The 606v2 Hall of Fame

First topic message reminder :

Inspired by Trussman's thread on the uselessness of the current Hall of Fame, I have decided that we should have our own, one that will be exclusive, elitist and in every way superior to the one at Canastota.

I propose the ground rules to be as follows:

We need founder members of our Hall - I propose 30 - whose position in boxing history almost all of us can agree on. The Hall should be open not just to fighters, but to trainers and anyone else whose contribution to the sport is of direct and compelling significance (ie not Stallone, but most certainly the Marquess of Queensberry).

The rules for acceptance by our board are simple. We vote and a successful candidate needs 75% of the vote or they do not get in. I suggest no longer than a week to decide on the initial thirty. No fighter can be considered unless retired for five years.

Once we have our initial 30, I suggest that we consider 5 per week, working our way in alphabetical order through the current Hall of Fame and sorting the wheat from the chaff to begin with. Again, 75% is required for admission, the results to be calculated at the end of a week (I suggest Monday to Sunday - result on the next Monday morning). Once we have done that, anyone can suggest a contender, as long as we don't end up considering more than 5 for one week. The insane and the p***-taking should have their votes struck out, by the way.

Let's be unashamedly elitist!

My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended to be as uncontroversial as possible, but we need to ensure that we have the right names, so we need as many votes as possible. Alternative suggestions are great, but let's think carefully, so we have a really good first list:

1) Daniel Mendoza, 2) The Marquess of Queensberry, 3) John L Sullivan 4) Bob Fitzsimmons 5) Sam Langford 6) Jack Johnson 7) Benny Leonard 8) Joe Gans 9) Ray Arcel 10) Harry Greb 11) Mickey Walker 12) Gene Tunney 13) Jack Dempsey 14) Henry Armstrong 15) Joe Louis 16) Sugar Ray Robinson 17) Ezzard Charles 18) Archie Moore 19) Willie Pep 20) Sandy Saddler 21) Eder Jofre 22) Muhammad Ali 23) Alexis Arguello 24) Roberto Duran 25) Carlos Monzon 26) Sugar Ray Leonard 27) Marvin Hagler) 28) Michael Spinks 29) Pernell Whitaker 30) Julio Cesar Chavez 31) Jimmy Wilde

Now for everyone else's contributions - is that a reasonable first 31?

[Current boxers under consideration: Sixto Escobar, Jackie Fields, Tiger Flowers, Frankie Genaro, Mike Gibbons
Next 5 candidates: Tommy Gibbons, George Godfrey, Young Griffo, Harry Harris, Len Harvey]

I think the difficulty is setting a benchmark, rather than a "x is in, therefore y should be".

Even over the first five fighters, I think many initially included Basilio and not Angott but in reality what is seperating them? Seems that if Basilio makes the cut, then Angott should really. And if Angott is left out, then so should Basilio?

Initially I thought of Angott as losing to most of his biggest rivals overall which would rule him out, at least first time. On the other hand I thought Basilio had a better record than he had in fact. But after revisiting Basilio I have to say he doesnt make it in on first count with hindsight.

I believe that there is a danger, though, in letting the record book, alone, be the adjudicator. Basilio's losses to both Gavilan and Robinson were far from clear cut, and in one of those cases many believe him to have been a victim of an injustice.

If we dismiss Basilio in this manner then we will need to do the same with his heavyweight twin, Joe Frazier, I would have thought, and for the life of me I can't envisage a HOF without Smokin' Joe.

Angotts losses to Williams were far from clear cut as well Windy, it's just trying to find the right balance and to some degree a boxers record is what defines them especially in the case of someone like Greb.

Once the benchmark is set it should be a lot easier to decide who gets in and who doesnt

I've voted for Angott's induction, Ghosty. Basilio also, though the collective views of those who have contributed have persuaded me to change my mind about Benitez.

I'm trying to persuade the others Windy

Also not sure if it's been brought up but is there a minimum % a fighter needs to receive in order to be eligible for future induction?

I don't believe it was discussed, Ghosty. I'm sure the captain will set a benchmark for it, though.

I hadn't come up with anything definite, Ghosty. The baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, on which I've based much of this exercise, needs 10% of available votes, I believe, to keep an individual on the slate for the next year (max ten years before you're either in or dropped for good). That seems a little too slight to me, and I would want at least a 25% score, I think, to indicate that it would be worthwhile to re-raise a candidate's name the following year. Not sure how that would seem to everyone else....

I'm not really too sure how to do it, it's up to the man who needs to get track of all the votes and that, was hard enough doing it for an 8 man tournament let alone a whole hall of fame. Would have said 50% myself that way it's not a majority decision one way or another if they get in

That would certainly emphasise the elite nature of what we're trying to do here, Ghosty. Fair enough, then, unless there are strenuous objections, we shall say that any fighter receiving at least 50%, but less than 75%, of votes cast, is entitled to have their case reviewed in the following calendar year. Anything less than 50% and the fighter is permanently eliminated from the shortlist.

Also Captain if you need any help keeping tabs on things just let me

Thanks Ghosty, I'm sure that I shall need regular confirmation of the maths at the very least, and a good deal more besides!

I'm increasingly excited about this project, which seems to me to be a really worthwhile use of the combined knowledge of contributors to this excellent site.

Not a problem Captain, thank you for a great platform for debate

We've seen some good debate already about two lesser known names, looking forward to next weeks 5 which should be very interesting and good to see a few have had their minds changed already

captain carrantuohil wrote:That would certainly emphasise the elite nature of what we're trying to do here, Ghosty. Fair enough, then, unless there are strenuous objections, we shall say that any fighter receiving at least 50%, but less than 75%, of votes cast, is entitled to have their case reviewed in the following calendar year. Anything less than 50% and the fighter is permanently eliminated from the shortlist.

Sounds good to me. I based the fighters i inducted on this but wasn't expecting the ones i didn't to need 50% of votes cast to have another pop. In that case i'm going to change my vote to ensure they at least have a chance to be inducted again.

There are going to be some cracking debates and whilst I fully agree with the setting the bar high I was watching Buchanan vs Laguna last night and did get me thinking about where to stand when Ken comes up for nomination soon. Watching Ken in the ring he is everything I think a great fighter should be, unbelievable stamina, sublime defensive skills, awesome timing and punch variety but his record at world title level unfortunately ain't all that. Appreciate he was damned unfortunate to run into perhaps the best lightweight of them all but run into him he did.

Every part of me wants to say yes for a guy like him but realises I should say no, some very interesting debates should come of this. As an aside will there be a facility to make a case for eligible guys who have thus far been excluded from the Hall, am thinking of Naseem in this who's current exclusion does not sit well with me.

Yes, I know, Jeff, believe me, trying to construct a valid case for Buchanan is exercising my thoughts quite a bit at the moment. It's very difficult...

I certainly intend to put Tommy Hearns' name up for consideration when we reach the H's - he has recently passed the 'five-year without fighting' threshold, and I think that we can assume that the Hall in Canastota will be adding him to their ranks at the first opportunity. Men like Curry and Hamed deserve to be considered too, but perhaps after we've dealt with all those moderns who are actually in the Hall first. We can then deal with any other deserving cases before moving on to the old-timers.

trying to construct a valid case for Buchanan is exercising my thoughts quite a bit at the moment. It's very difficult...
________________________________________________________

Make it a good one Captain as I am sure I am not alone in saying I would dearly love to see a situation where Ken was voted in, however based on those that have been excluded even this early in the game I fear he is up against it.

I'm easily convinced and already see Captains way of thinking

As they are near each other alphabetically is possible Burley and Buchanan could be up for election at the same time. I see a FIFA style voting scandal on the horizon.

They are indeed up for simultaneous election, Jeff. Next week's five will be Jack Kid Berg, Jimmy Bivins, Joe Brown, Ken Buchanan and Charley Burley, which will constitute as difficult a set of decisions as I could imagine. Very enjoyable, but very difficult to sort the elite wheat from the merely extremely good "chaff".

I shall be taking the Blatter approach of "see no evil, hear no evil", of course.

Windy posting the list of nominees the week before they are discussed is a great idea. Am sure I am not the only one who would welcome the opportunity to brush up on my knowledge of the nominees beforehand. Looks a decent list though on first examination, but there are a couple that should definitely stimulate some debate.

I have been reading over the comments and must say that I too, am slightly unsure of as to where to set the benchmark for this more exclusive Hall of Fame. There might be a danger of people setting drastically different standards.

Perhas in order to give me a rough idea, could there be a suggestion as to the target number of inductees perhaps?

Excluding non participants and pioneers, the current Hall of Fame has roughly 230 fighters split between modern and old timer. As the proposal seems to be to reduce this figure to a more exclusive set, what are peoples general opinion on how much this figure is to be reduced by? 20%? 50%?

I understand much of the point of this is to treat each fighters inclusion on their own merits rather than on a percentage basis. But I do feel just a rough idea of the kind of percentages we are talking about might be helpful to put everyone on the same page.

I say this because from reading through the comments there are a great many convincing arguments which each make perfect sense depending on the benchmark set.

There is absolutely no target number of inductees, CL. It's already clear that there is going to be a good deal of filleting that will be tantamount to self-selection - the Apostolis and to a lesser extent, Benvenutis of this world, have been fairly conclusively dealt with. I suspect, and this is a guess, that at least a third of the current Canastota Hall won't make our cut. It may even be as much as a half, although that would surprise me.

It is as we decide it, I suppose. As I've mentioned, the intention is that those who don't quite make it will get another chance in the future to have their case made. I hope that no-one would ever feel that they have to vote a particular way in order to fulfil some numerical criterion.

Well all things considered I will opt to vote for Angott and Basilios inclusion.

Benetiz misses out by a fraction. Its difficult to leave him out considering the great acheivements and top level wins he recorded at such a young age, but his lack of longetivity sees him miss out by a fraction.

Benvenuti appears to be a little underestimated here by some comments. His career perhaps suffers the classic symptons of not making the step up to world title level sooner. He was a fine fighter, and may have had an extended run as Light Middleweight champion had it not been for a very questionable loss to Ki Soo Kim. A fight which had it been held outside Korea would probably have gone his way. Griffith was by no means a finished fighter when Benvenuti beat him and if I remember rightly had recently recorded wins over top contenders Joey Archer and Dick Tiger.

I also believe that by the time Benvenuti got round to facing Griffith, Tiger and Monzon his own best work was behind him and he had been through a long career. Again, its a pity that he didnt make the step up to world level a bit sooner and it perhaps for this reason most of all I would leave him out. But he has a stronger argument I feel most are crediting him with.

I must admit, its a bit of a mystery how Aposteli gets into the Hall of Fame. A fine fighter in his own right but some way short of what one would think the HoF should aspire to. Perhaps a combination of good fortune the year he was a candidate and the fact he was a war hero wounded in battle (always helps) made for his inclusion. But certainly I could not make a case for him, especially in the context of a more elite Hall.

I'll keep it short and sweet.
Apostoli - NO
Angott - YES
Basilio - YES
Benitez - NO
Benvenuti - NO
Can't find much argument with the general feeling so far. Difficult to keep Benitez out being a favourite of mine, but I feel his record falls just short, by a whisker even.

Hmmm, I like the 30 but as it's an HOF you could make a case for a Mexican representative (so JCC in essence) as the impact Mexican boxers and the Mexican style of pugilism has had on the sport is immense.

The only other genuine contender I can think of who might deserve a spot in the opening 30 HOF places is Joe Frazier. Joe's fights alone with Ali did more for the sport than any other rivalry in the sports history and it's hardly as if the quality was low either!

I'm not sure who I'd drop from the 30, but personally I'd make space for JCC and Frazier.

My, this is good news. Welcome aboard, IJK. Very nice to see you here.

Many thanks for the input, IJK. I'm glad that you champion the cause of Chavez - I'm relieved that I did actually include him in the original 30 (listed number 30 in my intro).

Frazier, one of my all-time heroes, is an interesting one - I'm sure that he'll garner the necessary votes for inclusion in our Hall, but to me, he seems less nailed on in his own right than some of the others. Joe's record was formidable, but his greatness does derive, in some measure at least, from his association with Ali. Ali-Frazier is almost like a single word, worthy of a dictionary definition in its own right. Had he not fought Ali, we might be heretically questioning whether Joe belongs in the Hall at all.

Welcome aboard IJK

This could get interesting from now on especially with Angott and Basilio being in my opinion lower level hall of famers

The results for our first week of Hall of Fame elections are in and in all but one case, they are clear-cut.

We had 14 votes for the Hall over the past seven days - not bad, but a number that I hope will rise as the process continues. In consequence, we have elected the 32nd member of our hall of Fame. Carmen Basilio was overwhelmingly elected by 13 out of the 14 electors (manos wished to play devil's advocate, which was fair enough). Equally decisively, Fred Apostoli, Nino Benvenuti and, perhaps surprisingly, Wilfred Benitez were rejected for memebership, garnering only three votes in total between them (Benitez 2, Benvenuti 1, Apostoli 0). These numbers mean that Benitez, Benvenuti and Apostoli are permanently removed from the 606 slate and are now ineligible for membership.

The boxer who occasioned most debate was Sammy Angott. He gained 7 of the available 14 votes, a proportion which does not give him a place in our Hall, but which does allow his name to be debated again next year, should anyone wish to raise it for membership.

We therefore move to the next five names for consideration, who are Jack Kid Berg, Jimmy Bivins, Joe Brown, Ken Buchanan and Charley Burley.

Whitechapel's own Jack Kid Berg was a throwback fighter. Trained by Ray Arcel, he achieved his greatest results in the US, beating men such as Canzoneri, Petrolle and Kid Chocolate, and annexing the world light-welterweight title, although rarely more than a lightweight himself. As late as 1939, he was still beating men of the calibre of Tippy Larkin.

Jimmy Bivins was only recently elected to the Canastota Hall of Fame. He was one of the Black Murderers' Row of the 1940s, a collection of hugely talented fighters who were generally avoided by the title-holder of the day between 147 and 175 lbs. Bivins scored wins against men as great as Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore, but never did get his shot at the title.

Old Bones Brown was another of those great fighters who seemed to get better as he aged. Deep into his 30s, he was the lightweight champion of the world, turning back a string of young pretenders during his long reign. He is best known in this country for his two fights with Dave Charnley, notably the epic second which Brown won by the narrowest margin and which was named as the Ring's Fight of the Year.

As many of you will know, I find it extremely difficult to be objective about Ken Buchanan, my first boxing hero. To summarise, Ken was the undisputed lightweight champion of the world between 1970 and 1972, and is regarded as one of the greatest boxers ever produced by these islands. In around seventy contests, he only fought 3 times in his native Scotland. Instead, he topped the bill a record number of times at Madison Square Garden, beating men like Ismael Laguna and Carlos Ortiz, before running into, and losing controversially against, arguably the greatest lightweight of all.

Finally, to Charley Burley another great favourite of many on this board. The uncrowned king of many divisions, Burley took on and beat just about every big name in boxing between the late 30s and the early 50s. Virtually the only exceptions were Sugar Ray Robinson, who was never especially keen to cross swords with Charley, and Ezzard Charles, who took two clear decisions from Burley. Charley is routinely named as one of the two or three greatest fighters never to have won a world title, and was regarded by judges as sage as Archie Moore and Eddie Futch as the best fighter that they ever saw.

Those are your five for this week, folks. Rules are the same as usual - voting will end at midnight on Sunday 19th June, with results to be announced the following day. I shall make my own decisions after others have set the ball rolling.

Some belters up for consideration. Will get the obvious one out of the way straight away and shock absolutely nobody by saying Burley is an absolute racing cert for inclusion for me. Wins over world champions at three weights, welter, middle and light heavy including a complete domination of Archie Moore mark him out as something genuinely special. Was ranked in the top ten at welter or middle for a ten year period and whilst there is little footage left of him the testimonials of guys like Futch, Moore, Louis and Robinson are enough for me to have Burley as a top tier talent and a definite inclusion into our HOF.

Am going to give the nod to Berg as well, wins over the likes of Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Mushy Callahan, Petrolle and Tippy Larkin are all top tier and stand favourable comparison with most from these shores and for me are enough to give him a decent shout at inclusion.

As a massive fan of the black murderers row Bivins also has a strong claim for inclusion, wins over Burley. Lesnevich, Marshall, Charles, Soose and Yarosz mark him out as a very decent fighter however it should be noted that in the case of Charles this was one win in a series of reverses and he lost a good number of fights to Archie Moore and against some fighters not quite out of the top drawer such as Pastor and Lee Q Murray. Would dearly love to include Bivins but based on some of the guys who have already been excluded fear I may have to say no, with the caveat I am happy to be persuaded to vote otherwise.

As I know virtually nothing about Brown I will have to abstain from the voting on him as to do otherwise would probably do him a disservice.

Now we come to Ken Buchanan. Have just finished reading Ken’s biography and have to say nothing would give me greater pleasure than to include Ken as there is so much to admire about him as a fighter, watched the Laguna rematch the other night and Ken is an exceptional talent, sublime defensive skills, great stamina and a genuine willingness to fight anyone and anywhere often going overseas to fight. Would also add that whilst he probably loses to Duran anytime he was damned unlucky to lose his title in the manner he did and should certainly have been granted a rematch. However having the misfortune to run into an all time great does leave his title reign both a little brief and a little lacking in depth. Did have some decent wins after his title such as Ortiz and Watt but personally do not feel he has a compelling enough case to warrant inclusion over some who have already been excluded, unfortunately.

Bivins is an awfully difficult one.

Only a relative handful of amateur bouts, but good enough to win the Cleveland Golden Glove welter title and go on to be runner up in the national final at age eighteen. Turning pro in 1940, he had racked up wins over Burley as well as the ranked Bolden and Christoforidis by the end of his first year as a pro, earning a number nine ranking at middleweight. By the end of 1942 he had moved up to lightheavy, often giving away huge weight deficits, and had toppled five former world champions, ( earning himself a number one ranking at both lightheavy and heavyweight in the process, ) including Gus Lesnevich, whose manager afterward announced "We don't want to meet Bivins again, now or later, he is too good".

When America joined the war most titles were frozen and some newspaper began to create ' Duration, ' ( or ' war time ' ) titles and Bivins, having beaten a young Ezzard Charles along the way, beat Christoforidis for the lightheavyweight version. That's the closest he would get to taking a world title and, despite having fought a ' who's who ? ' of his day - including Joe Louis - his record against the true elite would be, understandably, chequered. Modern day historian Herb Goldman ranks Bivins eighth best lightheavy of all time, but this seems a little generous, to me.

A reluctant ' no ' from me for Bivins.

It is with even greater reluctance that I'd give the thumbs down to our own Ken Buchanan, who is one of the finest pure boxers of my lifetime, in my opinion. It's his misfortune to have shared the lightweight division with, perhaps, the greatest of them all at 135lb., Roberto Duran, much in the same way that Tendler had been unlucky to be a contemporary of Benny Leonard roughly half a century prior. I never tire from watching Buchanan against Laguna, nor from watching the Ortiz fight, but sentiment must bow to stone cold reason, I fear, and Buchanan misses out by a whisker.

Mercifully, the other candidates are more straightforward, in my estimation.

I never quite warmed to Joe Brown, but there's no arguing with his achievements. Berg and Burley are also nailed on certainties, for me, notwithstanding the anomaly that I'd rate Buchanan higher than Berg in an all time British list.

I'm open to persuasion, but my first instincts, then, are that Berg, Burley and Brown make the cut, while Bivins and Buchanan fall short by the slimmest of margins.

Looks like you may be up against it to persuade folk as to Ken's worthiness for induction Captain

I really must be a little less impetuous in offering my opinions. I've just taken the trouble to have a closer look at Brown's record and, in the cold light of day, I must change my mind straight away. Far too easy, when relying on memory alone, to recall his six year reign and overlook his win / loss ratio.

Thumbs down for ' Old Bones, ' then, with Berg and Burley being the only ones to make the cut.

I know, Jeff, and in my heart, I always suspected it.

However, that's not going to stop me from making a really good stab at persuasion!

The thing about Buchanan is that for a two-year period, he was beyond question the best lightweight in the world. For a further three years, he was arguably the number two. He never enjoyed the creature comforts of home, but convinced everyone across the pond that he was one of the real ones. American Boxing Writers made him their fighter of the year for 1970, after he'd not only won the title, but absolutely thrashed an up-and-coming welterweight called Donato Paduano. Thewins against Laguna (2), an admittedly old Ortiz, Navarro and Watt still look great from this distance. The loss to Duran is certainly not a matter for shame. Only the rather surprising, messy points defeat to Ishimatsu in Tokyo is hard to defend. Ken was a far better all-round fighter than the Japanese.

Perhaps the last word should rest with Duran, who was asked in 1979, just after embarking on his career as a welterweight, which opponent had impressed him most. Duran, who was something like 70-1 at the time, gave his answer unhesitatingly and in a one-word growl: "Buchanan."

I recognise the relative lack of longevity; I would just ask people to look at the quality. I acknowledge my bias, but for me, Ken is in. YES

I tried to assess Buchanan on his own merits, but I can't deny that comparisons with Berg began to enter my head. Jack's campaigns in America were the stuff of legend, particularly his incredible year of 1930. However, certain inescapable facts keep whistling past me - the wins against Canzoneri and Petrolle (like the efforts against Kid Chocolate) were great, but he did end up very much on the short side of fights against the two of them as well. His light-welter reign (not a category that was too well regarded at the time) was comparatively short. The two factors that lead me finally to reject Kid's candidacy are these: He was never regarded definitively as the best in his division and there are just too many losses on his record, sometimes heavy ones, during the period that he could be thought to have been in his prime. By a wafer-thin margin, Berg misses my cut. NO.

Let's deal with the easy one next: Burley is in for me. Just too good against too many great fighters not to be included. Only Ezzard Charles was clearly his master, and that's no disgrace. A certain YES.

Joe Brown was something of a marvel, really. A terrible start to his pro career and a lacklustre ending (more than half of his forty-odd losses came after he lost his title), but the guts of his career can't be ignored, in my opinion. The late 50s and early 60s may not have been a vintage time for lightweights, but Old Bones showed himself to be the acknowledged master at 135 for about six years. Men like Dupas, Charnley, Bud Smith and Zulueta are good victims during a notable reign, and I feel that I would be failing in my duty not to vote for his inclusion. Brown is a YES for me.

Jimmy Bivins may have been unlucky to have been around when so much talent was on show. On his night, he proved that he could beat the best around. However, I find it impossible to ignore that too often, it was not his night against the best in the business. Ultimately the margin of superiority established by Charles and Moore over Bivins, not to mention other losses to men such as Morrow, Murray and Bettina, was such that I can't regard Jimmy as an absolutely elite fighter. Would he ever have been champ, even in a fair world, with the company that he had to keep? I have to doubt it. For me, Bivins is a NO.

Thanks for keeping up the good work on this, captain.

Burley is an absolute must, for me, and I'm sure you can imagine why. Not much need to go in to detail there.

Would add that Bivins should be an automatic selection, too, although I think a fair few will disagree with me there. As I personally think he's a borderline top ten Light-Heavyweight of all time, and considering that Light-Heavyweight is arguably the strongest division of them all, I think his credentials speak for themselves.

'Old Bones' Brown gets a thumbs down from me. Superb technician, but his Lightweight reign doesn't impress me as much as those of certain other greats. Although he was a model of consistency in title bouts I can't ingore that he was very inconsistent outside of them, and wins over Charnley and Dupas don't quite warrant Hall of Fame status in 606v2 terms.

Can't find room for Buchanan either, much as I'd like to. I think Rowley hit the nail on the head that Ken just suffers from a little bit of a lack in depth, as well as longevity at the very, very highest level. It's not by much, but Buchanan has to miss out for me.

Berg is the most difficult call of the lot, for me. Again, like Windy, I rank him behind Buchanan in the all-time British stakes, however Berg has those eye-catching wins over Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate and Petrolle and, crucially, the fact that he was such a key figure in the history and development of the Light-Welterweight division which, along with Super-Featherweight, has been by far the best of boxing's 'extra' weight classes. Had it not been for Berg laying claim to the title and becoming such an attraction over in America while defending it, then it may have never been recognized, just as it wasn't in 1930 by any of the NYSAC or NBA prior to Berg beating Callahan.

Christ, I've changed my mind a couple of times just while writing that! I think, given that this Hall of Fame is all about being for the truly elite, I'm going to have to say a very painful no to Berg, much as it riles me to do so.

Cheers captain.

Changed my mind already and can find a place for Burley and Berg with Brown and Bivins missing out by a distance although may be able to be convinced of Buchanans inclusion

Do you have to be retired for at least 5 years to be eligible?...Good list though

PBF pretty much the plan is to go through those in the official HoF and see whether we agree with their inclusion as we are all pretty much in agreement there is some undeserving people in the Hall and it should be reserved for the elite.

Think we are going through 5 a week and if they get a 75% consensus they get in, anyone with 50% of votes will get revisited at a later date and when all that is done think the idea is to look at some guys not in who perhaps deserve consideration (Naz Curry etc)

PBF, yes you do; I would refer you to the other sticky which covers the whole thing in detail, including the current five candidates. This sticky is just confirmation of what our deliberations have produced so far.

Whatever you do decide, ghosty, you will give a final summary, won't you? I would hate to lose track of the final decision!

Of course Captain, just formulating my reasoning, don't like to rush these things

Have ammended my original vote on Bivins as covered in my later post.

BIVINS = YES

Im probably not as convinced of Burley as most others and cant help feel the "avoided" tag especially with regards Sugar Ray may have to some extent romantacised him. He has a standout win over Moore, but slightly less special for me as it came outsid Moores favoured LH division.

Losing records to Bivins, Charles, Marshall and a split series with his arch rival Williams dont make his inclusion quite as automatic as some others have and I feel hes probably closer to the likes of Bivins than to SRR in that regard.

However considering how highly he was regarded in the day, the fact nearly all his losses were to quality fighters and impressive stats like never having been stopped I think he makes the cut overall in my book. I just dont have it as it dead as cert as some and think there is a fair counter argument such as the ones that can be levelled at the likes of Bivins.

BURLEY = YES


Difficult really to assess Joe Brown I think. Definately a fighter if ever there was one which poses the question of how much emphasis you place on their career outside the championship years? The before and after of his title reign is pretty horrendous.

Ultimately despite having a solid and lengthy reign as Lightweight champion there just arent enough top quality wins in there to justifya place in a more exclusive Hall when you consider is was quite a weak period of lightweights and the rest of his career was so patchy.

JOE BROWN = NO

Ken Buchanan is a guy I would love to include but just cant really overall. The Ortiz win is just not much more than a name at that stage. The second Laguna fight was almost with a more or less past it fighter also. No denying he has good wins in there but not enough ultimately to warrant inclusion.

KEN BUCHANEN = NO

I imagine most people will give the nod to Berg, but he doesnt make the cut for me. The first half of his career is pretty hard to read into. I tend to assess him mainly on his championship years. He has some fine wins in there but I think ultimately falls down on consistency at what should be his peak years in the sport. He also comes off second best overall in his battle with Canzoneri and despite good wins (albeit close) over Kid Chocolate, he was very much the bigger man in those fights. Overall He just misses out for me.

JACK KID BERG = NO

I'll start by saying that Bivins was a top class operator who was unfortunate to be around at a stage where the light heavyweight division was at it's absolute best and there is no shame in ending up with a losing record during that time. All in all it seems a bit contradictory to include him but there is far too many quality wins on his record to overlook him and i'll imagine it will be something that I change my mind on frequently but right now it's a yes.

Burley simply put was the best of the black murderers row and despite being a significantly smaller man than his contemporaries still came out on top more often than not so it's a yes for him too.

Joe Brown was a fairly dominant champion who got the best of our very own Dave Charnley who himself was a top quality lightweight possibly only behind Welsh and Buchanan but other than those wins there's not enough to suggest he was an elite champion deserving of such high praise as the hall of fame dictates so it's a no for him.

I really would rather not make this choice but i'm going to have to initially rule Buchanan out although I will say a special case for his future consideration should be made. On the face of things he has one of the best records of any british boxer with wins over Ortiz, Laguna and Hernandez but there is the slight issue of each win coming at possibly an opportune time at the tail end of their careers, looking beyond that he beat top ranked fighter after top ranked fighter but regrettably i'm going to have say no.

Jack 'Kid' Berg is among the best british fighters of all time and almost for that alone it's going to be a definite yes

Bivins- YES
Burley- YES
Brown- NO
Buchanan- NO
Berg- YES

does this mean we get to consider sylvester stallone now? just when you think the real hall of fame couldnt get any worse!!!

Fellas, to preserve the integrity of this thread, I shall move the previous four comments to the other ' HOF ' thread.

Will leave them here for a few minutes so that everybody knows where they have gone.

( EDIT ) Done. Comment herewith referred to the moving of posts from the other ' HOF ' thread into this one.

Certainly not, cr, Have a look at my preamble, and you will see that Stallone is specifically excluded!

ha ha maybe not sly then but how about the other fella inducted ths week mr tyson? certainly should create some debate.

while i get annoyed with the tyson fans, and they generally know nothing about boxing other than tyson. i would say he is the most famous boxer to the general public other than ali. he brought great attention to boxing.

Think you are all being a bit harsh on Sly, have none of you seen "Stop or my mom will shoot"

We will certainly be considering him in due course, cr, although as his name comes a fair way down the alphabet, it's going to be a good few months before he's up as a candidate.

Just to reiterate, this week, we're examining the credentials of Jack Kid Berg, Jimmy Bivins, Joe Brown, Ken Buchanan and Charley Burley. Next week's quintet looks on paper to be one of the weaker ones and will comprise Miguel Canto, Orlando Canizales, Michael Carbajal, Jimmy Carter and Marcel Cerdan.

rowley wrote:Think you are all being a bit harsh on Sly, have none of you seen "Stop or my mom will shoot"

Hhhhhmmmmm, Rowley. Hhhhhmmmmm...Think Stallone was having his John Lennon-style 'lost weekend' episode with that one.