Randy Turpin

Just read the wiki article on on Randy Turpin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Turpin

Turpin was inducted as a member of the International Boxing Hall Of Fame in Canastota, New York in 2001. There is a statue of him in Market Square, Warwick.

Turpin committed suicide by shooting himself in 1966. It is reported that, on the same day, he tried to kill his daughter.

On 17 May 1966 he was found dead in his home Gwen's Transport Cafe in Leamington Spa where he lived with his wife and four daughters, one of his daughters, Carmen aged 4, was taken to hospital in Birmingham with two shot wounds.

Given he tried to kill his Daughter do you feel it is right that he has was inducted into the hall of fame, and had a statue put up of him?

My personal opinion is that depression and suicide are personal, and deep problems and the person should have our sympthies, however to try and kill a 4 year old can never be excused. Therefore I believe that he should be allowed into the boxing hall of fame (as the entry for this is boxing skill and boxing skill alone), however I do believe that he shouldn't have a statue in his honor due to his last actions.

Thoughts?

Will only address the Hall of Fame issue but if we are to exclude all fighters with chequered lifes outside the ring there will be a lot of great fighters excluded, Monzon and Tyson are obvious ones, and even the great Sugar Ray Robinson was alleged to not be shy of using his fists on his wives and women. May be a sad reflection on the sport but alas in the grand scheme of things Randy's exploits are by far not the worst.

That was a real, real shame. Just listening to him at the post fight press conference after one of the Robinson fights he was such a gentleman - it is sad what can happen to people once mental illnesses set in.

Yeah he was a true Gentleman, i actually didn't know about his daughter but the man was mentally ill, such a shame, what a performance he put in in the Robinson fight.

hmmn, i can see your point re the statue, but as jeff says, its best not to look too closely at the backgrounds of your boxing hero's. It may be described as noble, but a job where you beat people up for a living isn't always going to attract the most noble of human beings. Some of them will always take their work home.

The hall of fame should be allowed no problems as the Hall of fame should be based on boxing Merit and nothing else, but I don't think he should have a statue really, it's a shame though that it ended the way it did for him.

alma wrote:I guess it's no more ridiculous than every American president being entitled to a Presidential library/museum, no matter how bad a president they were.

Quite why anyone would want to visit a George W Bush museum is beyond me....

Well you can't readily give a library to a bloke that can't read now can you.

I feel more distressed about Sven Ottke being on the list. He's the opposite of most boxers in that he's a gentleman out of the ring but a cheat inside of it.

I was thinking of setting up a petition to try to prevent Ottke getting inducted but then realised I have better things to do.

Super D Boon wrote:I feel more distressed about Sven Ottke being on the list. He's the opposite of most boxers in that he's a gentleman out of the ring but a cheat inside of it.

I was thinking of setting up a petition to try to prevent Ottke getting inducted but then realised I have better things to do.

Surely Ottke isn't getting in is he? If he does then they would be as well closing the place down, undefeated or not, venture outside Germany and those losses would have started appearing.

There is a difference between being on the list and being in, ultimately as an undefeated world champion retired five years Ottke is worthy of consideration. Have to agree though that to see him inducted would be a low even for the hall.

If he's just on the list that's ok, he needs to be considered, but only considered. I wouldn't respect the HOF if he was inducted, they need to draw the line somewhere, and it's right at Ottke's feet.

Unfortunately I wouldnt bet too heavily on Ottke missing the cut. The Hall of Fame tend to adopt a very politically correct approach and aim to be seen as unbiased worldwide. For this reason alone I think you have the likes of Johansson and McGuigan in there. Were Johansson not Swedish and McGuigan not a symbol of religious tolerance in a troubled Ireland then I have my doubts about whether they would have gained entry.

Ottke being German, undefeated and reasonably long reigning I suspect will see him through. I may be mistaken but I think the only German in the Hall of Fame is Schmelling and even he could arguably have missed out under stricter criteria. However the political significance of his fights with Louis and subsequent revalation of his complete opposition to Nazi-ism and safehousing jews Im sure did his case for inclusion no harm at all.

Ottke of course is no Schmelling, but the Halls desire for an international flavour and unbiased image could make the difference.

Sad though it is you would probably have to say in pure in the ring acheievements Sven probably has as good a case for inclusion as Barry McGuigan

Yes thats true. I am still somewhere in the middle ground on what the Halls ultimate stance should be for fighters that represent or transcend the sport despite their actual records perhaps not warranting inclusion. On one level I fully appreciate the argument that McGuigan is in there when other fighters with better or equal records arent. But at the same time I find it hard to begrudge it because of what what he did for the sport and the symbol he was.

It begs the question that should the Hall be based purely for record alone or is it justified in incorporating other, non boxing elements?

Not that this would apply to Ottke of course, but like I say, I suspect the Hall will be anxius to avoid any claims of anti foreign bias and with Germany seriously underrepresented in the Hall to date I have a feeling Ottke will be one of those fighters to sneak in.

The difficulty for me Colonial is if you do go down the line of considering non in the ring activities as seems to have been the case with Barry surely the flip side of this is if people are going to get a boost for the good they have done outside the ring it must stand to reason people will be downgraded for the more unsavoury aspects of their out of ring activities and this could leave us in a situation where guys such as Monzon or Tyson are excluded, a situation I am sure in Calros' case sits well with nobody.

For me Barry McGuigan is a tricky one, was a beacon of hope in a truly troubling time in his country and has represented the sport with nothing but dignity and class and even now seems to have a genuine interest in helping the sport and those that participate it, however how his ring career can be considered worthy of inclusion when Prince Naseem is not thus far considered worthy is truly beyond my comprehension.

I think the Hall should take a stance on Ottke because he cheated inside the ring. Many doubtful decisions went his way and he was also a very dirty fighter who constantly charged with his head, tactics that Andre Ward is now hated for and tactics he would not have got away with if he didn't fight every fight in Germany where all his contests had more than a whiff of rigged about them.

Also, Ottke was never a true world champion. He never fought Calzaghe to prove himself the best at Super Middleweight and with Calzaghe's achievements post Ottke's retirement then it casts a great deal of doubt over whether Ottke was ever the best at any point in his title reign. I tend to think in this day of alphabets that only true and universally recognised world champions should be allowed in, not just strap holders.

If the Hall were to prevent Ottke's inclusion then it sends a message that cheats are not tolerated and it may help clean up the sport in terms of awful home town robberies, who knows? It may also push fighters to fight their biggest rivals if it would mean those fighters will never be immortalised in the HOF if they fail to do so.

I honestly think the HOF could play a big role in tidying up boxing by being stronger and less PC, but as Colonial pointed out, Ottke will probably sneak an inclusion just as he sneaked many dubious decision wins in Germany. Sad.

Super D you are very much preaching to the converted on this one, the idea of Ottke getting anywhere near makes me want to puke, unfortunately we are not considering whether he deserves to get in, rather whether he will get in, and with the imperfect hall we have at the minute I fear on this latter question lion is absolutely bang on the money, mores the pity.

I think colonial has hit the nail on the head re the Hall's attitude. I also think that Barry will have been helped by the huge support he got from Irish americans on the far side of the pond.

Ottke would be their lowest point, and by a distance, which is saying something

rowley wrote:Super D you are very much preaching to the converted on this one, the idea of Ottke getting anywhere near makes me want to puke, unfortunately we are not considering whether he deserves to get in, rather whether he will get in, and with the imperfect hall we have at the minute I fear on this latter question lion is absolutely bang on the money, mores the pity.

In which case why don't we send a 606v2 petition to the HOF to attempt frustrate Ottke's induction? We could all put our names on it! This petition could be broadcast through various other forums who will be inspired to take a similarly dim view on the subject of Ottke's inevitable induction and it could snowball into something the Hall could not ignore.

We at 606v2 could make a real difference!

Already wrote one long post only for my 'phone to crash. The gist: why not split entrants into 'in-ring' and 'out of the ring' achievements? Gatti has arguably achieved more in the ring (two-weight champ) AND he did more to raise the image of the sport. Katsidis does a lot of charity work, but has seemingly peaked in the ring.

What about Valero? Perfect record, two(?)-weight champ, 18 1st-round stoppages. If Turpin and Monzon are open for consideration in spite of their crimes, Valero should be too, much as I hate to admit it.

I think regards the splitting of category to in-ring and out-ring might been seen as something of a slight to those who dont qualify for in-ring acheivements but get in for out of ring acheivements. A bit like saying "well you werent quite good enough to make the cut but you were a nice guy". Im all for recognising boxers good work but just feel that getting into a sub category like that could be viewed as a bit of a second rate way to get into the hall.

Still not sure Valero did enough in his career to warrant a spot although on principal his actions should not neccessarily exclude him if we consider the careers of others who currently reside there.

Colonial Lion wrote:I think regards the splitting of category to in-ring and out-ring might been seen as something of a slight to those who dont qualify for in-ring acheivements but get in for out of ring acheivements. A bit like saying "well you werent quite good enough to make the cut but you were a nice guy". Im all for recognising boxers good work but just feel that getting into a sub category like that could be viewed as a bit of a second rate way to get into the hall.

Still not sure Valero did enough in his career to warrant a spot although on principal his actions should not neccessarily exclude him if we consider the careers of others who currently reside there.

I agree on your point about splitting the categories, but is it that much worse than having Stallone in there for PRETENDING to be a boxer?

Likewise Valero; I'm not suggesting he should be considered based on his achievements, but that he shouldn't be dismissed because of him crimes if Monzon and Turpin weren't.

BALTIMORA wrote:Already wrote one long post only for my 'phone to crash. The gist: why not split entrants into 'in-ring' and 'out of the ring' achievements? Gatti has arguably achieved more in the ring (two-weight champ) AND he did more to raise the image of the sport. Katsidis does a lot of charity work, but has seemingly peaked in the ring.

What about Valero? Perfect record, two(?)-weight champ, 18 1st-round stoppages. If Turpin and Monzon are open for consideration in spite of their crimes, Valero should be too, much as I hate to admit it.

Valero is a tricky one Balti but he must be considered if Monzon was. I'm honestly not sure if i would have him in, probably more for than against. I followed his career closely from early on and was excited about his future in the sport, will the Hall induct him? i'm not sure if they will, but i think they will let Gatti stroll in although i don't think he deserves it on his achievements in the ring.

Balti in Stallone's case there is a clear category for non participants so journalists and promoters who have significantly contributed to the sport can rightly be included, whether Stallone deserves to sit alongside Tex Rickard is another question for another day.

Would generally agree that for those that have fought they should be assessed solely on their in ring acheievements, lettting guys like Barry in for generally being a good sort does smack slightly of the school sports day thing of every kid getting a medal

I think Stallone was in some kind of services to boxing category, which I think is fine for non boxers such as journalists, refs, commentators etc

But imagine you were Barry McGuigan and you were inducted into the same category as Stallone! For actual fighters I imagine it would be seen as a bit of an insult.

Agree with you on Valero. Its a bit of a grey area but if Monzon is in there then on principle Valero could be too.

It would be an insult for a boxer to be inducted into a non-boxing category, but that's also what'll happen with Freddy Roach, and I doubt he'll complain. I'm playing devil's avocado here, so don't take me too seriously, but if you look here:

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/nonparticipant.html

there are a few guys who were boxers before they did whatever it was which led to their induction. More to the point; should Arum and Sulaiman be allowed in there given that their past achievements are being overshadowed of late by less than exemplary behaviour?

Well with Roach I would say his career as a trainer and success there far exceeds his acheivement as a fighter so I dont think inducting him on the basis of being a trainer is insulting. Especially considering some of the other great trainers in there he would be sharing company with.

I suppose with the likes of King and Arum that the same principle that applies to boxers applies elsewhere.