BoxRec

Help, please, fellas...

My pal is doing a research project for his degree on boxers in the period 1929-1932, and wants to see if working class boxers were exploited at the time due to the economic circumstances. He has been in touch with historians over this, who have told him that there was a LOT of boxing over this period, but naturally if anyone knows of any books that might help him out?

I've told him to register on here and ask for himself, but he hasn't got round to it - typical student - he's a boxing fan anyway, his uncle fought for the European title, but that name escapes me presently.

Anyone?

What follows is (a) a quick response and (b) just my opinion.

To start with, I don't believe that boxers were any more - or less - "exploited" during this era than at any other stage in the history of the game. And as far as "working class" boxers are concerned, the overwhelming majority of the boxers were what would be described as "working class".

Although you refer specifically to British boxers some of the examples below relate to American based fighters: (I'm just giving these to illustrate that some boxers did well in that Era, others in different eras fared very badly and might well have claimed to have been "exploited")

1: Jimmy McClarnin fought from 1923 to 1936 and had a wonderful manager who helped set him up for life - so you couldn't say Jimmy (as an example) was exploited in the Depression Era.

2: By contrast Joe Brown fought in the 1950-60s era, and there is a view that he was less than well served by his manager, being left very poorly off when the glory days gad gone. Likewise Billy Fox - of "Jake LaMotta took a dive" fame - was built up by his managers and then discarded when of no further use. So two non-depression era guys who one might think could have been treated a bit better. In a British context many people felt that Freddie Mills was "thrown to the wolves" several times by his manager - being matched against the likes of Bruce Woodcock despite conceding massive amounts of weight, and having tough fights with virtually no proper recovery time between them - but again, a non-depression era fighter (mainly 1940s)

I think the main issues were the fighter himself, the crowd he mixed with, and the lifestyle he chose to lead. I don't think your friend can really show that during the Era "working class fighters" were treated substantially better or worse than in any other era. There were - and will always be - good managers who care about their fighters, and by contrast managers/promoters etc who see the fighter as a warm body to be exploited for the next pound/dollar. The game is full of both types through evety decade.

Your friend might want to start his research by reading through Teddy Baldock's story - see

http://www.teddybaldock.co.uk/life/page_6.html

When you get to the last page of "Teddy's Story" on that link you'll see how Teddy basically blew his money on high living, and having no real notion of what to do once he had hung up the gloves. Exploited? Probably not - but maybe in modern times he might have been a bit better advised.

I'll stop pounding away at the keyboard as I may be pointing you and your friend in the wroing direction. But I'd just suggest that he may not find it easy to make a case that boxers suffered any worse in the Era than say miners, dockers, etc etc....or that they were worse off in that Era than in at other times

Hope this is some help. J

MatthewS wrote:Help, please, fellas...

My pal is doing a research project for his degree on boxers in the period 1929-1932, and wants to see if working class boxers were exploited at the time due to the economic circumstances. He has been in touch with historians over this, who have told him that there was a LOT of boxing over this period, but naturally if anyone knows of any books that might help him out?

I've told him to register on here and ask for himself, but he hasn't got round to it - typical student - he's a boxing fan anyway, his uncle fought for the European title, but that name escapes me presently.

The boxers of that era were by today's standards certainly exploited, but I don't think there's a direct correlation with the onset of the Great Depression. They were being equally overworked prior to the Wall Street Crash and throughout the twenties.

The cause lies more with the lack of a governing body prior to 1929, and thereafter (in the run-up to WW2) because of the failings of a weak one. There was basically insufficient legislation to prevent fighters being given matches without sufficient rest in between, mis-matched against heavier and vastly more experienced men etc. With nothing to stop them, many fight managers did more or less as they pleased, putting their own interests ahead of those of the fighter, which is why many of the oldtimer's records consist of hundreds of fights.

john2345 wrote:What follows is (a) a quick response and (b) just my opinion.
Your friend might want to start his research by reading through Teddy Baldock's story - see

http://www.teddybaldock.co.uk/life/page_6.html

When you get to the last page of "Teddy's Story" on that link you'll see how Teddy basically blew his money on high living, and having no real notion of what to do once he had hung up the gloves. Exploited? Probably not - but maybe in modern times he might have been a bit better advised.

He might also note that Baldock reached his peak age 20 or 21, and was burnt out and retired at age 24, having had 81 traceable (and probably plenty more untraceable) contests.

Would that happen today?

(And Baldock was actually one of the better managed fighters of that era).

Thanks lads. This is all very helpful... john it doesnt matter if the evidence is not supportive of his idea, he wont want to force it to be something it isnt. I think its certainly a very good starting point though, to start with the question: was it the G.D, then answer with: no, this was pre-existing conditions.

MatthewS wrote:Thanks lads. This is all very helpful... john it doesnt matter if the evidence is not supportive of his idea, he wont want to force it to be something it isnt.

When I did a thesis on "Traffic Flow" while at college (a long time ago!) I was too busy "doing what students do" to bother with detailed research. so I simply relied on what I thought was good local knowlege of the roads involved and worked from what I reckoned were the traffic flows and volumes. The lecturer complimented me on the structure of the paper but pointed out that two of the streets where I was showing heavy two way traffic had been one-way systems for over a year....so I think it's good that the evidence should support the idea!

If your friend needs any input on the (boxing) subject tell him to "PM" me and I'll be happy to offer a view.

J

lol john, what i mean by that is that he wont write a false or inaccurate essay, we are allowed to start with 'i think x' and finish with 'but actually y is true, not x'