuative recognition. One of these two matches received credit in some of the bibliography as World title in Britain’s version and in some of remaining credited bibliography as valid for British Empire title, albeit not billed for. – By office and independently by his victory over Jack O’Brien on 15 August 1911, he was often reputed by credited journals and repeatedly by IBU the World champion for Lightheavyweight.
And in the Jeptha’s case, what we could say ? We have no elements about his claims over South African titles, maybe he self-styled once in Britain. His biographical sketch pivots around his matches against Watson. His claim over English welterweight title happened in 1907 before the official introduction of this category in Britain. Some journals and people reckoned him English champion and at the moment of his death he was reputed as such by most of the related book records. In 1991, the British Yearbook purged his name by the list of British champions because he was South African. The British Boxing Board of Council approved this decision, giving its mark to British Yearbooks. Albeit this purgation, other historians and sources still keep his name as first coloured British champion of professional boxing.
Beside the clashing cases of Langford and Jeptha, also other biographies might include in their outlining the vicissitudes on paper of boxers. Fortunately, we are happy to declare that we only through this book would support a revisionist position regarding the possible but realistically improbable sketching of biographies regarding Bowker, ‘a bibliographical tradition reputed him claimant to European title following the victorious match against the French Paul Til, albeit the match had any bill for European title’, or Matt Wells, ‘a bibliographical tradition reputed him claimant to European title following the victorious match against Fred Welsh, albeit the match was billed for British title only’. Any publishing will not confer to us the task of such biographies !
But, irony and polemics apart, we hope to have contributed to alert the students of boxing history to deepen seriously over all the possible sources of data.”
Thanks for the attention. Every serious contribution will be duly acknowledged.
Best regards
Gherardo Bonini
..