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]

sorry captain didnt realse they were the ones up for this week, perhaps if you update the main article at the bottom each week with the weeks candidates it will make it easier for people to see who's up rather than ploughing through pages to find out, just a idea

Good idea, cr, I'll do that.

Jack Kid Berg - A fair few decent wins in there, Kid Chocolate being the most notable. Showed guts to try and unify against Canzoneri, but unfortunately came up short and pretty much went slowly down-hill from there. Not enough longevity, for me. NO.

Jimmy Bivins - Took Joe Louis to 10 rounds, beat Charles, Moore and Maxim. Although I'd be happy to see him included, unfortunately I see his record as peppered with losses against the top level oppont sents of the day. Bivins being unfortunate enough to have 3 p4p top 10 ATGs in that day. NO

Joe Brown - Don't know a huge amount of Brown. Had an excellent reign atop his division, but seems a little Klitchko-esque. Also, went down-hill pretty quickly after his reign, as was the style at the time. NO

Burley - Excellent scalps, excellent praise, excellent technique. What's not to love? YES

Ken Buchanan - Fantastic to watch, fluid style and rhythm that only comes along once every so often. However, in boxing you're only as good as who you beat. By a whisker...NO

Berg and Burley....if one Burley...

Couldn't shine Carbajal and Canizales shoes though..

Don't forget to put Curry up sometime!!

Curry's going to appear, along with Hamed and other folk who so far haven't been elected to Canastota, after we get through the moderns who are in there. It did occur to me, though, how similar the career trajectories of Curry and Buchanan were, in some ways. Both clearly the best at bona fide weights for similar periods (Buchanan for 2 years, Curry closer to three), Curry got a rating as fighter of the year for 85, while the American Boxing Writers voted Buchanan as their fighter of the year for 70. Both took some notable scalps up to their world title defeats and some OK ones afterwards, but in the case of both there is a temptation to look back at what might have been.

Obviously I couldn't not put the case for Buchanan here, although I knew it was likely to be overruled by everyone else. I trust that you've got your best advocate's clothes on when we do consider Curry, Truss; I suspect you may need Perry Mason to help you.

Just been reading over the comments of others here. I see Burleys inclusion has been unanimous while the rest dont appear to have made the cut.

I voted for Burleys inclusion myself but I am kind of surprised so many people have him as basically an unquestioned inclusion to the point where its barely debateable.

With such limited footage available of him I pretty much based my decision on a combination of opinions of the day (which rate him highly) and his overall record.

But I didnt think it was such a straightforward decision, especially after ruling out Bivins (as most have) who holds a better list of wins overall and a much higher level of competition across several weights. I was tempted to not include Burley at one point considering I had decided "no" to Bivins inclusion. So just for some food for thought I listed my reasoning.

Part of my counter argument for Burley was based on his "avoidedness". Naturally it seems he was a who needs him fighter. Part the flip side of this is that he didnt face many of the top welter/middles of his day. We have no Garcia, Cochrane, Zale, Graziano, Robinson, LaMotta, Cerdan, Overlin (who was a withdrawal at one point) who were all top dogs at one point or another while Burley was around. Theres also an abscence of many of the top "contenders" of the day such as Al Hostak, Steve Belloise, Coley Welch and Jose Basora. Missing out on so many of these fighters, even if its not Burleys fault must surely hurt his claim?

The next thing is his record. There are probably 3 tiers to it in terms of quality of opposition. Top level, ranked contender/very good and other. Ignoring the "other" section which never really impacts heavily on a fighters rating, I would have top tier:

Holman Williams 3-3-1 (NC)
Archie Moore 1-0
Ezzard Charles 0-2
Jimmy Bivins 0-1
Lloyd Marshall 0-1

2nd tier:

Billy Soose 1-0
Jack Chase 3-0
Fritzie Zivic 2-1
Georgie Abrams draw
Jimmy Leto 1-1
Charley Williams 0-1
Billy Smith 2-0
Cocoa Kid 1-0-1
Joe Carter 1-0

His top tier record against the really top level guys he faced isnt all that impressive in an overall sense (4-7-1) although his win over Moore is impressive in itself. To add to his defence, aside from Williams, he was the smaller man in these fights usually giving away about 6lbs.

His 2nd tier wins against either ranked contenders or good opponents is much better (11-3-2) but these guys were very much the contender level of the day in comparison with the above names that Burley missed out on.

There is lack of footage available for Burley but in his favour he was held in high esteem duing his active years and other than a bad year in around 1942 where he came off second best against the likes of Williams, Charles and Marshall, he was consistently ranked highly by the ring without ever getting a title shot. This is largely what gave him the nod for me.

However 2 key things hurt him overall for me which prevents him becoming as automatic as others seem to have. The first is theres no denying he missed out on fighting a great many of the top guys back then who were the middleweight champions. Not fighting and beating these guys whether through no faut of his own I think still hurts him significantly in my view. One or two guys you can forgive but its literally about 5/6 top level champions and a further 3/4 top contenders of the day that he never faced or beat. Thats pretty significant. The second reason is that his record against the top tier guys or really elite opponents was lukewarm, which by extension means its hard to assume he would beat the top level guys that he missed out on overall.

Anyway its just something to ponder and I guess what Im really saying is that I dont think Burley is as surefire as hes made out to be. He seems to be something of a favoured son on here though but in the context of an elite HoF I think there is resonable counter argument to his place.

Probably haven't looked into it in the depth others have but will vote anyway.

Berg: Some top wins, but a losing record against his best opposition, and too inconsistent. Never the dominant champion of his division like you would say for most others. Would need more longevity to compensate for the lack of depth, but not far off.
Bivins: Toughest one. Arguable a divisional top 10 in a strong division, but didn't have a dominance over an era or consistency you perhaps want from such an elite HOF. However, I'll side with yes, due to the wins he has.
Brown: Doesn't have the names, competed in a weaker Lightweight era. Starling was comfortably too good and had mixed in better company, title reign doesn't have any greats on it.
Buchanan: No for some of the reasons already stated by others. Laguna/Ortiz wins were late. Overshadowed by Duran once he came onto the scene. Top boxer but another close no.
Burley: Moore named him as one of his two best opponents, number of great wins, often outweighed.

Berg NO, Bivins YES, Brown NO, Buchanan NO, Burley YES.

Tough ones this week.

Cocoa Kid would be top tier for me. But good points overall Manos. The guys he did lose to were mostly much bigger though. Charley was very much a Welterweight forced to compete at Middle due to avoidance/Zivic buying his contract and keeping him from the title etc. Lots of those moved to, or compete at Light Heavyweight or higher.

Manos will nail my colours to the mast and say when it comes to Charley I am not the most balanced of guys to be offering an opinion as he is a definite favourite of mine but to address your well reasoned points think the main thing to bear in mind is Charley was a guy who could fight at welter, often competed at middle and in all reality by modern standards was probably a light middle, now whilst a lot has changed in boxing the light heavyweight upper weight has not it was 175 then and is now.

Now if we accept Charley is a natrual light middle which his in ring weights seems to suggest he would be fighting guys natural at a division 21 pound north of him. With this in mind as most of the guys you have classed as his top tier such as Moore, Charles, Bivins and Marshall were all very much light heavies and great ones at that (you only have to look at the light heavy thread to see most have two of them at 1 and 2 and the other two are troubling the top 20) and it is understandable that his form was perhaps a little patchy. Is also worth noting that in the one fight he had in that series when the weights were a little nearer, catching Archie in his more natural middle days he won, and by some margin according to most accounts.

Whilst it is unfortunate the opportunities did not come at his more natural weights and obviously this is speculation I would have to guess his results would have been a damned sight more impressive. For me we have to ask ourselves sensibly how do we feel Mike MCcallum, who most would consider to be a very decent light middle would have fared were he thrown in with the likes of Bob Foster or Mike Spinks which is in effect what Charley was attempting to do when competing in what is considered a golden age for the light heavyweight division

When does this run from, Monday to Monday?

Monday morning to midnight Sunday, GG.

As ever, Manos, in your role as the presiding hanging judge, you make some excellent points. By my reckoning, Charley never did beat Ezz, either. I perhaps have been guilty of almost sleep-walking Charley into our Hall. However, I also found it instructive that men of the calibre of Futch and Moore were adamant that he was just about the best that they'd ever seen or faced. He remains in my list, but not by the extremely clear margin that I'd first imagined.

Thanks Captain, will need to do a bit research on one or two first.

Interesting points Manos but I just can't not include Burley, the best of the BMR and the smallest of the lot too, he may have losing records to the light heavyweight lot but just being able to compete against those guys and never once being stopped is testament to the guys ability.

Would also add that Zivic, Cocoa Kid and Chase would be top tier fighters, Welterweight to Light Heavyweight was more talent stacked than it's ever been during that period, most of whom would have dominated at any other time

captain carrantuohil wrote:Monday morning to midnight Sunday, GG.

As ever, Manos, in your role as the presiding hanging judge, you make some excellent points. By my reckoning, Charley never did beat Ezz, either. I perhaps have been guilty of almost sleep-walking Charley into our Hall. However, I also found it instructive that men of the calibre of Futch and Moore were adamant that he was just about the best that they'd ever seen or faced. He remains in my list, but not by the extremely clear margin that I'd first imagined.

Yeas you are right he doesnt hold a win over Charles. Have edited accordingly.

I agree overall that he makes the cut but relatively narrowly for me, especially as Bivins just misses out.

rowley wrote:Manos will nail my colours to the mast and say when it comes to Charley I am not the most balanced of guys to be offering an opinion as he is a definite favourite of mine but to address your well reasoned points think the main thing to bear in mind is Charley was a guy who could fight at welter, often competed at middle and in all reality by modern standards was probably a light middle, now whilst a lot has changed in boxing the light heavyweight upper weight has not it was 175 then and is now.

Now if we accept Charley is a natrual light middle which his in ring weights seems to suggest he would be fighting guys natural at a division 21 pound north of him. With this in mind as most of the guys you have classed as his top tier such as Moore, Charles, Bivins and Marshall were all very much light heavies and great ones at that (you only have to look at the light heavy thread to see most have two of them at 1 and 2 and the other two are troubling the top 20) and it is understandable that his form was perhaps a little patchy. Is also worth noting that in the one fight he had in that series when the weights were a little nearer, catching Archie in his more natural middle days he won, and by some margin according to most accounts.

Whilst it is unfortunate the opportunities did not come at his more natural weights and obviously this is speculation I would have to guess his results would have been a damned sight more impressive. For me we have to ask ourselves sensibly how do we feel Mike MCcallum, who most would consider to be a very decent light middle would have fared were he thrown in with the likes of Bob Foster or Mike Spinks which is in effect what Charley was attempting to do when competing in what is considered a golden age for the light heavyweight division

I agree that in other circumstances Burley could have had an extended career at WW. But again just for some balance of the top WWs he did face of the time he was only 1-1 with Leto, 2-1 with Zivic, 1-0 with Cocoa Kid and 1-1 with Holman Williams (in the 2 fights they had around the WW limit). And missed out on Sugar Ray, Hank, and Garcia who were probably a step up again (notwithstanding Zivic seeming to have Hanks number). Its good, but not really outstanding as it includes losses to Leto, Williams and Zivic who were not really premier Welters in an all time sense.

With regards the top tier fighters I listed he was certainly the smaller man against all bar Williams. But I dont think at the time he faced Marshall or Charles they were much bigger than Moore was. They were all pretty much on the MW limit outweighing Burley by about 6 lbs. Charles was still ranked at MW at the time and it was only really after Burley he moved up to LH.

For me, Burley is obviously unlucky in the opportunities he got. But there is alot of "coulda/woulda/shoulda" and "ifs and buts" with him. It seems he is may be a victim of circumstances but this applies to the likes of Bivins or Buchanen also. Burley was unlucky not to get the fights, Buchanen was unlucky to run into Duran at his peak, Bivins unlucky to exist in the golden era of LHs etc. Its all circumstantial and happens to every fighter to some extent.

When you miss out on so many top names across 2 divisions like (in some shape or form): Armstrong, Garcia, Cochrane, Robinson, Zale, Graziano, Overlin, LaMotta, Cerdan plus a host of top contenders then it has to have an impact. It becomes specualtion rather than fact on how he would have fared against these guys and again his record against the very top guys doesnt make victory a given.

I think his paper record coupled with his rankings in the times are sufficient to see him through. But its narrow rather than wide for me. I think to have him an automatic shoe in is giving him quite a large pass and being generous with speculation as to what might have been. In the absolute cold light of day he actually beat comparitively very few top level guys considering who was operating at the time. I appreciate you think that not getting these opportunities cost him in terms of legacy but there is also a danger on being too generous with what might have been rather than looking at what actually was.

Again in his defence the loss to Zivic was when he was fairly inexperienced and most newspapers at the time considered it very controversial. The second two wins were far from controversial and fairly clear in his favour. Would also have to say the weight thing is a little misleading, if a guy knows he is fighting a gut bigger than him and he is not required to make a lower limit stands to reason to me he would come in closer to the higher weight, whether he is more effective at this weight or would carry it at his best is debatable.

You are probably right that the margin of his inclusion is not as clear as many would say but as I said previously I am not best placed to be totally objective on the topic of Burley and for me the testimonials of those who saw him and the chances, which I concede are specualtion in some of the fights he may have got do give him the nod, because whilst Robbo would potentially have been a bridge too far I would have backed him against Armstrong at welter, where he was not at his best,a chance only injury denied him and also would have given him a chance against a lot of those middles such as Zale and Graziano and would have absolutely backed him to beat LaMotta who openly acknoweldged he struggled with guys who were cute defensively, which Burley certainly was.

Burley might have weighed above the Welterweight limit but that was still very much his natural weight and one he would have been able to make were there the fights available. Much like the rest of the BMR he was a 'who needs him' kind of guy and was thus avoided by every champion, there is a lot of romanticism about the BMR but it's undeniable that they were avoided during there careers because they were too damm good. Charles and Moore who weren't considered BMR fighters had to go to fairly extreme lengths to get their shots, one of the greatest tragedys in boxing history for me.

Some very interesting points for and against each fighter. Im still grappling with where to set the bar for this more exclusive HoF to some extent. It would seem very exclusive indeed if the quality fighters like Burley, Bivins and Berg were to miss out.

Looking at the two Murderers row fighters first there have been a number of arguments against their inclusion. I must say I feel somewhat compelled to offer a defence. I think its only fair to make allowances for the circumstances of the time and just what these fighters were up against. They often had to take fights at short notice with little rest in between bouts and faced a very high level of competition consistently. Burley for instance was beaten twice by Charles but these two bouts were only a couple of weeks spaced apart either side of another tough bout with Holman Williams. Far from ideal.

Bivins may have come off second best to the two standout Light heavyweights Moore and Charles overall. Certainly no shame in that and he gave a good account of himself. He pretty much beat everyone there was to beat at Light heavyweight at one stage or another in probably the single finest era of the division so I find it hard not to include him even if arrives in somewhat in the shadows of Moore and Charles.

Berg is one of Britains finest fighters and I am slightly surprised to see so many voting against his inclusion. I think people seem to be writing him off a bit on the basis of not having enough longetivity, but its worth remembering he was still an 80 odd fight veteran when he first beat Canzoneri despite his young age and he was little more than a teenager when he recorded wins over Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Mushy Callaghan and Billy Petrolle. Despite a more patchy run after losing his title, he was still good enouh to manage to beat Tippy Larkin almost a decade later. He was also a big draw either side of the pond. I believe he deserves his place.

As many have mentioned already, Joe Brown is an odd sort of a fighter. A horribly inconsistent career but in his defence he was ultimately very consistent whe at his peak at the top. He was long reigning and made plenty of defenses despite his relatively old age. I would be tempted to include him as I would use the run up and championship years as the primary basis and tend to ignore alot of what followed as primarily a case of a fighter overstaying his welcome in the game. However the lack of top names in the division at the time means ultimately he just misses out.

I cant find a place for Buchanen either who is linked back to Joe Brown by Carlos Ortiz. With really just 2 years at the top he lacks longetivity and one also has to consider that the likes of Ortiz, Laguna and Hernandez were very much in their twighlight years. For me he is the most cut and dried of the lot. I just cant find room for him.

So overall:

Berg - yes
Bivins - yes
Brown - no
Buchanen - no
Burley - yes

The recent post from Colonial Lion aswell as discussing the MR on another thread lead me to revisit Jimmy Bivins there. Initially I had him just missing out. The reason being his overall record against the top guys was mixed and he was distantly third to Charles and Moore at Lightheavy. But on reflection and looking at his record and reading further on him I feel compelled to change my mind and offer an argument in favour of his inclusion, especially as he looks set to miss out - perhaps even on a second ballot.

I think the key with Bivins is to look at him during him peak years rather than get too carried away with his overall record or record against Moore/Charles as I had done initially.

His peak years are between 1942- early 1946. Almost a 4 year stretch. During this time it actually becomes apparent that he was the best Lightheavy in the world by some stretch and was simply a champion without a title(much like Charles after). To illustrate, his record over this stretch, which includes bouts at heavyweight, is an amazing 25-1-1 and involves:

Billy Soose: 1-0
Gus Lesnevitch: 1-0
Bob Pastor: 1-1
Joey Maxim: 1-0
Lee Savold: 1-0
Ezzard Charles: 1-0
Anton Christoforidas: 1-0
Tami Maurellio: 2-0
Curtis Sheppard: 1-0
Lloyd Marshall: 1-0
Melio Bettina: 1-0-1
Lee Q Murray: 2-0
Archie Moore: 1-0

All of these guys were top rated by the ring magazine during this period. Bivins himself was rated number one challenger to both lightheavyweight and heavyweight champions Joe Louis and Gus Lesnevitch during this period which is again remarkeable. Its also worth considering that Gus Lesnevitch was the light heavyweight champion during this stretch and lost a non title bout to Bivins as well as losing to many of Bivins victims. However the above record indicates to me that there can be no bout that Bivins was the top light heavy in this period as that record proves beyond reasonable doubt. Had he actually been in the history books as holding the title then it would scream out as a quality reign rather than being buried away.

Even before these "peak" years, Bivins had as a relative novice scored wins over the likes of Burley, Yarosz and Christoforidas and most of his losses were to full blown heavyweights who had outweighed him by 25 lbs.

Its only in 1946 that Bivins remarkeable run is brought to an end at heavyweight where he drops a SD to Jersey Joe Walcott. After that his record becomes very patchy at the top level and he tends to come off second best to the top level guys. But by this stage arguably he was past his best and its worth considering many of the bouts happen up at heavyweight. However the likes of Charles also suffered from a patchy end to his career without to much bearing on him overall. However with Charles, the decline was easy to spot and he fell from top level extraordinarily fast. What cripples Bivins is that he actually stays reasonably competitive past his best years which puts a worse spin on his record because unlike Charles he stills operates at the top level and thus accumulates more top level defeats which harm his record and legacy. Charles on the other hand fell out of sight so quickly that it was ovious he was past his best depite being reasonably young at the time. Bivins was much less obvious. One has to wonder if Bivins had gone out the same way as Charles (i.e in more obvious and spectacular fashion) then people would be less inclined to attach too much weight to these losses.

However ultimately I think his early career, especially between 1942-1945 is outstanding and definate HoF material in itself. I would encourage people to consider it. Its also worth considering that maybe he was past best after this and the accumulation of losses is down to decline rather than lack of quality.

Just some food for thought really. I have ammended my original vote to include Bivins.

And so we come to the results for week 2, which featured a significant piece of mind-changing by manos right at the end. By altering his vote in favour of Jimmy Bivins, he ensured that Bivins finished with an acceptance rate of 50%, which means that he will be eligible for re-consideration next year. That same figure of 50% was earned by Jack Kid Berg, and he will also be back under the microscope in 2012.

The other three candidates received more clear-cut results. Both Joe Brown and Ken Buchanan received just a single vote each and are consequently eliminated from our Hall of Fame slate. On the other hand, acclaim for Charley Burley was unanimous. The first 100% vote in his favour guarantees Charley the 33rd place in the 606 v2 Hall of Fame.

We therefore move into the third week of deliberation. On the face of it, a slightly less stellar list of candidates awaits us both this and next week, but that should still occasion plenty of debate, I would hope. A hard core of ten participated in week 2 voting - thanks so much to everyone for that, but let's see if we can't get more people involved in expressing their opinions.

This week's candidates are headed by Miguel Canto, a most unusual Mexican fighter. I say unusual, because he could barely punch a hole in a pat of butter, but through sheer boxing virtuosity, won a version of the world flyweight title, defended it a division record 14 times and by the finish of his reign, was acclaimed as the dominant 112 lb man of his generation.

Orlando Canizales, our second candidate, was another long-reigning title holder. His IBF bantamweight title was put at hazard on a division-record 16 occasions, during which time, Canizales became particularly well known in this country for his two fights with Billy Hardy.

Michael Carbajal was a fixture at the top of the light-flyweight tree for almost a decade. A three-time belt holder, he engaged in a memorable trilogy against his fine contemporary Humberto Gonzalez, KOing the Mexican in their first war, but being outsmarted in their two subsequent contests.

Jimmy Carter was another fine lightweight champion of the 1950s, taking the title from the ageing Ike Williams. Carter's title reign was a strange one, inasmuch as he twice lost the crown in fights that were rated as "Upsets of the Year", to Lauro Salas and Paddy DeMarco. However, in each case, he quickly regained the title, before finally losing the crown for good to Bud Smith.

Finally, we come to the charismatic French-Algerian, Marcel Cerdan. Regarded as one of the greatest European fighters of all time, Cerdan seemed to have the world at his feet when defeating Tony Zale for the world middleweight title. However, in his first defence against Jake LaMotta, he dislocated his shoulder early in the fight, fought on, but was stopped in ten. En route to a return bout with the new champion, Cerdan's plane crashed in the Azores, killing all on board.

That's the new quintet, folks. Sunday the 26th June at midnight is your deadline for votes for these fighters; I shall put up next week's group in the introductory thread.

manos de piedra wrote:The recent post from Colonial Lion aswell as discussing the MR on another thread lead me to revisit Jimmy Bivins there. Initially I had him just missing out. The reason being his overall record against the top guys was mixed and he was distantly third to Charles and Moore at Lightheavy. But on reflection and looking at his record and reading further on him I feel compelled to change my mind and offer an argument in favour of his inclusion, especially as he looks set to miss out - perhaps even on a second ballot.

I think the key with Bivins is to look at him during him peak years rather than get too carried away with his overall record or record against Moore/Charles as I had done initially.

His peak years are between 1942- early 1946. Almost a 4 year stretch. During this time it actually becomes apparent that he was the best Lightheavy in the world by some stretch and was simply a champion without a title(much like Charles after). To illustrate, his record over this stretch, which includes bouts at heavyweight, is an amazing 25-1-1 and involves:

Billy Soose: 1-0
Gus Lesnevitch: 1-0
Bob Pastor: 1-1
Joey Maxim: 1-0
Lee Savold: 1-0
Ezzard Charles: 1-0
Anton Christoforidas: 1-0
Tami Maurellio: 2-0
Curtis Sheppard: 1-0
Lloyd Marshall: 1-0
Melio Bettina: 1-0-1
Lee Q Murray: 2-0
Archie Moore: 1-0

All of these guys were top rated by the ring magazine during this period. Bivins himself was rated number one challenger to both lightheavyweight and heavyweight champions Joe Louis and Gus Lesnevitch during this period which is again remarkeable. Its also worth considering that Gus Lesnevitch was the light heavyweight champion during this stretch and lost a non title bout to Bivins as well as losing to many of Bivins victims. However the above record indicates to me that there can be no bout that Bivins was the top light heavy in this period as that record proves beyond reasonable doubt. Had he actually been in the history books as holding the title then it would scream out as a quality reign rather than being buried away.

Even before these "peak" years, Bivins had as a relative novice scored wins over the likes of Burley, Yarosz and Christoforidas and most of his losses were to full blown heavyweights who had outweighed him by 25 lbs.

Its only in 1946 that Bivins remarkeable run is brought to an end at heavyweight where he drops a SD to Jersey Joe Walcott. After that his record becomes very patchy at the top level and he tends to come off second best to the top level guys. But by this stage arguably he was past his best and its worth considering many of the bouts happen up at heavyweight. However the likes of Charles also suffered from a patchy end to his career without to much bearing on him overall. However with Charles, the decline was easy to spot and he fell from top level extraordinarily fast. What cripples Bivins is that he actually stays reasonably competitive past his best years which puts a worse spin on his record because unlike Charles he stills operates at the top level and thus accumulates more top level defeats which harm his record and legacy. Charles on the other hand fell out of sight so quickly that it was ovious he was past his best depite being reasonably young at the time. Bivins was much less obvious. One has to wonder if Bivins had gone out the same way as Charles (i.e in more obvious and spectacular fashion) then people would be less inclined to attach too much weight to these losses.

However ultimately I think his early career, especially between 1942-1945 is outstanding and definate HoF material in itself. I would encourage people to consider it. Its also worth considering that maybe he was past best after this and the accumulation of losses is down to decline rather than lack of quality.

Just some food for thought really. I have ammended my original vote to include Bivins.

I couldnt agree more with this. Bivins was a quality fighter who for a number of years was the best in the light heavyweight division at a time when there was serious quality stacked in it. Not even Charles or Moore managed to beat Bivins in those peak years and he is truly a fighter that beat almost every noteworthy lightheavy in a golden era of light heavyweights. Its unfortunate he is something of a forgotten man now because he should have had a long reign as champion. He tends to get hidden in the shadow of Moore and Charles who came to prominance after and he lacked Moores longetivity and staying power to hang around for a title shot or Charles ability to impact at heavyweight. But this should not overshadow a wonderful career when he was at the top of his game.

Normally I like to wait for a few comments to gauge a kind of benchmark before I make up my mind and give verdict but this latest batch is more straightforward to me.

I remember Miguel Canto as a fine fighter but not worthy of a place in the end. His title reign began in impressive fashion as he beat the top flyweights but the WBC/WBA split ended up meaning Canto never faced some noteable divisional rivals such as Erbito Salavaria and Guty Espadas.

Orlando Canizales is a definate no. Long reigning, but a protected fighter in many ways who feasted off lower quality and unranked opposition. He never even cemented his place as the best bantamweight of his time with any real authority and has few quality wins at the weight. I would be hesistant to include him in the old Hall of Fame never mind a more exclusive one.

Michale Carbajal is another fighter that had good longetivity but just didnt do enough to cement a place. His 2-1 loss to Gonzales hurts his claim as they were probably the two best light flyweights of the time, and outside of that there just isnt enough quality wins to be worthy of a place.

Jimmy Carter was far too inconsistent at the top level to justify a placing. The era itself was not one of the better ones for the traditionally strong lightweight division and within it Carter was just too patchy. Some very fine performances but also too many inexcuseable defeats to merit consideration.

Marcel Cerdan is the only one I really have to grapple with. He was a very fine fighter indeed but somewhat similar to the previously discussed Nino Benvenuti, he left it somewhat late to emerge on the biggest stage - even withstanding his career was tragically cut short. He was all of 30 years old before he even captured the European title. I dont place too much stock in the loss to LaMotta as it was down to injury more than anything else and his wins over Zale and Turpin prior to that better reflect his quality. I can see arguments both ways for Cerdan but my instinct is to include him as he has almost no inexcuseable defeats on his record and was a top quality fighter.

So to conclude:

Cerdan: Yes
Carbajal: No
Carter: No
Canto: No
Canizales: No

Top of the morning to you, captain.

Canto deserves his place for me, as would any other fighter who makes an all-time top five / six in one of the original eight weight classes. One of the great Mexicans and a nailed-on inclusion in my eyes. YES.

Canizales is a real borderline one for me, and like some of the others who have gone before, I'm likely to change my mind at least once just while I'm writing this! A long reign, but no unification in a title reign in which there were three or four belts available counts against him a little. I'd have him as a borderline top ten Bantamweight, but like Joe Brown (who is the equivalent at 135 lb) I think I'd have to have Canizales just missing out by a small margin. NO

Carbajal doesn't make the cut. Granted, he was a massive factor in the Light-Flyweight division earning credibility after an uncertain start, but it's still a division which I don't care for all that much, historically speaking. Being edged out by his nearest rival over their series makes it official, for me. NO.

Carter, likewise, misses out. Too patchy a record at the very highest level to mix it with the people who I'd consider Hall of Fame-worthy, and I can't shake the feeling that he simply caught Williams at the right time, reportedly having to shed 21 lb in the three weeks before the bout. As you mention, he failed to establish himself as a truly dominant champion afterwards, too. NO.

Though I suspect I'll be in the minority here, I've got to give Cerdan a shake of the head, too. I would add, though, that he's unlucky to miss out. As you know, two of his four defeats were by disqualification, one by a controversial decision and one on that shoulder injury against La Motta - he was never decisively beaten. Add in the fact that World War Two probably cost him the chance to become a world champion sooner and I'll concede that he's an unfortunate case. But ultimately I don't see enough fights against the top, top men of his era to justify a place for him. NO.

Cheers captain.

Will go into detail about the others when I get home and time permits me to give them the research and proper consideration they deserve but have to come down on the side of a no for Cerdan. A terrific fighter with some decent wins such as Zale but whilst the loss against La Motta was mainly due to injury and he was obviously damned unfortunate not to get the chance to avenge it, as somone never really convinced by the Raging Bull it has to count as a black mark against him and due to the war and his untimely death it does leave his ledger looking a bit thin. Whilst his talent is worthy of a place his overall record is probably no greater than others that have been excluded so for me it is a relucant no.

On the face of it, Canizales and Canto are cut from the same cloth - both made a vast number of defences and both reigned for ages in an era where more than one recognised champion was the norm. However, the similarities end there. Canto was a boxing genius, whose victims included men such as Oguma and Avelar, who would reign as WBC champion after Canto had finished, as well as hugely respected foes such as Martin Vargas (twice). Moreover, when Betulio Gonzalez, a former Canto victim, won the WBA crown in 1978, it was universally accepted that Canto was the number one flyweight of his day, just about the last 112-pounder to be able to make that claim. Only Guty Espadas, of the top men of his time, is missing from the Canto resume, and I firmly believe that this much-underrated Mexican has a claim to be among the top ten flyweights of all time. For me, Canto is a YES.

Canizales, on the other hand, is an equally clear no. Protected, sometimes fortunate (as in Hardy I) and at no stage clearly the best 118 lb man of his day, his record seems full of holes. The only one of his victims to accomplish much after fighting Canizales was Bones Adams, who took a piece of the super-bantam title some time later. To me, it is instructive that among his contemporaries as a bantamweight belt holder were men such as Wilfredo Vazquez and Junior Jones, themselves no Hall of Famers. Both were to beat Canizales in bouts for belts at 122 and it is entirely possible that they would have managed similar results if they had met Orlando at 118. For me, and quite clearly, Canizales is a NO.

Michael Carbajal probably has better H of F credentials than Canizales, but that doesn't mean that I think he belongs in ours. He deserves great credit for longevity at light-fly, his wins against Gonzalez, Cob Castro and Arce are especially smart, and he was always good value to watch. However, the log against Gonzalez is against him, and there is little excuse for losing to the pint-sized Jake Matlala for anyone with pretensions to the Hall of Fame. For me, Carbajal is a NO.

Jimmy Carter is one of those 1950s lightweights who was never able to establish real dominance over the division between the heydays of Ike Williams and Joe Brown. We have already dismissed the claims of Brown, who was a much superior operator to Carter. Carter's absurd inconsistency, even during his title reign, weighs heavily against him. He is evidently not of the true elite and is consequently a NO.

Marcel Cerdan is clearly a European great, but war denied him the chance to make a proper mark on the world. That might seem a strange thing to say about someone with a 111-4 record, but I believe it to be true. His great wins are against Holman Williams and an ageing Zale; he also won and lost against the useful Delannoit, beat Randy Turpin's OK elder brother Dick and lost in inconclusive circumstances to La Motta. Those are the top ledger fights, basically, and while they don't tell the full story, neither can the relative absence of great names be entirely overlooked. It wasn't Marcel's fault, but he never really did get the chance to prove the true greatness that I'm sure he possessed, and we can't elect people to the H of F on what ifs. With reluctance, I regard Cerdan as a NO.

I think I will have to give it a clean sweep of No for these guys.

Cerdan and Canto have decent arguments but regards Canto, I have always had a kind of bias against the flyweights and below as it is just so niche. Comparitively few fighters can get down to those weights so I always question the overall quality and depth in the division.

Cerdan is a guy I would like to include but just doesnt have the depth overall. I agree with the concensus that he was unfortunate in many ways but there just isnt enough to include him despite him possibly being good enough to get in if circumstances were different.

The other 3 dont have particularly strong arguments for an exclusive HoF an are kind of the guys I belive the new HoF was designed to catch in the filter.

Clean sweep of No's then.

Can only find an argument to include Canto who at the moment i'll give a yes but the others will have to be a definite no

The only one who has presented me with any difficulty in making up my mind is Cerdan. As far as the others are concerned, I'd give the thumbs up to Canto but not to any of the others.

Cerdan is infuriatingly difficult. If induction were based purely on ability he'd be home and dry, for me, and his record statistics are also mightily impressive. It's the lack of depth which lets him down, of course. I'd love to say ' yes,' since I find him exhilarating to watch and have always believed him to be somewhere in or around the top ten middles of all time, but there's a little voice whispering in my ear to remind me that I voted ' no ' for Ken Buchanan, and there is a man who would be an automatic choice, were it merely a question of ability.

Once again, emotion must bow to reason and, though I don't like it one little bit, I'm going to say ' no ' to Cerdan.

Only Canto, then, for me.

Canto and Cerdan....

Great topic and my lack of votes is because I am struggling to form an opinion on some of the fighters due to a shameful lack of knowledge. I am however learning a Great deal from reading the very informative posts and opinions of the members in this topic - so I am learning.

My Yes votes on the fighters I know goto Marcel Cerdan, Michael Carbajal and Orlando Canizales.

captain carrantuohil wrote:On the face of it, Canizales and Canto are cut from the same cloth - both made a vast number of defences and both reigned for ages in an era where more than one recognised champion was the norm. However, the similarities end there. Canto was a boxing genius, whose victims included men such as Oguma and Avelar, who would reign as WBC champion after Canto had finished, as well as hugely respected foes such as Martin Vargas (twice). Moreover, when Betulio Gonzalez, a former Canto victim, won the WBA crown in 1978, it was universally accepted that Canto was the number one flyweight of his day, just about the last 112-pounder to be able to make that claim. Only Guty Espadas, of the top men of his time, is missing from the Canto resume, and I firmly believe that this much-underrated Mexican has a claim to be among the top ten flyweights of all time. For me, Canto is a YES.

Canizales, on the other hand, is an equally clear no. Protected, sometimes fortunate (as in Hardy I) and at no stage clearly the best 118 lb man of his day, his record seems full of holes. The only one of his victims to accomplish much after fighting Canizales was Bones Adams, who took a piece of the super-bantam title some time later. To me, it is instructive that among his contemporaries as a bantamweight belt holder were men such as Wilfredo Vazquez and Junior Jones, themselves no Hall of Famers. Both were to beat Canizales in bouts for belts at 122 and it is entirely possible that they would have managed similar results if they had met Orlando at 118. For me, and quite clearly, Canizales is a NO.

Michael Carbajal probably has better H of F credentials than Canizales, but that doesn't mean that I think he belongs in ours. He deserves great credit for longevity at light-fly, his wins against Gonzalez, Cob Castro and Arce are especially smart, and he was always good value to watch. However, the log against Gonzalez is against him, and there is little excuse for losing to the pint-sized Jake Matlala for anyone with pretensions to the Hall of Fame. For me, Carbajal is a NO.

Jimmy Carter is one of those 1950s lightweights who was never able to establish real dominance over the division between the heydays of Ike Williams and Joe Brown. We have already dismissed the claims of Brown, who was a much superior operator to Carter. Carter's absurd inconsistency, even during his title reign, weighs heavily against him. He is evidently not of the true elite and is consequently a NO.

Marcel Cerdan is clearly a European great, but war denied him the chance to make a proper mark on the world. That might seem a strange thing to say about someone with a 111-4 record, but I believe it to be true. His great wins are against Holman Williams and an ageing Zale; he also won and lost against the useful Delannoit, beat Randy Turpin's OK elder brother Dick and lost in inconclusive circumstances to La Motta. Those are the top ledger fights, basically, and while they don't tell the full story, neither can the relative absence of great names be entirely overlooked. It wasn't Marcel's fault, but he never really did get the chance to prove the true greatness that I'm sure he possessed, and we can't elect people to the H of F on what ifs. With reluctance, I regard Cerdan as a NO.

I might good naturedly quibble one or two points on Canto there. I would venture to say that Alfonso Lopez would have been a divisional rival he might have faced and boxing politics of the day also denied us a unified champion between Espadas and Canto. I think you are right though that ultimately he took care of the main divisional threat in Gonzales. If we are talking about the little men all inclusive then its also a pity that fights with the light flyweights never came off as they had a number of good fighters back then like Yoko Gushiken and Luis Estaba who would have been a welcome inclusion into the flyweight division.

I would be releuctant to include the likes of Vargas and Avelar as top tier wins as Vargas was a kind of upper domestic level guy who wasnt really a world player and Avelar was altogether average. Also somewhat relectant to rate Oguma as a top tier win. As Im sure you know he was a notorious hometown fighter that was near impossible to win a decision over in Japan. He made the more recent Ottke look positively angelic. His career was littered with robberies and controversial decisions over the other top flyweights and I cant for the life of me understand how he got away with fighting in Japan so often. The Japanese (and Korean) judges back then were beyond corrupt and Oguma made a career out of utilising them to the extreme.

Canto misses out for me because despite considering him a very fine fighter, he lacks sufficient top level wins. Other than Gonzales who he trumped 2-1 in a razor thin trilogy there just are not really any other fighters in there I would consider anywhere near elite level in a division thats notoriously difficult to rate anyway.

I seem to have missed most of this going on but better late than never. I will attempt to pay more attention to what is clearly a fantastic thread.

Not sure I can add much to the comments made already as these guys have been debated comprehensively but my only YES vote goes to Canto.

CL, excellent and persuasive contribution. I was particularly interested in your comments on Oguma and Japanese judging of the era. I recall that even the great Harada was helped along his way by some particularly generous scoring in Tokyo-based fights back in the 60s. It seems ironic that today, at a time when Japanese boxing is undergoing something of a golden age, judging there is widely regarded as fair and honourable.

Your points go back to a debate that I was having yesterday with Scott, Tino and others on the my top 50 boxers thread. It is difficult for a great fighter who is not blessed with great contemporaries to showcase his own greatness. The only way to do it is to dominate your contemporaries utterly, as for example Hagler and Monzon did at middleweight. Canto, having a punch that would barely trouble a mosquito, was forced to rely on his virtuoso boxing skills to establish his dominance, and, over a long reign, I believe that he succeeded, much as I would have liked to see him rubber-stamp his greatness against Espadas.

Your points are cogently and skilfully argued, but after some thought, I shall be sticking by Canto. As Chris mentioned earlier, he is an all-time top ten merchant in a bona fide division and I can't quite bring myself to reject him from our Hall.

On reflection, CL, perhaps the one thing I would add as a rider is that you have put a cross against Canto on account of his lack of top-flight opposition. Ought we not apply a similar stricture to Cerdan, for whom you did vote? Outside of Holman Williams, Zale and (at a stretch) Delannoit, Marcel's record seems to lack the really top-flight names that one would like. Bearing in mind that, mostly through no fault of his own, his victims were largely restricted to Europe, can we say that he established sufficient dominance at his weight to make up for this? Not sure, but just something I thought that I'd throw out there just to complicate matters!

captain carrantuohil wrote:CL, excellent and persuasive contribution. I was particularly interested in your comments on Oguma and Japanese judging of the era. I recall that even the great Harada was helped along his way by some particularly generous scoring in Tokyo-based fights back in the 60s. It seems ironic that today, at a time when Japanese boxing is undergoing something of a golden age, judging there is widely regarded as fair and honourable.

Your points go back to a debate that I was having yesterday with Scott, Tino and others on the my top 50 boxers thread. It is difficult for a great fighter who is not blessed with great contemporaries to showcase his own greatness. The only way to do it is to dominate your contemporaries utterly, as for example Hagler and Monzon did at middleweight. Canto, having a punch that would barely trouble a mosquito, was forced to rely on his virtuoso boxing skills to establish his dominance, and, over a long reign, I believe that he succeeded, much as I would have liked to see him rubber-stamp his greatness against Espadas.

Your points are cogently and skilfully argued, but after some thought, I shall be sticking by Canto. As Chris mentioned earlier, he is an all-time top ten merchant in a bona fide division and I can't quite bring myself to reject him from our Hall.

It does remind me the Lopez situation Captain. You can apply the same criteria to El Finito as you can to Canto. Aside from maybe Rosendo Alvarez, Lopez has a multitude of opponents that are just names on paper but he, like Canto was a dominant force at his weight and had skills to burn. It, again, comes down to how much value you apply to CV and how much to the other criteria, and for that reason, I am glad Canto is making it in.

Well, it's very tight for Canto at the moment, Tino, and suspect that it will go to the wire. As it stands, he's short of the 75% threshold necessary for inclusion, although he's a certainty for the "further consideration next year" pile, I would think. It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Well, it's very tight for Canto at the moment, Tino, and suspect that it will go to the wire. As it stands, he's short of the 75% threshold necessary for inclusion, although he's a certainty for the "further consideration next year" pile, I would think. It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

Can I vote again then!

Keeping my fingers crossed for him then.

This is not the time or thread to debate it, but a match up with Lopez and Canto would be cracker!

I dont really think the flyweight division lends itself to producing greats. Theres too many things "wrong" with it for me.

Firstly is there really a need for a "light flyweight" division which is essentially a hot meal away from flyweight? All this does is dilute the talent in an already pretty niche area in boxing. Nowadays there is 8 world titles available for fighter in between 108-112 lbs. Pretty absurd. This was even the case back in Cantos time albeit with4 titles but it still seems like a very pointless division which serves only to dilute.

Secondly, the natue of the division means that the division is populated by alot of youngsters and novices as few grown men can keep down to that weight. As a result you have fighters spending some time there in their formative years but outgrowing it as the go on.

Thirdly , the demanding nature of the weight and the lifestyle neccessary to accomodate it mean you have an incredibly high burnout factor in it with few flyweights acheiving success past thirty and tending to have only a couple of peak years.

Fourthly, because the turnover is so high in the division its quite easy to earn a title shot as theres a large amount of guys outgrowing it, retiring or burning out of their prime. When you look at most of these flyweight champions you will see their records scattered against fighters with only a few fights or a very mixed record.

Fifthly, its a niche division that only a very small proportion of fighters can compete in so the talent pool in will be smaller.

These are just some of the resons overall why Ive never really warmed to the division and just think its very difficult to determine quality and ultimately the competition in it will be invariably weak. Even in the instances you get a quality fighter in it, the chances are the rest of the competition he is up against wont be all that good. I think the only times in history two HoF flyweights have met was when Wilde v Villa and Carbajal faced Gonzales (and then I would consider both of them lower end HoF fighters).

I agree that I would do away with both light-fly and straw weight and concentrate on the original 8-stone division, manos. I think that someone like Lopez would have thrived at 112, such was his talent. After all, Wilde barely weighed the modern equivalent of light-fly and KO'd all manner of bigger men, so size isn't necessarily relevant.

Not sure that I agree about the talent pool at 112, certainly not in former days. If one looks at Britain alone between the mid-30s and the late 40s, the flyweights were chock-full of talent. Better diets and general evolution have meant that people around the world are getting bigger, with obvious consequences for the flyweight division, but I still believe that there are fighters of sufficient talent at that end of the weight scale to be recognised in their own right. Going back to the past, men Like Pascual Perez, LaBarba, Wilde and Villa and Benny Lynch are really notable champions, and I believe that they need to be considered in the same light as their heavier counterparts.

The lower weights are largely dominated by oriental fighters where the IBF and WBO titles are next to meaningless, Segura if he moves up to flyweight will find it very difficult to get a fight with Wonjongkam based entirely on the fact he held the WBO title, he would have to look at Marquez in order to get a shot.

They may have had more and better flyweights in the earlier eras but I would still bank on it being the weakest division back then overall. I would say its nearly always been consistently the weakest division with the smallest percentage of quality.

Every so often it will still produce good fighters but not to the same extent as the other divisions although heavyweight might begin to suffer from a similar effect if it begins to become neccessary to be a 240 lb 6,5 guy to compete in it effectively in the coming years.

Since the days of the introductions of the bantamweight, light flyweight and multiple titles I think being a multi weight champion there is important to advertise quality. No idea how guys like Wonjongkham are when they defend their titles against novices and kick boxers all the time.

Manos, as ever, your points are argued with clarity, and what you are writing makes sense, but I still think, even at the lightest weights, real, genuine and bonefide talent should be recognised as such.

I concur 100% that the dilution of weight classes in the lighter weights is a farce and purely so governing bodies can charge more sanctioning fees, that is a given.

I fully appreciate that it takes a leap of faith to call them all time greats without a stellar CV, but just watching these guys, and I mean the cream of these divisions, like Canto or Lopez, and I don't find it hard to make that leap. All those things that we consider great about boxers, such as timing, punch power, chin, stamina etc etc can be found in abundance with Canto (well, maybe not the punch power) and Lopez and I can easliy see them, in a p4p sense transferring to any division and any era with success.

Yeah I would accept the division can still produce quality fighters and has done intermittantly over the years but I still think the general principles that bug me apply. Even when you do get the quality fighters the chances are the competition will be weak.

Nowadays with only 10 pounds seperating the 4 lowest weight classes (16 potential belts) in what is a pretty exclusive weight area for men then you can only feel that the competition and talent pool down there is going to be enormously shallow by default.

With regards to the topic of Canto, can see an argument for inclusion but would probably agree with Colonial Lion who obviously knows more on him than I do. If his primary claim is centered on a pretty tight 2-1 win series over Gonzales then it would seem a bit on the thin side to me. Especially in light of some of the names who have mised out already who surely boast a much more impressive resume overall.

manos de piedra wrote:Yeah I would accept the division can still produce quality fighters and has done intermittantly over the years but I still think the general principles that bug me apply. Even when you do get the quality fighters the chances are the competition will be weak.

Nowadays with only 10 pounds seperating the 4 lowest weight classes (16 potential belts) in what is a pretty exclusive weight area for men then you can only feel that the competition and talent pool down there is going to be enormously shallow by default.

With regards to the topic of Canto, can see an argument for inclusion but would probably agree with Colonial Lion who obviously knows more on him than I do. If his primary claim is centered on a pretty tight 2-1 win series over Gonzales then it would seem a bit on the thin side to me. Especially in light of some of the names who have mised out already who surely boast a much more impressive resume overall.

I think in Lopez's case, it is difficult to decide whether the quality of opposition was sub-standard or was Ricardo just that good. I know hich side I comoe down on but I guess we will never really know and I look forward to jousting with you when the Captain puts him up for inclusion.

I will stop with my clear attempts to derail the Captains excellant thread now!

Carry on Tino, this is the place to debate anyone and if it helps people change their views then go for it

I take each fighter on his own individual merits and whether they fought in a less than glamourous division shouldn't take away from how good they were, in a p4p sense wins over Frazier, Liston and Foreman aren't as good as say Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler but in a divisional sense they are far superior.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Carry on Tino, this is the place to debate anyone and if it helps people change their views then go for it

I take each fighter on his own individual merits and whether they fought in a less than glamourous division shouldn't take away from how good they were, in a p4p sense wins over Frazier, Liston and Foreman aren't as good as say Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler but in a divisional sense they are far superior.

Amen to that, Tino, you carry on. Getting people thinking about their choices is half the idea here. Some of the excellent points made about Jimmy Bivins, for example, a bit earlier, came too late for me to revise my vote, but I could certainly see myself siding with him when his name comes up for consideration again next year.

Who are our two up for future consideration Captain Bivins and Angott?
Both of whom I would vote for in future but can understand them not being first ballot entrants, think its good to have the HOF slightly tiered like that to differentiate between levels.

I'd like to add my endorsement also, Tino.

I believe that the collective input of the members who have contributed to this excellent thread have twice persuaded me to change my votes.

My old mum, who is no longer with us, used to tell me that a day without learning was a day wasted, and it is advice which I have never forgotten.

If you have a look at the other sticky, Ghosty, the one headed 606 v2 Hall of Fame inductees, you will see two categories set out - the inductees and those who were not elected but are candidates for 2012. The latter category currently comprises Angott, Berg and Bivins. Once we start getting into next year, I shall probably attach an admission year to each of the successful inductees, just to show exactly how opinions about a fighter may have shifted with the debate.

You know what guys, it is just a pleasure to come on here and talk to people who know who Canto and Lopez are.

My friends in the real world? Well the less said the better. Most of them still think Tyson is the greatest heavyweight ever. FACT.

Come to think of it, judging by a few of the comments that appear on various threads, I think a few of them may well be posters!

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Yeah I would accept the division can still produce quality fighters and has done intermittantly over the years but I still think the general principles that bug me apply. Even when you do get the quality fighters the chances are the competition will be weak.

Nowadays with only 10 pounds seperating the 4 lowest weight classes (16 potential belts) in what is a pretty exclusive weight area for men then you can only feel that the competition and talent pool down there is going to be enormously shallow by default.

With regards to the topic of Canto, can see an argument for inclusion but would probably agree with Colonial Lion who obviously knows more on him than I do. If his primary claim is centered on a pretty tight 2-1 win series over Gonzales then it would seem a bit on the thin side to me. Especially in light of some of the names who have mised out already who surely boast a much more impressive resume overall.

I think in Lopez's case, it is difficult to decide whether the quality of opposition was sub-standard or was Ricardo just that good. I know hich side I comoe down on but I guess we will never really know and I look forward to jousting with you when the Captain puts him up for inclusion.

I will stop with my clear attempts to derail the Captains excellant thread now!

I would guess Lopez will walk in. I dont think you will have to convince too many. Certainly not me anyhow. There are a handful of flyweights I think are surefires like Villa, Wilde, Galaxy and would say Lopez would be in that bracket. Not as familiar with Canto but he doesnt seem to have the same quality wins or dominance as Lopez did.