Why is the Hall of fame such a disgrace ???

First topic message reminder :

Haven't they got knowledgeable Boxing people running the damn thing.....

Barry Mcguigan in......Lloyd Honeyghan not in...Excuse me but didn't he beat the p4p no 1 and future champion Maurice Blocker as well as winning the title back after he lost it!! Mcguigan beat an old man in Eusebio and albeit he beat a quality Taylor his record doesn't compare..

Daniel Zaragoza??? Yes Daniel Zaragoza in .....and the only number 1 p4p fighter not to be inducted Donald Curry out...A guy that cleaned out the welters taking Starling twice, Mccrory, Larocca and unifying the title....Zaragoza actually lost to Paul Banke...and believe me that takes some doing..

I could go on but best to let you go to the modern link on the hall of fame page to see the discrepancies..

Hall of fame is just a disgrace and should be scrapped..

Yes, I agree with you both and have just edited my last post to make myself a bit clearer. DLH is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Cotto is not, and I'm not sure that anyone would be able to furnish me with the necessary evidence to change my mind in the future. I am open to persuasion, however.

I thought DLH-Mosley was 1-1 to be honest Truss, but that's by the by.

I agree with your points about their respective careers.

I'd rule Cotto and Mosley out.....

The Forrest defeats were enough to put me off Mosley......and Cotto has been a disappointment.

Mosley's already off my list for drugs, Truss. However, he would be in if not for that. Like DLH, he ruled the lightweights for ages and could have done so for as long as he wanted, or so it seemed. Mosley and DLH much of a muchness on the whole for me, and both deserving of a place if not for Mosley's chemical habit.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Carbajal, canizales..................The list is endless......frighteningly bad!

Truss, looks like they are both in there?

I think that's Truss's point, Tino. Neither of them should be there - really nowhere near it, in my opinion, worthy fighters and belt-holders though they were.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I think that's Truss's point, Tino. Neither of them should be there - really nowhere near it, in my opinion, worthy fighters and belt-holders though they were.

Sorry, my mistake. I haven't had time to read through the thread and now I look like a wally. Apologies Truss.

Perhaps what we need is a 606 Hall of Fame - let's say starting it with 30 fighters on whom everone can agree. Then 5 more a week, where we need a 75% majority of all the sane voters (to be decided) to enrol them. Carry on until we're up to the present day. Same 5-year qualification period from retirement. Be a far better Hall than the one at Canastota.

Good idea Captain, have seen that elsewhere. Would work.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Perhaps what we need is a 606 Hall of Fame - let's say starting it with 30 fighters on whom everone can agree. Then 5 more a week, where we need a 75% majority of all the sane voters (to be decided) to enrol them. Carry on until we're up to the present day. Same 5-year qualification period from retirement. Be a far better Hall than the one at Canastota.

Best idea I've heard all week.

I agree, I would like them to start from scratch if possible. Its too broad and I dont think it was partcularly well thought out.

There are fighter both old timers and modern that have real question marks over there inclusions.

As far as I know, there was a rival boxing hall of fame set up in the 80s but its more or less the same than the more recognised IBHOF and not any more exclusive.

Beating Pernell, Vargas, Mayorga, Chavez twice etc amongst other quality has DelaHoya quite a bit in front of Mosley Captain......

It's all about opinions..

I like the idea, also.

captain, if you have a mind to draw up the requisite thread, with all the details, and instigate it, I'll make the thread a ' sticky ' so that we can continuously update it, just as you suggest.

It will stimulate lots of intelligent discussion and debate, I have no doubt.

Perhaps, if you do decide to do it, you'd let us know here, so that I can be alerted to the impending thread and can duly make it ' sticky.'

Windy, I'll give it a go. I'll start it now and see how we do.

Michael Nunn needs consideration also.......

I come from a very self-righteous religious hypocritical to a large extent Country and the fact that Curry has been in jail and that Honey is well known for being an a******e that liked getting different women pregnant is the kind of thing that could be held against them if they are viewed as borderline cases...

Much better to be a family man that screws around on the sly or big businessmen who are criminals but fund religious right campaigns..they are okay they are!!

just a thought!

Any chance of clearing up the stickies Windy? Like to be able to see at least the first two articles without scrolling, can't see any atm. The Manny/Floyd one hasn't been commented for ages. With search/bump functions not sure if stickies are that necessary.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Windy, I'll give it a go. I'll start it now and see how we do.

Thanks very much, captain. I'll keep my eye out.

Scottrf wrote:Any chance of clearing up the stickies Windy? Like to be able to see at least the first two articles without scrolling, can't see any atm. The Manny/Floyd one hasn't been commented for ages. With search/bump functions not sure if stickies are that necessary.

Was thinking the same thing, Scott.

Will get on it.

Cheers! Can't have you complaining you aren't busy enough!

Could be a while though Scott..Windy is still getting used to color television.

Scottrf wrote:Cheers! Can't have you complaining you aren't busy enough!

No, that would never do, mate.

Truss, old habits die hard. I have a colour TV, but ever since I discovered the joys of desaturation I am in seventh Heaven, since I can watch my beloved re runs in black and white.

Barrera, morales, Marquez, RJJ, Cotto, mosley, hopkins, mayweather & pacquiao are all active fighters that will eventually get in there. I'd question whether Cotto deserves a place on career merit - but then with the standards already set you'd have to say he does. IMO anyone caught using peds should be excluded, which means of this bunch RJJ and Mosley are no no's.

I suppose the fact i've used peds in the past has given me a non-too serious view on them in sport....Without hard work peds are useless and apart from helping you bulk/duiretics to get down...I can't really see the use of them in Boxing....

For sure Jones did wrong but should all his beautiful skill and victories be tainted......sure peds didn't help him beat Hoppo and Toney for me his standout showings..

Whatever their benefits Truss, and I don't know enough to comment with any expertise other than to say they must have some otherwise fighters would not take them. However for me the reasons those caught should be excluded are two fold. Firstly breaking the rules should carry a punishment sufficient to discourage their use, this is part of that.

Secondly it is already difficult to assess achievements across eras but the minimum we should be able to say is everyone is starting from a level playing field and as fighters in the past obviously did not have such advantages to compare their acheivements with guys who does could potentially put them at a disadvantage and for me to disadvantage those that played fair seems grossly unfair.

They do work...believe me....But probably more for a pressurising kind of fighter who uses his bulk more like a Qawi and even Holy...

Jones tended to box at a distance..

Still if the consensus is that he's a cheat and unworthy...

Then that's the consensus..

the HoF is a beauty contest and nothing more. Who gets more column inches gets in regardless of talent. Curry should deffo be in there as should Honey. Barry Mc should be outside looking in.

Beauty contest - Daniel Zaragoza???? explain that one away

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Beauty contest - Daniel Zaragoza???? explain that one away

Mexicans.

Excellent article Truss! Looking forward to the 606 HoF now. Just have to add to the consensus here that a zero tolerance policy on drugs is a must for the integrity of a HoF.

Wasn't the stuff RJJ took permitted by many other boxing authorities?

Was Lance Armstrong clean ???

Alright excluding Jones but what about all the Rollo tomaci's already in the hall.

azania wrote:Wasn't the stuff RJJ took permitted by many other boxing authorities?

Not by WADA though.

*Cue D4 to explain why WADA are actually rubbish*

Where is D4?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Was Lance Armstrong clean ???

Alright excluding Jones but what about all the Rollo tomaci's already in the hall.

Until there is a uniform ruling as to what is permitted, I'm surprised more boxers haven't been caught out. Apparently what he took was permitted in NYC and most other commissions but not nevada. It was also allowed in europe and still is. I cant recall 100% for sure though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Was Lance Armstrong clean ???

Alright excluding Jones but what about all the Rollo tomaci's already in the hall.

At least Armstrong never tested positive. Even if his legacy is starting to look suspect - until the day comes where he has been shown to have cheated, he must be accounted innocent.

Thing is - go back to the glory days of the sport and cheating and corruption was rife. Even the original sugarm,an has been alleged to have taken a dive (I don't buy it) but many opponents at the time certainly did - look at LaMotta. LaMotta threw a fight and is in. Do we put a ban on those fighters who were mob-controlled? If so, the Hall might get a bit small.

At least he never tested positive..

well that's alright then..

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Wasn't the stuff RJJ took permitted by many other boxing authorities?

Not by WADA though.

*Cue D4 to explain why WADA are actually rubbish*

That's why I believe all sports should come under WADA regimen.

With cycling its more a case of spot the innocent imo.

Absolutely..

I think once the 606 HoF thread is up and running the debate on who is worthy and who is not can spread to outside the ring aspects too, which would of course include those who've had brushes with the drug authorities, or should have.

"Or should have" enlighten us Slash..

Ox the only distinction I would make between the mob era guys is for me getting in bed with guys like that in order to secure you a title shot your talent deserves and you have earned but would otherwise be denied is different to taking something that is banned because you feel it will give you an advantage.

If someone had said to Jones or Toney if you don't take this you won't get a shot they could have mitigating circumstances but as that is not the case it is for me different

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:At least he never tested positive..

well that's alright then..

Well it is isn't it Truss?

I once lost in the nationals to a fighter who had previously tested positive and went on to test positive again. I knew him to be using at the time. He wasn't tested. Since that day I have hated doping in all its forms - but I don't blame him - I blame the authorities for not acting to test him more frequently and banning him.

In Armstrong's case - to our knowledge, he hasn't tested positive. Everyone (almost) who has testified against him have permanently tarnished names. If WADA or the various cycling committees wanted to prove him a cheat - they should have tested him more. To our knowledge they failed to do that.

Of course, we'll see what the federal investigation reveals. If it turns out that he is a chronic cheat, his legacy falls like a pack of cards. But it only falls then, not before.

Aha no specific cases in mind Truss, my knowledge is feeble to say the least, I meant that anyone who does know of cases like that would be able to raise the points for the forum to debate!

rowley wrote:Ox the only distinction I would make between the mob era guys is for me getting in bed with guys like that in order to secure you a title shot your talent deserves and you have earned but would otherwise be denied is different to taking something that is banned because you feel it will give you an advantage.

True - but Burley didn't lie with the mob and that enhances his legacy IMO.

Although you could say he lost big time. If he'd "played ball" he could have had his shot against sugar ray - a fight he does very well in IMO.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Wasn't the stuff RJJ took permitted by many other boxing authorities?

Not by WADA though.

*Cue D4 to explain why WADA are actually rubbish*

Apologies Oxy, getting confused between FDA and WADA

He tested positive for Andros which to my memory can be bought from over the counter meds. It also occurs naturally in the body. Could be wrong there. Some baseball player (McGuire I think) took it all the time openly as it was permitted.

I believe he took (RJJ) the andros in 2001 and in 2003 it was deemed illegal.

azania wrote:He tested positive for Andros which to my memory can be bought from over the counter meds. It also occurs naturally in the body. Could be wrong there. Some baseball player (McGuire I think) took it all the time openly as it was permitted.

I believe he took (RJJ) the andros in 2001 and in 2003 it was deemed illegal.

*Androstenedione.

OK Az, a quick overview of physiology for you.

EPO occurs naturally in the body. Its real name is erythropoietin and it stimulates red blood cell production. Produced by the kidney (and a little in the liver) it is one of the primary responses to prolonged hypoxia (long term low oxygen levels in blood). Taken as a performance enhancing drug it increases oxygen carrying capacity and thus athletic performance.

Androstenedione is produced in the body as an intermediate in the pathway of sex hormone production - which ends up producing testosterone. Biological functions of testosterone are varied, including the secondary sexual characteristics; but they also directly increase protein synthesis in muscle. Taken as a performance enhancing drug it causes muscle to become bigger and repair faster

The fact that it occurs naturally means nothing.

The fact that it could be bought over the counter means nothing. This especially - up till last year you could by miaow miaow over the counter - that doesn't make it good for you. Nor does it make it legal for athletes. Go into boots, walk down the pharmacy ailes and you are walking through lines of banned substances. If you are the champion - you have a duty to fight and stay clean. Ignorance is, unfortunately, no excuse. Furthermore - your words have the implication that because all commissions didn't ban it - it was OK. WADA banned it. The FDA and the american authorities took until 2004 to make it a controlled substance - but WADA had it on the banned list for some years previously. If you are an athlete the onus is upon you to remain clean. RJJ failed to do this.

The USADA have this to say on the subject:
The use of dietary/nutritional supplements is completely at the athlete's own risk, even if the supplements are 'approved' or 'verified.' If you take dietary/nutritional supplements you may test positive for a prohibited substance, which is not disclosed on the product label. This would result in a doping violation."

The drug was an anabolic steroid. I know RJJ is one of your heroes - and so you give him slack.

However you in the past have stated that in your eyes Manny is juicing and this detracts from his legacy. Manny hasn't tested positive.

Roy did test positive - but cos you like Roy - its OK?

Double standards and twisted logic az. On this, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Ox

Yep I am a RJJ fan. But if he was deliberately juicing, then there would be and should be a huge question mark over his head. The thing is that Andros were permitted in many sports and I believe the WBA/C/O all allowed it. Just the IBF didn't.

If he was under some BALCO like programme (SSM) then strip him of all titles and remove his name from the list of champions.

Andros has always been on the WADA list, it was illegal to sell over the counter in 2003, which is where my confusion on the matter began