I hate comparing records from now to back in the day

[NoSavingByTheBell]

In a broader sense the whole internet age has given us instantaneous information at our fingertips and that has sped up people's thought processes and coming to conclusions much quicker then say fifty or a hundred years ago.

[Spicoli]

We're extremely fortunate to have the databases, record keepers and historians we have in boxing. For a sport that shoots itself in the foot every other month and is generally treated by 'main stream' sports media like a red headed step child it's near the bottom of the list in regards to historical appreciation and general recognition. Basically, there's a big gap between researching an era and actually living an era. We gravitate to what we know and experience first hand, totally natural. Fans early on did the exact same thing. And being honest we do at times tend to wave off and quick glance eras and fighter we don't know. Just names on a page. The 'old timey B&W stuff'. Used that myself when I first started trading tapes way back . But again..the records and accounts are there to at least research and bone up on. Regardless of era you can dig into every fighter over history. But as the saying goes seeing is believing and that's the rub when you're talking fighters near the turn of the early Century. To what level do you count newspaper or wire accounts if at all? Harry Greb is HOF and counted as legend yet we've seen literally nothing save for some shadow boxing. Try talking of him to some young fan and praise him and they blow a gasket...it would piss CutmeMick off very much . On records there is one huge thing that has never changed, numbers can be misleading and manipulated. Be they ko records, wins or loses, even the final "ko or tko". Never just take a record at face value. Every single fighter currently in a HOF or certain to go that way today has run up numbers at one point or another. Guys of yesteryear simply had to fight more often. And yes with that came more than a few lap dog opponents. I tend to look at time over early career just as much as wins loses.

[zoley]

I think by 1930, boxing as an industry was in a form that would be recognizable to us. Gone were the days when a man got a world title and not defend it for years, somethimes they went to pursue entertainment instead. In America it was second only to baseball in terms of popularity, so tons of supply of contenders for a title. The Great Depression made men fight for whatever purse was offered, even if the fight was risky or a disadvantage. Only some boxers were able to refuse poorly paid fights. Go back to 1928 as an example, take Featherweight/Jr Lightweights Benny Bass (101 -41-9) or Tony Canzoneri (141 - 24 - 10), they would fight 3 times a month, for years. What did they earn? A few bucks. They didn't care if they got a few losses. The money wasn't there, so keep taking fights.

[Fenster]

In a broader sense the whole internet age has given us instantaneous information at our fingertips and that has sped up people's thought processes and coming to conclusions much quicker then say fifty or a hundred years ago.

Good point. However, we don't need some random observers interpretation, full of natural prejudice and bias to give us the "truth."