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]

Dear god with Canto being such a devisive nominee wish I had got in sooner as I do feel a little pressure on this one. However having done a little research on Canto and read the arguments and counter arguments either way, particularly the Lion's persuasive arguments against him think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with him and come down in the camp voting him in, as others have rightly said the talent pool is not always that deep at the lower weights and with the small gaps between the divisions this problem is often intensified but am genuinely loath to exclude a guy for things largely beyond his control and for me Canto established himself as the best at his weight and on watching him his skills are obvious. Is pretty tight but would prefer to see him in there.

Have already discussed Cerdan who was a no but of the other three will also have to say no and will hopefully get time to expand on my reasons at a later date.

HumanWindmill wrote: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.

I remember telling you when I first joined Windy, the collective knowledge on this site is just staggering. I used to think I knew something about boxing but I have quickly realised that I am light years behind some posters. This thread is a pefect illustration of just how informative and varied boxing debates can be. Conducted in a polite and civil manner as well.....who'd have thunk it!

Conducted in a polite and civil manner as well.....who'd have thunk it!
________________________________________________________

Give it time, just count yourself lucky Duran was in the first 30.

rowley wrote:Conducted in a polite and civil manner as well.....who'd have thunk it!
________________________________________________________

Give it time, just count yourself lucky Duran was in the first 30.

Don't you mean Duran was lucky? Rolled like a drunk and all that.

I guess he did establish himself as the man at the weight, although interestingly the Ring back then did not differentiate between fly and light fly when they resurected the division and simply lumped them all in together. Glancing over their ratings there are a couple of guys at light fly who were pretty consistently rated during Cantos years that for whatever reason never moved up to flyweight.

Have to say though that the level of competition at flyweight doesnt appear great then and is compounded by the WBC/WBA split and the introduction of the light flyweight category. Canto has barely anyone to fight after his first year as champ which probably accounts for trilogies with Oguma and Gonzales.

Between the introduction of light fly and the politics of the WBA/WBC the division seems severely depleted and would also consider the fact he never beat his main rivals decisively as falling short of "dominance". Havent seen enough of him actually fight yet, but the more examining I do, the less inclined I am to include him in the context of an elite HoF.

Would probably base my revised argument around:

1) Lost key rivals Espadas and Lopez to the WBA
2) Lost potential key rivals Gushiken and Estaba to light fly
3) Quite heavily diluted competition as a result of above
4) Failed to decisively beat his primary remaining rivals - fights with Gonzales were all SD/MD, fights with Oguma were MD,SD,close UD. Althought to be fair beating him 3/3 is probably decisive enough to close the book on that one.
5) Lack of depth in quality wins. No wins over another HoFer for example.
6) Reasonably weak division/lack of good opposition at the time.

In his defence he established himself as the recognised premier flyweight of his era and was held as a talented and skillful fighter. Had an impressive start to his reign beating his main rivals but petered out a bit due to the lack of depth of the division. But ultimately too shallow overall, all things considered, for me to vote him into an exclusive HoF.

Would like to change my vote for Canto from a no to a yes, it is far easier to become recognised in the higher weight classes but this shouldn't be held against the less established names down in the lower classes, a win over a great light heavyweight would mean more in a pound for pound sense but the relevance of that gets overplayed to a large degree. A great flyweight is a great fighter regardless of weight and would personally say a win over a good flyweight means just as much as a win over a good welterweight, lightweight or heavyweight, fights should be recognised in the context of the weight they were held at rather than in a pound for pound sense in my opinion.

captain carrantuohil wrote: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!

I would largely agree with you on this and I think its close. I think there is couple of small margins which make the difference to me, although it appears on the face of it I am alone on this.

I think his list of wins is better overall. Williams and Zale are quality wins. I would also add that he holds a very fine win over the very underrated Georgie Abrams who was a top contender in his day holding wins of his own over the likes of Belloise, Soose, Yarosz, Cocao Kid and several others as well as giving Zale, Robinson and Burley all they could handle. His fight with Cerdan was a real battle. Cerdans only bonafide loss to Delannoit was avenged.

Its difficult to how much emphasis to put on things like the impact of the war and his premature death. Its very subjective. The war shelved the whole division for its duration but Zale had esteblished himself as the champion before and had re-established himself as the champion after when Cerdan beat him so I think it would harsh to attach to much weight to that.

The unusual circumstances of the era coupled with Cerdans early passing means that it would be hard to say he acheived any significant dominance, but in Williams, Zale, Abrams, Dellanoit plus maybe lesser wins over divisional guys like Harold Green and Anton Radikk then I think he actually packed a reasonable amount into his few post war years to make the cut.

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.

I definately think that the judging in the Asian countries Korea, Japan and Thailand was extremelly suspect in the 60s and 70s. A couple of Japanese judges whose names escape me were particularly notorious. It was definately not a foreign fighter friendly place to visit.

Unfortunate for Eder Jofre really, would most probably have been an unbeaten fighter were it not for Japanese judging

No one got anything to add to this?

I'm still hopeful that a few more will have the chance to do so over the weekend, ghosty. We've easily got a quorum, and the standard of debate has been extremely high, but with a bit of luck, people like Superfly and Galveston Giant, for example, will add their comments too.

Out of interest Captain how many votes have we had overall?

10 for the latest round (same as week 2), but there's a very important addendum - I need to clarify with welsh devil rob whether it was his intention to veto Canto and Carter, or to abstain because of a need for further research. In the case of Carter, this will make no difference - everyone has rejected his candidacy - but as it stands, his clarification re Canto is critical. If Rob is abstaining on Canto, Canto has seven votes out of nine, or 77.7 %, enough for admission to our Hall. If he is voting against, that percentage drops to 70, and he will have to make do with a place on the candidates slate for 2012.

No pressure on Rob then Captain

We're a hard crowd to appease if Canto misses out but 10 votes seems like the minimum amount you would want which is good to see

Still can't get over Bivins being rejected

Deferred, is perhaps a better word, Ghosty! As I mentioned, the later arguments in his favour swung me around to the point that the next time he comes up for election, I would be inclined to vote in his favour.

To be honest think he is in the second ballot lot and think there were a lot of people perhaps reconsidering their stance on the back of a lot of the arguments made. I voted him a no on first examination but may go the other way next time round.

Good to know I can partially change the minds of a pair of posters who know far more than I do, that's where i'd say Canto is a second ballot fighter but not first ballot

I wanted, with all my heart, to vote Bivins in but couldn't quite, in all conscience, see him as among the true elite, jeff. Its having been so agonisingly close, I'm sure I shall not require very much persuasion to include him at the second time of asking.

I'm going to abstain from voting this week due to lack of knowledge on most of the fighters. With Canto being so so close I can't in good conscience vote one way or the other based on my limited knowledge. I would like to add that reading this thread and learning about some of the old timers is most enjoyable and I look forward to some boxers coming up for debate who I know more about.

Totally understand, bellchees, and greatly appreciate the thought that you put into your reasoning. Don't know how you are with regard to next week's 5 (flagged on the original thread), but after that, we're coming up to a vintage four weeks or so. I hope that you'll feel able to cast your votes then.

Have to say that after a pretty dire week in relative terms that the next few weeks look very very interesting

So we come to the end of the Week 3 process. In the case of four of the candidates this time, there was little dispute. Michael Carbajal, Orlando Canizales and Jimmy Carter registered just two votes between them out of the 10 cast (many thanks to everyone who voted once again), and are consequently permanently eliminated from our Hall of Fame Slate. The same is true of Marcel Cerdan, who picked up three votes, many regretful and admiring comments, but no second opportunity.

The difficult one this week was Miguel Canto, and I remain in something of a dilemma with him. He picked up seven votes, but it is not quite clear whether this was out of nine or ten, since I am not certain whether WD Rob had planned to vote against him or merely to abstain. In the circumstances, I am erring on the side of caution and assuming that Rob's vote was against. This means that Canto scores 70%, enough to go on the slate for next year, but not for direct entry to our Hall. If Rob tells me that his intention was to abstain, then the decision will be reversed, Canto's percentage will rise to over 77%, and he will be elected to the Hall. However, for now, he remains in limbo.

On to the Famous 5 for Week 4, and we begin with the man who was voted as Colombia's greatest ever boxer, Antonio Cervantes. Kid Pambele won his first title at light-welter from the great Nicolino Locche, to whom he had lost a previous title attempt. His career as a champion lasted for around seven years in two separate reigns, interrupted by a points loss to the 17 year-old Wilfred Benitez. He beat men of the calibre of Esteban DeJesus before finally losing his crown in brutal fashion to the rising star, Aaron Pryor.

Bobby Chacon is regarded as one of the greatest value for money warriors of all time. His world title-fighting career spanned a decade; his wars with men such as Olivares, Arguello, Danny "Little Red" Lopez and Boza-Edwards were perfectly summarised by his barely believable points decision over Bazooka Limon in the astonishing fourth episode of their series of fights. A champion at feather and super-feather, Chacon was a key player in a golden age for the two divisions.

Jeff Chandler was always regarded as one of the most accomplished boxer-punchers of his day. A long-time holder of the WBA bantamweight championship, he never quite landed the gig fight that would have cemented his reputation beyond the sport's cognoscenti. By the time he lost his title to Julian Solis, Chandler had made a double-digit number of defences and was regarded by many as the premier 118 pound man of the day.

Another long-reigning alphabet champion was the South Korean light-flyweight Jung Koo Chang, whose 14 defences of his WBC title included a victory over that fine fighter Sot Chitalada. The fight that would have established him as clearly the best 108 pound of the era, against his similarly long-reigning WBA counterpart and compatriot, Myung Woo Yuh, never came about, but Chang continued to rack up the defences, before jumping in weight and losing flyweight title shots against Chitalada and, in a spectacular fight, against Muangchai Kittikasem.

Curtis Cokes is often, and somewhat unfairly, remembered merely as the undisputed welterweight champion who bridged the gap between two outstanding champions in Emile Griffith and Jose Napoles. Cokes' own achievements were substantial - he reigned between 1966 and 1969, making five defences of his crown before being mercilessly taken apart by Napoles. However, Cokes' greatest accomplishment was probably taking two fights out of three before he became champion against the redoubtable Luis Rodriguez. After getting a second boxing lesson from Napoles, Cokes jumped to middleweight, but was unable to land a title shot. He later became an esteemed trainer.

Cervantes- Yes
Chacon- No but want to say Yes
Chandler- No
Chang- No
Cokes- No

Cervantes and Chacon are close for me but I am going to say no across the board here.

With Cervantes, splitting two fights with ATG Locche is solid, losing to the calibre of Benitez and Pryor is excusable and reigning for a long time is impressive but being "shamefully elitist", I just can't find enough in his record to get him in. Great fighter and wins over Locche and DeJesus and good but just not enough else there for me. If we were been a little more lax with the entry requirements then I would have him in but can't justify it at the moment. Happy to be convinced otherwise though as I am not 100% against him.

Would love to have Chacon in but for the same elitist reasons, I can't justify it. Lost too many times when he stepped up for me, although obviously has decent names on his ledger. Could have a place just for Limon IV though!

Cokes/Chandler/Chang are not of the required quality for this particular HOF. Good fighters bit not quite good enough.

Morning captain, thanks again for your fine work here.

Cervantes isn't an easy one to start with, but my initial feeling is that I'd have to say no to him. Two excellent reigns at 140 lb, no doubt, but I have trouble placing him amongst the absolute greats. I've never seen an elite level fighter be made to look so average and out of his depth as Cervantes was in his first fight with Locche. No shame in that - Locche could tie just about anyone up in knots - but even so, the point remains. Stopped the ageing Locche on a cut in the rematch, but afterwards, despite all his title defences, the two best Light-Welterweights he came across (Benitez and Pryor) both beat him. Don't think he proved himself enough against the very best fighters of his time and, remembering your "unashamedly elitist" line, I don't think I can justify Kid Pambele making the Hall of Fame, magnificent fighter though he was. No, for me.

If it was down to who gave us more memorable fights than anyone else, then Chacon would be an automatic selection. But I think in our heart of hearts, we know that he wasn't a truly all-time great fighter. Olivares, naturally the smaller man no less, had the wood on him, and Chacon never really established himself as a dominant champion at either Featherweight or Super-Featherweight. It's a no from me, even though it grates me to say so.

I give immense credit for Chandler almost single-handedly reviving interest in the Bantamweight division Stateside (I think it had been something like thirty-five years since an American had held a 118 lb belt before Chandler beat Solis) but again, I've got to say no to him, all things considered. I know you want us to avoid this kind of thinking, but also, I don't rate him any higher than Canizales and, as he missed out, I don't see any way that Chandler can be voted in, particularly with his lack of a unification bout against Pintor, which would have defined him. Another no, I'm afraid.

I'll admit that Chang is a little bit of a blind spot for me; haven't seen all that much of him, but what I have seen has impressed me. Again, as I mentioned when saying no to Carbajal, the 108 lb weight class is one I'm not all that sold on. I've been more impressed with the likes of Gushiken (I must thank you, by the way, for nudging me in his direction a few months back on the old 606!) and once more, given that he didn't get that big face off with Yuh, I have to say no.

Cokes misses out, too. I think comparisons can be drawn between him and Cervantes; he was a fine champion, with some notable wins, but the fights with Napoles showed the difference between a great fighter and an all-time great fighter. Another no to end my take on it all.

Must say that Chacon reminds me of Bivins and Angott in that he was a top ranking fighter for many years capable of beating some very fine fighters like Limon, Lopez, Edwards, Marcano and ageing versions of Castillo and Olivares but thats coupled with losses to elite level fighters such as Arguello and a younger Olivares. Was without doubt a very fine fighter who's style made it exciting to watch but how much weight do you place on his losses?

Cervantes I would include on the basis he's one of the top 5 light welterweights in history and based solely on divisional achievement gets my vote

I dont think any of this weeks list makes the cut.

Cervantes probably has the best argument but considering Benitez didnt make the cut it would be hard to include Cervantes. His best wins were probably Locche and De Jesus and one of these fighters was near the end of his career and the other never acheived anything at light welterweight. Outside of that he had two very good reigns beating solid opposition and had decent longetivity at the top, but have to consider he lost to the best light welters he faced in Pryor and Benitez. Ultimately would have to vote no on him although he was a very good fighter with a considerable reign.

I dont think any of the rest have particularly strong arguments despite Chacon being immensely popular and great to watch.

Cervantes - no
Chacon - no
Chang - no
Cokes - no
Chandler - no

Afternoon, everyone, and again, thanks very much for all the interest in this idea of ours. One thing that I didn't underline for this week is that the closing date for votes is, as usual, next Sunday at midnight, in this case July 3rd.

I was hoping to get a little help from others when it came to Cervantes' credentials for our Hall, because I was very much in two minds about him. I was slightly inclining to the negative, and the comments so far have hardened my opinion. Good as Benitez was, a great 140 pounder should not have been beaten by the 17 year-old version of the Puerto Rican. It is interesting to me that Benitez scored similar results over Harold Weston as he did over Cervantes, which indicates roughly Cervantes' level. The wins over Locche and DeJesus are his real calling cards, but, in each case (Locche was ageing, DeJesus was rising in weight), there are minor strikes against even these. He's not by any means the least deserving member of Canastota, but I can't, in all conscience, find room for him among our elite. NO.

Like everyone else, I'm a huge Chacon admirer, and like everyone else, I can't vote him into our Hall either. Life and death struggles with men such as Limon and Boza-Edwards show us his level, I think, which is a notch below the true first-graders. His wins against Olivares (at the third attempt), Limon, Lopez and Boza look good, mind you, and he is clearly on the next rung down, rather than two or three lower. However, a NO it must be.

I have no difficulty in vetoing the other three candidates. Jung Koo Chang absolutely had to fight, and beat, Yuh to get a place in this Hall, bearing in mind the fragmented nature of his spotty division. He didn't, so he can't be in. Chandler, likewise, needed to fight someone like Pintor, rather than defending his title three times against a so-so Japanese, for example. I give Cokes immense kudos for his winning record against Luis Rodriguez, but his title defences were all against far from notable challengers. The Napoles fights tell the tale about his limitations and they mean that there can be no place for him at this highest of tables. NO three times here.

For those who are a little tired of rejecting people, I bring good news for the immediate future. Next week's candidates, which are already up on this thread, look a likely lot, but even they pale by comparison with the goodies that we have in store for a fortnight from now. We shall then be placing Bob Foster, Joe Frazier, Gene Fullmer, Khaosai Galaxy and Victor Galindez under the spotlight, which should get the juices flowing!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Must say that Chacon reminds me of Bivins and Angott in that he was a top ranking fighter for many years capable of beating some very fine fighters like Limon, Lopez, Edwards, Marcano and ageing versions of Castillo and Olivares but thats coupled with losses to elite level fighters such as Arguello and a younger Olivares. Was without doubt a very fine fighter who's style made it exciting to watch but how much weight do you place on his losses?

Cervantes I would include on the basis he's one of the top 5 light welterweights in history and based solely on divisional achievement gets my vote

Cervantes was really close for me Ghosty and in line with what you are saying, I did feel a touch contradictory voting yes to Canto and no to Cervantes. Canto's inclusion (or not, depending on what happens) was criticised for the lack of "big" names on his record and yet I voted yes due to his dominance and longevity at the weight, something that it could be argued Cervantes can lay claim to also. I just felt he hadn't quite done enough to make this HOF but I think that reflects more on the criteria that we are looking for more than any slight against him as a fighter.

Chacon's losses didn't only come against all-time greats, however, Ghosty. Prime losses against Boza-Edwards and Limon are also there, and although they were avenged, I still don't feel that there was all that much between those three, and indeed, Rolando Navarrete, who also joined in the title merry-go-round at 130 after the great Arguello stepped up in weight. It's notable that all four of these fine fighters were inside the distance victims of Arguello's, a fact that really embellishes the Nicaraguan's right to be called the greatest super-featherweight of them all.

Thus far our groups of candidates have nearly always thrown up at least one who has had me chasing my tail in trying to make my mind up and another whom I have rejected with a great deal of chagrin.

This week's group is no exception.

Chacon is one of the most charismatic fighters in the entire history of boxing and I'd still pick his fourth encounter with Limon as among the best half dozen fights I've ever seen. For pure entertainment, he'd figure among the first names I'd choose. The problem is that I would also find a place for Johnny Tapia by that criterion and, excellent fighter that he was, I wouldn't need much time to reject Tapia as a candidate. Chacon, therefore, is a very reluctant ' no.'

I've spent a day or two pondering Cervantes. My initial reaction was ' no ' because I cannot shake the memory of the wonderful Locche's clowning of him first time out. Bearing in mind that he did, later, score a ( somewhat tarnished ) win over Locche and another over DeJesus I decided to have a closer look, rather than rush to judgement and embarrass myself as I had with Joe Brown.

Having pondered, watched him again, and had a very close look at his record I'm satisfied, this time, that my first instincts were okay.

' No ' it is, then, for Cervantes, meaning that none of this week's five get a thumbs up from me.

I think some allowances should be made for fighters with lesser records but provided greater levels of excitement, Chacon was around during a very strong Featherweight/Super Featherweight era and in my mind was second only to the great Alexis Arguello. He did lose to Limon and Edwards Captain but at the same time he edged their series of fights which is the more important aspect, if the likes of Angott, Bivins, Cervantes and Chacon are missing out then the bar may be set slightly too high.

I've a feeling that ultimately, Bivins and Angott may well get in, Ghosty. As for the other two, well I'm not sure - I do believe that they fall just short of the elite, so I'm relaxed at the prospect of them failing to get in, if that's what transpires.

Hopefully your right just a shame that some of the more exciting fighters are going to miss out

Think it will have to be a clean sweep of no's for me. As others have said were we awarding points for sheer entertainment value Chacon would be a lock but the same could be said of Gatti and am sure he does not deserve a place and as Chris has rightly said a HOF candidate should not be having the trouble Chacon had with Boza Edwards.

Cervantez is perhaps the toughest of this weeks nominees, is no real shame in losing to Locche but it is more the nature of the defeat which is against him as he was fairly comfortably beaten and when he met the better opponents such as Benitez and Pryor he tended to lose which for me marks him down perhaps as a very good rather than a great fighter which is waht this exercise is meant to weed out so it is a close call but will have to say no for him.

As the other three have even less solid claims than Cervantez they simply have to be given a thumbs down. Next week cannot come round soon enough will be nice to say yes to some people for a change

I like the idea of having it tiered between forst ballot, second ballot anso so on. Maybe for each fighter there could be a third option of "later review" or something for the very borderline cases rather than relying on them getting 50% of the vote perhaps as I see it being a case where people will initially set the standards quite high.

Personally I have set the bar reasonably high as I would prefer to come down on the side of exclusiveness, at least for the start. But with guys like Angott, Bivins, Benitez, Canto, Cervantes and so on not making the cut initially then I would like to see them get another shot later when the benchmark has been more established.

I think the idea that if a fighter gets 50% of the votes then they get another shot is fair but could lead people in the future voting yes to fighters that they dont think deserve first entry just in order keep them alive in the future. Maybe if you had the option to class them as second ballot hopefuls rather than just a yes/no it might prevent this.

I voted no to Canto, Cervantes, Angott and Benitez for example but would like to see them have another shot down the line.

In principle, I agree with almost all your suggestions, manos. I would say, however, that there is a fair degree of difference in the acclaim for some of the names you mention. As I said to Ghosty, I think that people such as Canto, Angott and Bivins will ultimately make our Hall at some point. There was a real split opinion about them, but I had the distinct feeling that the tide was running in their favour. In the cases of Benitez and Cervantes, the case seems different. There is a general belief, so far as I can see, that for similar reasons, they are not quite of the standard that we are looking for. The votes against are quite decisive. There's nothing to say that at some point in the future, someone can't bring up a name in an "extraordinary point of order" or some such (!), but in a process as long and exhaustive as this one, a cut-off needs to be made somewhere, in my opinion.

I think it's a no across the board from me too. As has been alluded to, Cervantes with the most convincing case, however with losses to the three best light-welters he faced, his record can't quite be put in the elite. It would perhaps have been interesting if he'd beaten one of Benitez or Pryor.

None of the others have a strong enough case good fighters that they are, despite Chacon being a popular fighter because of his style. Any fights of his in particular that could be recommended?

Slash, either of Chacon's title fights against Boza-Edwards are marvellous. However, for one of the half dozen greatest fights of all time, I would refer you to the fourth and final fight that he had against Rafael Limon. Truly one of the wars for the ages.

Cheers captain, I'll get right on to those!

Last week's business is easily summarised. Virtually no votes for any of our candidates and no chance of them remaining candidates for our Hall.

We move on to this week's quintet of candidates, beginning with Billy Conn. Conn was a light-punching, masterful light-heavyweight, who won his world title by beating Melio Bettina, defended it against Gus Lesnevich, and scored a host of wins against other luminaries from the ranks of middleweights, light-heavyweights and heavyweights. However, Conn will probably always be best known for his first fight with Joe Louis when, ahead after 12, he made the mistake of slugging with the champion and paid the penalty.

Pipino Cuevas had no great pretensions to style, but, particularly with the left hook, was a devastating one-punch hitter. After dropping a ten-round decision to the crafty Andy Price, Pipino annexed the WBA title at 147 and scored a notable series of victories against men such as Pete Ranzany, Harold Weston, Clyde Gray and Angel Espadas. Viciously beaten by Tommy Hearns to lose his crown, Pipino's career petered out abruptly with losses to a series of names, including Roberto Duran and Jorge Vaca.

Flash Elorde was for many years regarded as the most beloved fighter ever to come from the Philippines. Leaping to prominence in the mid-1950s with a non-title fight decision over Sandy Saddler and a gallant title fight loss to the same man, Elorde really hit his stride in the newly created junior lightweight division, annexing that title in 1960. He would hold this title for seven years, making ten defences, although he came unstitched in a try for the lightweight title held by the great Carlos Ortiz.

Jeff Fenech has a solid case to be regarded as the greatest Australian fighter of all time. He was just in his seventh fight when winning the IBF bantamweight title, and for the next few years, cut a swathe through the super-bantam and featherweight divisions, winning titles in each and beating men such as Carlos Zarate, Daniel Zaragoza, Victor Callejas and Marcos Villasana. In a try for a fourth divisional belt at 130, Fenech was widely felt to have been robbed by the draw that he secured, but he received a boxing lesson from Azumah Nelson in their return and then fell apart quickly and mysteriously, losing by KO to Calvin Grove and Philip Holliday.

About George Foreman, there is little new to say. A key element of the greatest era in heavyweight history, his fights with men such as Ali, Norton, Frazier and Lyle will be recalled as long as boxing exists. His comeback to win the title again at the barely believable age of 45 is one of the two greatest in boxing history as well; George is simply part of the fabric of this great sport and an icon of the game.

There we are folks, let's have plenty of votes, please - I suspect that we may be adding more names to our Hall this week. Closing date is midnight on Sunday 10th July.

Morning Captain, have to agree this weeks nominees look a far more interesting bunch than we have had for a couple of weeks. Will start with Cuevas and for me it has to be a no, the loss and devastating nature of the defeat to Hearns suggests a level somewaht below elite for Cuevas. No massive shame in that but his subsequent patchy form mens we are trying to formulate a case on his pre Hearns work and it is simply too thin to justify inclusion.

Fenech I like for inclusion whilst his reign might not be littered with massive names the likes of Zarate and Zaragosa are more than solid and had he got the win he thoroughly deserved first time against Nelson I suspect his credentials would not even be up for debate. As it stands I certainly don't think he is in there by much but for me on gut instinct alone think he deserves the nod.

Elorde is a borderline one for me, splitting two fights with Saddler obviously speaks well of his ability but even when he hit his stride in the mid sixties he still had an ability to mix in the odd loss in less than stellar company but there are some pretty good wins in there such as Gomes and Laguna although he could not turn over Ortiz in two attempts. Real flip a coin stuff but am going to say no with the caveat I am happy to be persuaded otherwse.

Was really conscious when we started this to avoid applying a different standard to heavyweights than other divisions which is something I feel the current hall does. However am going to say Foreman is a yes for me, as you rightly say fought in the golden era of the division and more than held his own, absolutely dominating Frazier and Norton although losing to Young is a little embarrasing. However if George's place as ever up for doubt coming back to win a portion of the title at 45 as well as aquitting himself well against the likes of Holyfield seal his place for me and he is a yes.

Conn is a guy I am a fan of and so am going to say yes for. Is often remebered for his herculean effort against Louis first time round and whilst he rightly deserves praise for this it does sometimes overlook what a fanstastic light heavy he was. Coming through a Pittsburgh scene stacked with talent Conn was matched pretty tough from the off and was beating the likes of Yarosz and Apostoli before he had even won the title. To then win the title off Bettina before beating the likes of Lesnevich, Pastor, McCoy and an admittedly outweighed Zale give Conn enough of a ledger to justify a yes from me.

Fenech YES
Cuevas NO
Elorde NO
Foreman YES
Conn YES

Morning captain.

A couple of nailed-on certainties this week. Naturally, Foreman is in; no explanation needed there. Conn, likewise, is one which I don't have to think about all that much. A borderline top ten Light-Heavyweight of all time who helped Louis become the legend that he is today up at Heavyweight. His record on paper is maybe a little patchy but he was mixing it with tremendous opposition at a very young age, but given how dominant he later became at 175 lb I think he's good value for his place.

Fenech isn't quite so straightforward. Can't say I find him all that much of a pleasing fighter to watch, but nevertheless his record is impressive. However, I don't think there are enough genuinely top tier wins to secure a place in our Hall of Fame, even if the first Nelson verdict was a poor one. Zarate was a long way past his glorious best, Zaragoza's record against the top men of his time was a little bit patchy and, outside of them, I see a series of 'good' wins, but none that really equate to absolute greatness. Although I think I'll be in the minority, I'd have to say a reluctant 'no' to Fenech.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to say yes to Elorde. I've always felt that Super-Featherweight (along with Light-Welterweight) is the best division, historically speaking, outside of the eight 'classic' ones, and Elorde plays a major part in that, not only in the quality of his title reign but also because, without him, it's debatable whether or not we'd even have a 130 lb division today. Granted, the names he accounted for in his title reign weren't household, but they were all well though of at the time and it should be remembered that he split two fights with Sandy Saddler, even giving Saddler hell in the one he lost. Just about good enough for a yes in my eyes.

Cuevas, in my eyes, might just have been THE archetypal Mexican fighter. A relentless aggressive force, and an incredibly explosive puncher (that left hook, by God), but also badly short on defence. Always great to watch, but there's absolutely no way I can vote him in. No unification bout with Palomino (still not sure why that fight was never made) and, while he accounted for some fine fighters in defending his title - which he won at just eighteen, remember - the bout with Hearns simply showed the difference between the very goods and the greats. It's a definite no for me on Cuevas, then.

Good five to debate, this week. Cheers captain.

Conn and Foreman are definite yes's with neither of whom needing much explanation

Elorde is someone i'm painfully short of knowledge on and whilst he beat Saddler in a non title affair that's an altogether different task than beating the great man in a title fight where he was relentlessly consistent, holds a few decent wins but can't bypass the fact it appears he lost to the best two fighters he ever faced in Ortiz and Saddler. NO

Cuevas was exciting to watch but wasn't even the best mexican welterweight around at the time and the Hearns loss happened when he was meant to be at the peak of his powers, the subsequent capitulation in his career makes him a NO

Fenech despite being a 3 weight 'belt holder' doesn't have the top level fights to bring him into consideration for me, beat a host of good names the most notable to me being Zaragoza, Zarate and Villasana but above that there is nothing to really suggest he deserves entry, had he got the win over Nelson then he'd be looked up far more fondly.

Can I take this opportunity to say that it's taken me about 5 weeks to notice that Eddie Futch is a glaring emission from the original lot

Foreman is an obvious yes for me. His first reign is pretty good as it is, but to come back and achieve what he did second time round is nothing short of astonishing.

Conn is in for me. Great fighter and some terrific names on his resume, more than once as well. Yes for sure.

I am going to say yes to Elorde and I am saying this based purely on what has been said in the few previous posts. He has, like Ghosty alludes too, slipped under my radar a little and that is what makes this thread/forum so good in that I am learning about boxers all the time. I have done a little reseach and based on some solid wins and longevity, I will say yes. Losing to Ortiz and Saddler is excusable and having voted yes to Canto for having a long reign despite there been some unfamiliar names in there, I will say yes to Elorde.

Then come the no's.

Fenech is close for me but doesn't quite make it. Has some good names on his record and his titles are impressive but, and I appreciate that this is an on-going problem, his record can be a little mis-leading when placed under tough scrutiny. Bit like Chacon for me in that has solid names on his record but too many question marks surrounding it. Having said no to Chacon, I am saying no to Fenech as well.

Cuevas just doesn't cut it for this particular HOF. Exciting to watch but his shortcomings have already been covered. I would be surprised if he gets any votes.

Ghosty, probably right you are about Futch. Sure he'll take his rightful place in due course.

This week's candidates are an interesting lot and I'm bound to say that I particularly like Jeff's analysis of all of them this week. Foreman is an absolute certainty for me, and Conn, despite losing a few prime decisions against good fighters whom he also beat, has more than enough plus points to join him. YES to both.

Cuevas is an equally easy NO. Simply not the standard that you want, despite the exciting style, and you'll rarely see a champion in his prime in his best division handed a drubbing to compare with the one that Cuevas got from Hearns.

Elorde is a difficult one and in saying NO, I'm not quite sure that I've reached the right conclusion. However, despite the wins against Saddler and Laguna, I just can't see the requisite quality on the whole in the win column for Flash. Long-reigning champ, yes, but ten defences of his 130 lb crown in seven years do not feature any great names. I feel that Elorde needed to beat either Ortiz or Saddler in their title fight to get a place in our Hall, and so, by a narrow margin, I must reject him. NO.

Fenech, on the other hand, is narrowly in for me. People tend to forget what a dominant fighter he was at his weights - he absolutely outclassed Zaragoza, for example, who went on to score some famous victories, and also battered Callejas and Villasana, who had some very high-class form. Moreover, I tend to regard the first Nelson fight as a Fenech victory, whatever the official score-cards. I think that the injustice took something out of Fenech - it's the only rational explanation for the complete collapse in his form afterwards. With that in mind, I just feel that Fenech's achievements deserve our recognition. For me, he is a YES.

This is the first time that I have encountered next to no difficulty in casting votes.

Foreman and Conn are easy choices. YES.

Cuevas equally easy. NO.

Fenech is only slightly more difficult. YES.

Elorde is a little problematic but, courtesy of a quick refresher in looking at his record, I am pretty confident in voting him a NO.

Foreman at his best is one of the most fearsome forces in heavyweight history, never again will we see one top ten heavy get completely battered by another top ten heavy quite so one sidedly. Fights between the greats should be close. One defeat his best to The Greatest on his greatest night and one when he was maybe coming off the rails abit to the troublesome Jimmy Young aren't enough to outweigh what he'd already done. Add on coming back as a 250lb bald 40 something to terrorize the division once more and that's a certian YES.

Conn's the sort of boxer whom I'd learn more from watching him shadowbox than from watching most guys fight! Plenty of great wins against guys his own size along with almost dethroning The Brown Bomber himself makes him another solid YES.

Cuevas was certainly exciting and undoubtedly a very GOOD fighter but didn't do much to say he's anything more. Getting hammered by Hearns in 2 rounds obviously isn't enough reason to exclude him because Duran got the same treatment, but Cuevas just fizzled out afterwards. NO.

Fenech although close, has only one really great prime name in his W collumn and that's officially a draw! His other top wins are against the good but never the great, and not usually at their best. NO.

Elorde is another NO. Going 1-1 with Saddler is a great achievement but he came up short when it mattered most and his record is absolutely covered with losses, not just at the end of his career but throughout. Not conisistent enough for me.