The 606v2 Hall of Fame

First topic message reminder :

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

I propose the ground rules to be as follows:

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

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

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

Let's be unashamedly elitist!

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

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

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

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

I have avoided the boxing forums for a couple of days as I fear they will have become overpopulated by the heavyweight divisions latest damp squib.

But its nice to be able to come on and discuss something a bit more interesting like this.

I will start by agreeing with almost everyone else that Foreman and Conn need no commentary. Conn was patchy outside his championship years. Could be argued perhaps he lacked a bit of longetivity but his light heavy work makes him an easy inclusion even notwithstanding his famous match with Louis first time around.

Fenech is no for me. He arrived around the bantam/feather division in a bit of a depression period when many of the top names were gone or going. His two best wins were probably Villasana and Zaragoza which were good but not great. He gave Nelson all he could handle in the first fight but the rematch a year later answered the question.He wasnt a genuinely elite fighter in my opinion and existed in a relatively weak small weight era when you consider the quality around in the 70s and early 80s.

Flash Elorde is a tricky one, but I think he deservs the nod. Feel somewhat compelled to make a bigger case for him as he doesnt appear to be making the cut when I think he falls just the right side of the line. First looking at his bouts with Saddler. Different arguments can be made. His winning bout was won decisively over Saddler but was not a championship affair and only a ten rounder in Elordes home country. Saddler took the bout a mere ten days after fighting in Japan so could not be considered anywhere near his best (its arguably that at that stage in his career he was past his best anyhow). The second bout is alot more telling as it was full championship taking place in the United States. Elorde gave a great account of himself and was only stopped through two nasty cuts. The fight was most competitive and ironically I place more credit on Elorde for this losing battle than I do with the much more questionable winning bout. Its also worth considering that while Saddler was by then a long toothed veteran perhaps nearing retirement, Elorde was little more than a novice who had only fluked his title shot through a major upset over what I honestly believe was a very underprepared and unfocused Saddler.

I have noticed that few have mentioned that Elordes record includes a large number of losses and whilst that may be true, I think if you look at his championship years hes actually far more consistent than his record overall may suggest. Billy Conn for example had a record also full of holes at various points also. He won his world super featherweight titles circa 1960 and reigned for a good 6/7 years as the man in the division. In that time frame he only posted a small amount of defeats which were at lightweight including two to Ortiz. He beat his main divisional rivals and scored good wins at lightweight, especially Laguna which springs to mind despite coming up short for the title against Ortiz. So Elorde is ultimately a yes for me.

Cuevas is a definate no. Not even the best welterweight of his title reign with Palomino there arguably although between the pair of them they took care of every challenger for the best part of half a decade and were a step up until the arrivals of Leonard, Hearns, Benetiz, Duran and so on. The arrivals of these men highlighted the difference between good and great and Cuevas never really met this requirement.

Overall:

Conn = Yes
Cuevas = No
Elorde = Yes
Fenech = No
Foreman = Yes

With Elorde his inconsistency did generally come up at lightweight rather than his more natural super featherweight where once at the top he stayed there for a long time

Imperial Ghosty wrote:With Elorde his inconsistency did generally come up at lightweight rather than his more natural super featherweight where once at the top he stayed there for a long time

Thats certainly very true. And its really only the couple of losses to Ortiz, himself a fine fighter, that are significant. It was touched on in relation to the Canto debate but Japan was really a no go area unless you could garauntee yourself a knock out. The judging was horrendous back then if there was a home fighter involved and even when there was a "neutral" judge allegations of bribery and corruptions were not uncommon.

A prime example would be Elordes bouts with the very average Teruo Kosaka. Elorde was considered robbed absolutely blind in their bout in Tokyo where most accounts including Ring magazine had him winning virtually every round only to drop a SD. They fought 5 times in total with Elorde winning lopsided decisions outside of Japan. When they went for another installment in Japan, Elorde was again winning the fight before knocking Kosaka out but again, being in Japan, was behind on the cards at the time (another SD) before eventually fighting a final time outside Japan where Elorde again won by KO.

Elorde would also go to eventually lose his titles to another Japanese fighter (in Japan) there again in highly controversial circumstances.

I mention this not only to justify this particular loss on Elordes record but also to highlight how questionable a place Japan was in the those times to travel to if you werent the local favourite, and in many cases a negative result there needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Unfortuantely it looks like Elorde wont even get a second ballet look in as it stands but during his championship reign which was lengthy, he really only lost to Carlos Ortiz at lightweight during a stretch of well over 30 bouts.

Agree that Conn and Foreman are certs and Cuevas is a no. Fenech and Elorde seem to be the tricky ones.

Gut feeling is Fenech is no. Elorde is borderline with me but will give him a yes in the interests of keeping him around for a second ballot.

Conn - yes
Cuevas - no
Elorde - yes
Fenech - no
Foreman - yes

Am wondering what we do with someone like Elorde who from what i've read is a general no for first ballot entry but someone many of us would like to be reconsidered at a later time?

Ghosty, if you feel that he ought to be in the Hall, whether now or later, then you should vote yes for Elorde. It is highly unlikely that this will push him into a Hall of Fame place automatically, but it may well keep him around for a second ballot.

Having been fairly uncertain about my own decision on Elorde, I am indebted to Colonial Lion for once again pointing out the unreliability of some results and collateral lines of form from Japan in the 60s and 70s. In light of this, an undoubted scandal of the era, I am persuaded to reverse my negative vote for Elorde into a YES. To go 30+ fights at top level, losing genuinely only to the great Ortiz, is indeed an achievement that should be acknowledged.

It's a tricky one Captain isn't it, found the Fenech decision a lot easier but Elorde is a fighter I like so may be basing it on personal preference a bit but will too change my vote to a yes

George Foreman followed by Billy Conn..

Easier than usual Captain..

conn yes
foreman yes
fenech no
cuevas no

Anyone with a name like flash is worthy of a mention and that run is pretty impressive. I'm fence sitting. And i guess fence sitting is a no.

After last week's voting, our esteemed panel of judges, for the first time, has seen fit to add two boxers to our Hall of Fame simultaneously. Both Billy Conn and George Foreman were elected unanimously and become the 34th and 35th members of this exclusive club. Elsewhere, Flash Elorde, with just over 54% of the vote, garnered sufficient support to remain as a candidate for 2012. Jeff Fenech, with only 27%, and Pipino Cuevas (no votes at all) are now permanently excluded from consideration.

To this week, then, when I can say, without fear of contradiction, that we have our most illustrious quintet to date for consideration. They are headed by Bob Foster - was he the hardest-hitting light-heavy in history? Whatever the case, he ruled the 175 pound division with an iron fist for six years, overwhelming all opponents with the power in his hitting. Never big enough to mix with the heavyweights, at the lower division, Foster was a colossus.

Smokin' Joe Frazier cemented his legend on the night that he won the most eagerly anticipated fight in history, against Muhammad Ali. By then, he had become acknowledged as the heavyweight king in the absence of Ali through a series of punishing victories over men such as Oscar Bonavena, George Chuvalo and Jimmy Ellis. Nevertheless, it is his unforgettable trilogy with Ali that leaves us with the most indelible impression of this bustling, left-hooking legend.

Gene Fullmer may have been the most underrated middleweight in history. One person who wouldn't have fallen into that trap was Ray Robinson, who may have perpetrated the greatest KO ever on Fullmer, but ended up on the wrong end of a 2-1-1 record in his four-fight series with the punching Mormon. As champion, Fullmer also twice defeated Carmen Basilio, among others, before losing twice with honour, and drawing once, with the rising star from Biafra, Dick Tiger.

In many senses, Khaosai Galaxy IS the super-flyweight division for many people. The Thai with a wrecking-ball for a left fist dropped an early decision and then went unbeaten for the rest of his career, flattening most opposition en route to the WBA title and a string of defences against men such as Yong Kang Kim and Elly Pical. A division record number of defences led to public adulation for Galaxy, who remains a Thai idol to the present day.

Victor Galindez was a key player in one of the richest light-heavyweight eras of all. A contemporary of Britain's John Conteh, he captured the WBA title twice, making ten defences of the crown around the world and beating some renowned hard men, including Yaqui Lopez and Richie Kates. Arguably his greatest triumph came in an early victory over Eddie Gregory (later Mustafa Muhammad). Retiring in his early 30s, Galindez's retirement was tragically short-lived, as he was mown down by a car at a race-track.

Closing time for votes is Sunday next (17th July) at midnight.

Well i'll start with the easy ones and looking at my list of favoured fighters it becomes even more obvious why

Foster, Frazier and Galaxy are all a definite yes from me while Fullmer and Galindez are no's from me

I'll start with Foster who has to be one of the easiest decisions we'll have to make in this grand under taking, he's in illustrious company at the top of the light heavyweight division and it's no exaggeration to say he deserves to be mentioned amongst the likes of Moore, Charles, Tunney and Spinks as the divisions top men. One of only two to knock out the great Dick Tiger to first claim the title went on to dominate the division in a way not many fighters ever have, not many names that jump out at you but a lot of good fighters were destroyed by him and that's not a word I like to use often. Never beaten at the weight, retired as champion after 15 defences of crown, what more needs to be said.

Frazier on the face of things is a tricky one but how can you possibly say no the guy who first beat Muhammad Ali, in the absence of the great man proved himself as the divisions top dog beating respected heavyweights such as Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis, Machen, Mathis, Chuvalo and Bugner on the way. May have been 1-4 against the best fighters he fought in Ali and Foreman but if we're honest who if anyone would really have done much better having to face such amazing fighters.

As for Galaxy very much the same reasoning as for Foster so wont bore you by repeating it but will add it's very rare to find a KO artist down in the lower division like he was

Fullmer and Galindez I don't feel need much explanation, neither of them are what I would call elite fighters but interested to hear the views of others especially Chris with regards to Galindez.

Morning captain, superb quintet up for consideration this week, very strong.

Foster is a no-brainer. An absolute phenomenon at Light-Heavyweight and, while there aren't all that many eye-catching names on his ledger outside of Tiger, Rouse, Rondon and Fourie (in world terms, at least) I think that anyone who can totally and utterly dominate one of the original eight weight classes the way that Foster did deserves to be in our Hall of Fame without any doubt. A clear yes.

Frazier's credentials speak for themselves. The only mark against him is that 1-4 scoreline against him when it came to facing his biggest rivals; however, considering that those two rivals were Ali and Foreman, we can probably forgive him for that. I think his number of title defences, win over Ali and the fact that he's just about a top ten Heavyweight are enough to give Smokin' Joe the nod. Another yes.

I think you're spot on when you say that Fullmer may just have been the most underrated of all the 160 lb champions. Granted, it wasn't a Ray Robinson at the absolute peak of his powers who he beat, but that single punch knockout and the incredibly close nature of their third fight suggest that the Sugar Man still had at least something to offer, and therefore Fullmer deserves a lot of credit for those wins. Throw in Panter, Basilio, Giardello and Paret, I think there is comfortably enough on the Utah man's resume to warrant an induction. Yes.

I'll also say yes to Galaxy - cracking little fighter. Wasn't always sold on the Super-Flyweight division, but as time has gone on I've come to realise that it's actually been one of boxing's brighter innovations. Galaxy did, for all intents and purposes, unify with the IBF's top man in Pical - who gave up his belt to challenge the Thai, if I remember correctly? - and a couple of his other victims won titles after he'd dealt with them, too. Ruled the division just about as conclusively as anyone can and, while I suspect I might be in the minority here, I'll give him a yes.

As some may know, Galindez is one of my absolute favourite fighters of all time, so it agonizes me that, in all honesty, I can probably see him getting turned away from our Hall of Fame. An inexplicably inconsistent and patchy start to his career, which in fairness was evened out by a period in which he looked unstoppable at times. Personally, I think ten defences of the WBA crown, as well as bouncing back to regain it when clearly past his best and struggling with detached retinas, is proof enough for inclusion. Hutchins, Lopez, Fourie, Ahumada, Kates and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad on his ledger mean that, to me, Galindez is second only to Matthew Saad Muhammad in that fantastic era of the 175 lb men, and so I'm going to say yes to him - but let me know if that paragraph smacks of bias!

Cheers.

I'd echo Chris' sentiments that this is a marvellous quintet.

I'd also follow much of his reasoning for his choices, and would unreservedly vote ' yes ' for Foster, Frazier and Fullmer.

I needed a moment or three to ponder Galaxy, since it could be argued that he didn't always fight the cream of the available opposition. However, it could equally be argued that such potential opposition might not have been too interested in sharing a ring with him. Also, Galaxy's record is identical to that of Marciano with the exception of the single blemish, and nobody would consider denying Rocky a place, even though many question the credentials of his challengers. All this persuades me that Galaxy is a ' yes.'

I'd love to include Galindez, who operated in a very fine lightheavy division from the mid seventies on, but the ghost of Jimmy Bivins is nagging away at me. Little doubt that Galindez was a leading figure among the175lb.ers' second, ' golden age,' but I'd have to say that Saad Muhammad was probably the pick of the bunch, as was Charles during Bivins' best days. Of itself, Galindez' coming second best might not be sufficient for rejection but, coupled to the rejection of Bivins there is, for me, sufficient reason to - very reluctantly - vote ' no.'

Foster, Frazier, Fullmer, Galaxy - yes.

Galindez - no.

Foster is a top 5 light-heavyweight by any measure you choose. He'd be in among my top 50 fighters at any weight, I would think, and is the living embodiment of what "elite" means. YES

Strictly on the book, Frazier isn't the shoo-in that other fighters are. The book, however, does no real justice to Joe, who was the man at heavyweight for five years, even if the first three were spent labouring under the shadow of the absent Ali. His record had a comfortingly solid look, even before The Fight. March 8th 1971 saw one of the greatest heavyweight performances of all time and it means that no proper Hall should ever be without Joe Frazier. YES

I'm always astonished that anyone questions Gene Fullmer's credentials for this kind of enterprise. Quite simply, he is a top ten middleweight of all time for me. His style was ugly, he didn't look much like a fighter, but by God he got the job done. Two inside the distance wins over Basilio look superb from this angle, to say nothing of the Robinson wins, the dominant showings against Paret and Webb and the early win over Pender. Even in his losing trilogy with Dick Tiger, right at the end of his career, Gene raged against the dying of the light like a true champion. Without any hesitation in my mind, he is a YES.

I can't possibly not include someone who dominates the history of his division to the extent that Khaosai Galaxy does. That left cross was arguably the biggest single southpaw weapon in history; it drove a massive hole through the 115 lb men of the day, plus as Windy suggests, accounting for a lot of others who didn't want to get anywhere near it. Another triumph of substance over style, Galaxy would always be among my elite. YES.

So we come to the toughest choice of this week for me, and much as Chris makes a great case for his favourite, I can't quite bring myself to follow suit. His longevity is impressive, but essentially, Galindez beat the sort of door-keepers that most of the best 175 pounders of the day, such as Saad, Pops Johnson and Conteh, also took care of. I would have wanted to see Galindez beat one of the acknowledged kings to have given him the nod here, and I don't think that his early home decision over Gregory is quite enough to justify it. It's tight, but for me, Galindez is a NO.

so time for some devils advocate.

Can't come up with anything for foster... could question the calibre of opposition for galaxy but that would be plain churlish. Both cast iron inclusions for me.

On pure performances, Frazier is borderline for me, not helped by the lasting images of being embarrassingly cuffed around the ring by foreman. However, he did take part in the greatest trilogy ever and gave arguably the greatest fighter ever (though not the best version of him) all the trouble he could handle, so i'm leaning to a yes.

Fullmer. All the guys to have commented so far have a better boxing knowledge than myself, and especially in this era. However, I see a very good record in the days when such were rare, but i don't see the names on it. Living off win over srr, but to me fullmer and basillio might as well be berbick and leon spinks. Ok that's harsh, but he's borderline for me and borderline is no. If i put Fullmer, I'm saying yes to too many others.

Now Galindez, I had to check boxrec to see his reign and it was longer than i remembered, but i'm unconvinced there's enough meat on the record to justify inclsion. 2 resident historians above put him behind saad muhammed in the era and saad muhammed who i saw a lot more of, would be a no for me, so galindez is a no. Sorry chris!

Quite the Devil's advocate you are, Milky! I see where you're coming from in all cases except that of Fullmer. As I'm sure you know, he beat Robinson twice, once before suffering that paralysing KO loss to the Sugar man. It may not have been the very best version of Robinson, but then again, I don't think that the middleweight Robinson was "the best version" at any stage. If we must have an Ali era comparison, then Fullmer is closer to Frazier or Norton than Berbick or Spinks, and his record besides Robinson transcends anything that Norton can boast. As I say, Paret, Basilio x2 (both via TKO) and Pender are pretty good additional scalps.

I do believe that Fullmer's overall record stands comparison with any but about eight or nine middleweights in history.

Foster is a given for me, a genuine top five or six guy in probably the historically strongest division ever, rank him above Conn at that weight and Conn was a comfortable yes so Bob is more so. Galaxy is also a yes for me, came as close to dominating his weight as one coud so makes it for me.

Galindez I will probably have to say no to, did not really establish himself as the number one in the division, a fight with Conteh could have established his credentials but looking at his record whilst it has longevity it does not really have the quality I would consider elite enough, not by much but still a no.

Fulmer is really close, wins over a faded but still decent Robbo and two wins over Basillo are probably just enough for me to say yes but not by much.

Which just leaves Frazier, as I said with Foreman am really trying not to apply a different set of criteria for heavies than I would for other weights and the thing that keeps nagging at me is if a feather or middleweight went 1-4 against his best two opponents would we all say yes so happily, I suspect we wouldn't. However beating a near prime Ali in one of the greatest fights ever makes a compelling argument and he cerainly cleared out the best of the rest in a seriously strong era. However as the Captain rightly says the idea of a Hall without Joe doesn't really sit right so on gut instinct alone will say an uncertain yes with the caveat he is not the given many seem to be alluding to

Agree with much of your reasoning, Jeff. Would just add the rider that Willie Pep went 1-3 against Saddler, his greatest opponent, and dropped a decision against Sammy Angott as well. Obviously, I'm choosing an extreme case, when a guy has won 200-odd fights against everyone else, but I'm confident that losses against fellow greats can't always be allowed to tell the full story, as you yourself have clearly also decided.

i'm a little out of my depth in this company talking about this era, but i'm going to stick to my guns!

If you're going to draw a line it the sand in robbos career you'd draw it at joey maxim. He was still competitive but he lost at regular intervals thereafter to fighters who won't be making the hall of fame.... though one of whom may surprise me next week! Fullmer is the pick of those guys so i hear where you're coming from, but it's not like he was a clear cut above the others which is why he's borderline for me.

If i was feeling particularly argumentative, i'd suggest that only the first win against robbo has any standing, and that was emphatically overturned... and that a win and draw against sugar ray hitting 40 is not hall of fame stuff.... but only if i was being particularly argumentative

Fair enough milky - don't know if you noticed, but Basilio got elected to the Hall a few weeks ago after a pretty interesting debate.

Foster is a given, no need for explanation.

I think Frazier is in too although I have to say the "he lost to the bet fighters he faced" argument has been used in the past to exclude some and I think people are relaxing it a bit for Frazier, especially the one sided beating by Foreman which were decisive. Howver it seems impossible to have a HoF without someone like Frazier who was so iconic and involved in such classic fights. His record outside Ali and Foreman also amounts to pretty much beating everyone else in the division. So Frazier is in.

Going to give the nod to Fullmer too. Especially if Basilio is alreadyin there. I can side the argument against - namely that he caught Robinson and Basilio at the right time at the right weight. But have to remember that they were still considered top guys in the division at the time. Added to that you have solid wins over many divisional contenders like Jones, Giardello, Webb, Turner and a pretty handy reign. I think its fair to say until Tiger came along he had beaten the best the division had to offer.

Galindez is a tricky one. If we look past his patchy start to his championship reign I think he has a strong argument. Saad Muhammad and Quawi were after him to some extent and other than Conteh, Galindez scored wins over nearly all the top men in the divsion during his stint. He comes on the borderline for me and either way I could see a case but in the interests of keeping him alive for a second chance I will give him a yes.

Galaxy on the face of it would be a surefire, however there are a number of things that bug me about him. Despite his obvious fearsome punching and talent, his record and title reign kind of suggests comfort level. I dont like the number of small divisions below lightweight as I think its far too many and when I see a fighter that never really leaves home, never moves up in weight in those divisions, never unifies and can make a packet fighting basically anyone in front of his own fans I think it takes some of the gloss off. Galaxys opposition was a bit patchy and if the Ring are anything to go by he didnt actually face his top divisional rivals that often at all, instead being able to go off WBA sanctioned opposition who werent rated as highly. Would have like to see him make the move to bantam at some stage where I think there were better fights and could ever quit shake the feeling that being such a big fish in a small pond and the status he enjoyed in Thailand kind of curbed his ambition to really push on to his full potential. However his longetivity, talent and divisional reign as the clear number 1 man give him the nod for me, maybe not quite as cast iron as most of the rest of you though given I feel there are definate criticisms there.

Think that makes it a clean sweep if I am not mistaken, albiet just to try keep Galindez alive for reconsideration in the future.

Foster - yes
Frazier - yes
Fullmer - yes
Galaxy - yes
Galinez - yes

I think with Fullmer/Robinson nearly everyone would agree it was far from a peak Robinson. But you have to remember that he was still generally ranked as the best middleweight in the world from the mid to late fifties.So while he wasnt peak, Fullmer was still beating the est ranked guy in the division. When you add that he beat virtually every other contender at some point in the late fifties I think it reflects very favourably on him.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Fair enough milky - don't know if you noticed, but Basilio got elected to the Hall a few weeks ago after a pretty interesting debate.

really? ok, stick 'em all in then!!!

There's obviously a good argument for fullmer, i guess it all depends on perspective and at what level you choose to draw your own line.

I wouldn't have voted for basilio either, but missed the debate. I took about a 2 year sabattical from 606 when i eventually tired of the wums, and only recently gave this place a go, on the hope that it would be less vulnerable. Jury still out on that one

I think with Frazier certain allowances are made about his losses to the best two fighters he fought because well they were Ali and Foreman

Fullmer is now making me question my previous choice of saying yes for Basilio who personally isn't in the same league as Gene so on that basis will have to reconsider and say yes, preferably would have said no to both but can't accept Basilio being above him.

You stick to your guns, milky! I see what you're driving at and the fact that I don't entirely agree is neither here nor there. That's the whole purpose of this thread and indeed, this concept.

The problem with this thread is that there are so many knowledgeable and good posters on it that unless you get on it early, most of the potential inductees have already been forensically discussed at length!

The names have been talked about by far more eloquent and interesting posters than me, but for the record, I will vote yes to everyone apart from Galindez.

I agree with the general concensus that Frazier is in despite his losses against his two greatest rivals, but when your two greatest rivals are Ali and Foreman, coupled with his stunning and monumental victory in "that" fight, then any HoF without him would a hollow one.

Just a sidenote on Galaxy as well, there are reasons why you could make an argument for him missing out, but that would be an unfair reflection on a fabulous fighter. He has such a clear lead as the top man in his division and fantastic longevity and style that he has to be in there for me. Much like a Canto or more likely a Ricardo Lopez, he was so strong and dominant at his weight and in his era that it would be a crying shame if he didn't make it in.

I think Foster, Fullmer and Frazier are certs. Would agree with some of the above points that Fullmer is rather underrated and slightly unglamarous. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of his record I think he has more than enough quality there. Robinson, Basilio, Jones, Pender, Giardello (went on to beat Robinson and then Tiger for the world title), Turner amongst others.

Galaxy I would include also. Manos raises some good points on him which I consider valid but he was almost the perfect little fighter for those weight classes. Possibly only Wilde hit harder than him from the small men and he was impossile to dominate physically. Agree completely though that the introductions of super flyweight and light flyweight divisions was wholly unneccessary and simply spread out the divisions too thin. Would loved to have seen Galaxy in with the like of Raul Perez, Canizales or Miguel Lora who I think would have provided stiffer competition up at bantamweight.

I must say I enjoyed watching Galindez fight and the late 70s and 80s certainly provided some great light heavyweights and explosive fights. Overall though I cant find a place for Galindez. He just falls into the very good rather than great category for me in the context of an elitist Hall of Fame.

If it's one boxer...then Foster......two then Frazier as well..

As expected, a host of great names among last week's quintet of candidates has led to a bumper crop of additions to our Hall of Fame. Bob Foster and Joe Frazier gained unanimous approval, Khaosai Galaxy gained 90% of the vote and Gene Fullmer scored 80%, guaranteeing all four a berth in the 606 v2 equivalent of Valhalla. Only Victor Galindez, with a mere 20% of the vote, failed to sway the judges - his name is therefore removed from the candidates' slate.

On to this week's five, who are headed by the master of the bolo punch, Kid Gavilan, the Cuban Hawk. A world-class welterweight for the best part of a decade, Gavilan twice lost to Sugar Ray Robinson, before finally claiming the title in 1951. He would hold the crown for three years, beating men like Billy Graham and Carmen Basilio before moving up to middleweight to challenge unsuccessfully for Bobo Olson's world title. In his next fight, Gavilan would lose the welterweight title in contentious circumstances to Johnny Saxton and subsequently, his career drew to a close in a blizzard of losses to lesser foes.

On his night, Joey Giardello was a match for any welterweight or middleweight of the era. At 147, he had the better of a series with Billy Graham, but it was the move to 160 that saw him achieve his greatest results. A hard-fought draw in a try for Gene Fullmer's title was followed by one or two unexpected losses, before a win over the ageing Sugar Ray Robinson propelled him back to the the forefront of public consciousness. Giardello had also split a pair of non-title fights with Dick Tiger before finally becoming world champion by decisioning the man from Biafra. A successful defence against Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, however, was followed by the loss of his title back to Tiger, and Giardello quickly faded from the championship scene.

Wilfredo Gomez briefly held world belts at featherweight and super-featherweight, but will always be associated with his merciless reign of terror at super-bantamweight. For six years and seventeen defences, "Bazooka" ruled the division ruthlessly, concluding all his defences inside the distance and memorably beating men such as Carlos Zarate and Lupe Pintor. Towards the end of this reign, Gomez made his first attempt on the featherweight crown, losing the fight for which he is probably best known to a punch-perfect performance by the great Salvador Sanchez.

Humberto Gonzalez was one of the most dominating champions in the history of the light-flyweight division. Winning the title and defending it five times, he was then shocked by Rolando Pascua in 6 rounds. Undeterred, he regained the title six months later and made another four defences before losing a magnificent unification battle to Michael Carbajal. However, Gonzalez was not finished, regaining the crown for a second time from Carbajal and making three more defences, including the rubber match against Carbajal, before finally losing his title in the Ring's Fight of the Year against Saman Sorjaturong and retiring.

Billy Graham often features on people's lists of the best boxers never to win a world title. Never off his feet throughout his lengthy career, he was good enough to beat men of the calibre of Kid Gavilan and Carmen Basilio, but could never do so when the world crown was at stake. In his title effort against Gavilan, Graham fell agonisingly short and despite continuing to campaign against the best of his time, and often beating them, he would never again come as close to the ultimate prize.

You know the rules by now. Closing date for votes on these five men is next Sunday, July 24th, at midnight.

The two nailed on certainties here would seem to me to be Gavilan and Gomez.

Anybody who counts Carmen Basilio among his favourite fighters, as I do, will be very familiar with Billy Graham. What a competitive and accomplished fighter he was. Sadly, it was his fate - along with men such as Bivins and Jerry Quarry, perhaps - to be the archetypal ' thorn in the side ' of those who would achieve or aspire to undisputed greatness. A very reluctant ' no ' from me.

Giardello, to me, is not so far removed from Graham except, of course, that he did lay his hands on a world title. I'm not convinced, though, that very creditable results against Fullmer and Tiger are supported by sufficient depth to propel him to the heights. Again, ' no ' from me.

All of which leaves Gonzales. The simple fact of the matter here is that, to my shame, I have seen very little of the man in action and have only a superficial knowledge of his career. In short, I'm not qualified to offer an informed judgement, and I suspect that it would take longer than the time I have remaining before votes are counted to be able to be confident in placing a vote. I am left, then, with ' gut instinct,' and that gut instinct says ' no,' though I am perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise by those who know him better.

' Yes, ' then, for Gavilan and Gomez.

' No ' for Graham, Giardello and Gonzales.

Interesting list captain, have a bit on tonight so will try to get on to these tonight as my initial impression is they are a set of guys who will need a little thought, which never comes easy this early on a Monday

No problem, Jeff, plenty of time.

Gavilan must be knocking on the door of the top five welterweights of all time. He fought the top men in a great era of welterweights, and beat most of them too, with the notable and unsurprising exception of Robinson. He was a pretty dominating and active champion when he finally graduated to the title as well, and he undoubtedly belongs among the elite. YES

Giardello is just far too inconsistent to make my list of successful candidates. For every good victory, there is an inexplicable loss; as his fight with Terry Downes showed, his level was more with the very good than with the truly great, and it is a relatively easy decision for me to pass him over. NO

Gomez, like Galaxy, whom we discussed last week, and Ricardo Lopez, whose turn will come, is by far the greatest fighter of all time in his primary weight class. Such domination as he exerted over the division for so long is rarely accomplished by any fighter. Although I remain puzzled that his great power failed to translate to similar results just four pounds higher, he is still an easy boxer to place among the the true greats of the game. YES

Although, he established narrow superiority over Michael Carbajal in their trilogy, I tend to regard Humberto Gonzalez in exactly the same bracket as his great rival. He was a curious mixture of the dominant and the vulnerable and his conclusive losses to Pascua and Sorjaturong count heavily against him, especially in a division with as short a history as this one. Carbajal was rightly rejected for membership and I can't have Gonzalez in, either. NO

Billy Graham may have been unlucky in a number of ways; his peak coincided with that of some of the greatest welterweights ever, and he may have got the short end of one or two decisions. Nevertheless, I can't ignore the fact that when the money was really down, he failed to seize his opportunity. The true greats have always tended to make their own luck, and I don't see enough weight in his record to make Graham an exception to that rule. NO

Howdy captain, hope all is well.

Gavilan, to start with, is a conclusive ‘yes’ for me. One of the very, very few Welterweights who can at least be mentioned in the same bracket as Robinson at 147 lb and, if we’re being honest, it was Blinky Palermo as much as Johnny Saxton who was responsible for dethroning him. It’s certainly a shame that his career went in to freefall so suddenly after 1954, but the quality of his Welterweight reign, wins over Graham, Basilio and Bratton in title affairs and the fact that he was hardly ever in a bad fight are, combined, evidence enough for his inclusion.

Giardello was obviously a fine fighter in a strong era for the Middleweights, but his record at the high end of that strong era is a little too patchy in my eyes, so it’s a ‘no’ from me. It’s an impressive feat to peak as late as he did after such a long career, but against the top men defeats were more or less as common as wins, and his title reign, though it may not have done his talent the justice it deserves, doesn’t suggest a dominant champion.

On the other hand, there have been few who fit the description of a dominant champion better than the 122 lb version of Wilfredo Gomez did. He’s an easy yes, for me. Phenomenal puncher at the weight, and wins over Zarate, Pintor and Kobayashi in title fights are very significant. Much less of a force at Featherweight and Super-Featherweight of course, but keeping in mind that two of his three losses came against Nelson and Sanchez and that he still won titles in both classes, and he simply has to be in there.

Gonzalez is a tough one, but like his great rival Carbajal I’m going to have to say no, though I suspect my mind might go back and forth on this one in future. Tremendous fighter to watch; he was a stablemate of Cuevas and certainly adopted his style. Always explosive, but short on defence now and then. However, there are a couple of unexpected slip ups on his record during his best years, and though he edged his greatest rival 2-1, I’m just not all that convinced of the depth of the 108 lb weight class. A thumb down from me, I’m afraid.

Billy Graham was obviously a very fine fighter, but I think we can safely say that he’s not the kind of material we had in mind for our version of the Hall of Fame. Had he scored any of his wins over Giardello, Basilio or Gavilan in title bouts, I’d consider him in more detail. But alas, he remains a bit of a boxing footnote, as harsh as that may sound. An excellent career, mixed it with the best much of the time, but not a Hall of Fame man, to me.

So in summary, yes to Gavilan and Gomez, no to Giardello, Gonzalez and Graham. Cheers, captain.

Gavilan is to me the 4th greatest Welterweight to have ever lived behind three men who can lay claim to a top ten all time berth which speaks volumes of the company he belongs with, lost to Robinson but at 147lbs who wouldn't. Had one of the all time great chins and although he lacked genuine power he was a very skilled fighter, outside of his championship which was a who's who of the division he can lay claim to wins over Williams, Jack and Dauthuille which makes it a very simple YES

Giardello and Graham i'll lump in together, it's fighters like these that made us do this, they were very good but more often than not fell short when it really mattered. Graham for instance was a match for anyone in a non title affair scoring wins over his main rivals but as soon as the title was the on the line it was a different matter, challenged multiple times for the Welterweight crown but came up short each and every time, NO

Gomez, what can you say about his reign at super bantamweight, the most brutal and dominating of all time, knocked opponents out for fun a lot of whom were great fighters themselves, YES

Gonzalez will be a simple NO from me

Kid Gavilan for me skipper.........and I'll give a heads up to Wilfredo for 2nd....A great super-bantam that went on to win at feather and jr light..

You don't have to limit it to one or two Truss, you could vote all 5 if you so wished

Kid Gavilan and Wilfredo Gomez both get an easy Yes vote from me.

I'm also going to say Yes yo title holder Giardello and Gonzalez but Vote no for Billy Graham as he didn't achieve the ultimate goal.

But is winning a world title the be all and end all

Sam Langford
Jim Driscoll
Charley Burley

Gavin Rees
Glen McCrory
Glen Catley

Only one of these groups won world titles, think I speak for most in saying the former group sit better in a Hall than the second

Sugar Ray Robinson
Muhammad Ali
Gene Tunney

Peter Buckley
Audley Harrison
Nicky Piper

Only one of these groups won world titles, think I speak for most in saying the former group sit better in a Hall than the second

Audley was WBF champion Scott.

Yes, all very learned stuff....now, get voting, all of you!!!

Meant to do it last night Capt and forgot, will do it by the end of the week, promise.

I'm going with the consensus here, Gavilan and Gomez are easy YES', Gonzalez, Graham and Giardiello are all great fighters, but they don't quite make the elite level of the hall, so to them I vote NO.

Giardello*

I'm taking the liberty of a slightly early round-up of last week's candidates for a couple of reasons - first, I have an extremely busy week ahead, and will have a little less time than usual to sum things up, and secondly, any late additions will make virtually no difference to the voting over the past seven days.

There was a remarkable degree of unanimity in panel voting for our last five candidates. Joey Giardello, Humberto Gonzalez and Billy Graham attracted virtually no votes at all between them and have consequently been removed permanently from our roster of candidates. By contrast, it was a unanimous thumbs up for Kid Gavilan and Wilfredo Gomez, who become the 40th and 41st members of our exclusive club.

This week, I offer you another pretty high-octane quintet. Rocky Graziano battled his way to a shot at the world middleweight title, largely through his victories over former welterweight champ Red Cochran. However, he will always be associated with his remarkable trilogy against the great Tony Zale. Stopped in the first encounter after a give and take brawl, Graziano returned the favour in their second battle to secure the crown. His moment of glory was brief, though, as Zale annihilated him in their third war. Graziano continued to battle at 160 and was rewarded with another shot at the middleweight crown in 1952. Sugar Ray Robinson was much too good for him, however, dismissing Rocky in 3 and ending the championship career of the man who was later to be played by Paul Newman on the silver screen.

In the 1960s, Emile Griffith might have run Muhammad Ali and Eder Jofre quite close as the best pound for pound fighter of the decade. He won the 147 world crown from Benny Paret at the start of the decade, lost it to the same man and then won it again in tragic circumstances. He was to lose and regain the title once more, fitting in the odd defence besides, before winning the newly created light-middleweight title and annexing Dick Tiger's middleweight crown. A subsequent trilogy against Nino Benvenuti saw Emile lose, win and finally lose his crown at 160 for good, although it was by no means the end of his career. For nearly another decade he would box on, twice losing in shots for Carlos Monzon's title and ultimately being beaten by men such as Vito Antuofermo and Alan Minter. Griffith truly spanned two decades as a top-class fighter.

Fighting Harada would be well regarded if he had only been the man to beat that fine fighter Pone Kingpetch to become world flyweight champion. He was, however, much more than that, nailing his greatest achievement by taking the bantamweight championship of the world from the fabulous Eder Jofre. Harada, surely Japan's greatest ever fighter, defended successfully against Jofre and men such as Bernardo Caraballo and Alan Rudkin before losing the crown to Lionel Rose. In two heroic attempts, he later fell just short of prising the world featherweight title from Johnny Famechon, before retiring with the excellent record of 55-7.

Thomas Hearns is an unusual candidate for our Hall in that he hasn't yet been inducted at Canastota. However, it was only earlier this year that Tommy passed the five-year mark since his last fight and I think it's fair to say that he'll get the nod from the IBHOF in due course. Considering that his opposition represents a who's who of the modern era, that would hardly be surprising. His fights with Leonard, Duran and Hagler have passed into boxing folklore, and his combination of savagery and artistry against foes such as Cuevas, Benitez, Andries, Roldan and Hill still provokes admiration two and three decades later. A bona fide legend.

The same epithet applies to Larry Holmes, the man with the ill-fortune to follow Muhammad Ali as the ruler of all the heavyweights. Certainly, Larry had his share of easy defences, but no-one seriously doubted that for seven years, here was the king of the big men, a fact highlighted by his iron will in victories over men such as Norton, Shavers, Weaver and Cooney. Well into his forties, Larry was good enough to take care of much younger perennial contender, Ray Mercer. Not easy to love as a person, but Larry was a fighter who was impossible not to admire.

Apologies for missing last weeks vote Cpatain but as you say would appear my input would have made not a blind bit of difference so no harm done. This week looks a terrific bunch. First off the bat have to say no to Graziano, terrific value fighter but his losing record in the trilogy with Zale suggests his level to me. No shame in losing to Zale who I consider a litle underrated but marks him down as perhaps not elite and there is not enough besides that on the record to mitigate it.

Griffith is a guy I like for the hall of fame, few losses spotting the record but a lot of these come late and even in the 60's when one looks at the company he was keeping is perhaps no surprise,wins over Tiger, Benvenuti, Archer, Fulmer, Paret and the criminally underrated Charnley give him enough of a record to deserve his place.

Hearns and Holmes seem absolute givens to me. Tommy may have lost his two biggest fights but his antics across so many weights guarantee his place and the names you mentioned make for a ledger that can absorb a couple of losses to legends of the game. Holmes is similarly easy, his name may not pop with quality but the same is true of so many a heavy and in an era when Don King was at his most mischeivous to reign for seven years and avoid the pitfalls that befell so many of his contempories marks Larry out and he is a yes.

Harada is a little more tricky because he is slightly lacking in longevity which we often want of the true elite, however two wins over Jofre as well as the excellent Rudkin and Medel mean I am willing to find a place for him, but if others want to argue otherwise will be willing to listen to contrasting views.

Graziano - Certainly a great career and a fighter who, on his night could give anyone a tough fight, but his W record is a little light on really top names and he lost against the very best he fought. He's got the one great win against Zale but lost the trilogy and came up short in all other title shots, albeit against the best. A NO from me.

Emile Griffth - A formidable welterweight and also among the top light middleweight and middleweights for years on end, holds the record for headlining most fights in Vegas (or is it somewhere else? Heck it's not me wo's writing a book on him it's...Chris if I remember correctly) he is in. With titles at three weights and several SD losses (most lossescoming in the second half of his career against elite middleweights he's in, it's a YES for Griffith.

Fighting Harada - Never unanimously beaten at flyweight, took the bantamweight title from arguably the best of them all in Jofre. From then on nobody but featherweight great Famechon unaimously beats him. YES

Thomas Hearns - YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES

Larry Holmes - Lacking in massive names but dominated the heavyweight era for a long time, would've equalled Rocky's record if it weren't for losing a razor close decision while on the slide. Even when past his best could beat the likes of a top contender at his best in Mercer and put in a respectable performence against Holyfield. YES.

Thank Heavens that this is one of those rare occasions when the choices seem to me to be very clear cut.

Graziano is a ' no ' for me, whereas Griffith, Harada, Hearns and Holmes sail home with plenty to spare. ' Yes ' to each of them.