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]

Having just looked ahead to next weeks bunch Windy suspect there will be less sailing through.

good set this week captain:

graziano, ... be a lit like picking mickey ward on the back of a good trilogy and a famous film... ok thats a little harsh but you get my drfit. NO

Griffith... a lack of real domination for any period counts against him a bit, but the longevity, great wins and multiple weights make him a solid YES

Harada... anyone who beats jofre.. YES

Hearns... flawed genius but definite YES

Holmes... top 5 all time heavy in the eyes of everyone except london ring rules (what happened to him?). Not his fault the opposition wasn't the greatest. definite YES

rowley wrote:Having just looked ahead to next weeks bunch Windy suspect there will be less sailing through.

I'm already scratching my head, jeff.

Morning captain, one straightforward 'no' and four equally straightforward 'yes' candidates for me, this week.

Graziano is the man who falls in to the former category. His crude style meant that he was often outboxed and never really a dominant performer in his time, and fantastic trilogy though it was, coming off second best in his series with Zale seals his fate. NO.

Griffith, on the other hand, is as close to an automatic selection as they come. An all-time great Welterweight, and a damn good Middleweight, too. His record reads like a who's who of 147 lb to 160 lb boxing in the sixties and seventies; Paret, Monzon, Rodriguez, Benvenuti, Charnley, Moyer, Ortega, Tiger, Napoles and probably a couple more who have slipped my mind. His record post-Welterweight may be chequered, but the quality of his 147 lb reign and the fact that he arguably came closer than anyone to ending Monzon's tenure mean that he's more than worhty. YES.

I've always felt that Harada is a little underrated, so it's good to see that so far, most seem to agree that he deserves his place. He was a fine Bantamweight in his own right, beat an all-time great 112 lb man to take the Flyweight crown and, had it not been for Pep's shambolic refereeing performance against Famechon, probably would have added the Featherweight title on top of that. Wins over Jofre, Kingpethch and Medel, amongst others, make him a shoe in. YES.

Hearns may not have ever dominated a single weight class, but he scored enough significant wins across the ones he did fight in to earn a spot in our Hall of Fame, for my money. I genuinely believe that there are only three or four Welterweights in history who could have beaten the Hearns of 1980-1981 - Ray Leonard just happened to be one of them. Still, titles from 147 lb to 175 lb and wins over Cuevas, Duran (albeit at 154 lb), Benitez, Roldan, Hill and those classic bouts with Leonard and Hagler mean that no Hall of Fame is complete without him. YES.

Holmes, to me, remains a top five Heavyweight of all time, and as such his credentials speak for themselves. His opposition didn't always look spectacular, granted, but he proved his worth in the furnace of a title reign which has only been beaten a few times in history in terms of number of defences and length. A clear YES.

Cheers.

Nothing very original for me to add, I fear. I like milkyboy's comparison of Graziano with Mickey Ward; crude brawler doesn't even begin to describe it, and he is well short of our elite requirements, I would think. NO

It seems superfluous to add anything to what has already been said about Griffith, Hearns and Holmes. They are among the greatest fighters ever and are obvious ornaments to any Hall of Fame. YES x3

So, in my opinion, is Harada. Tough as old boots, fought the best available in three divisions and mostly came out on the plus side of the ledger. Two wins against Jofre alone make the case for his inclusion compelling; add Caraballo, Medel, Rudkin and Kingpetch to the account and it's case proven, for me. YES

Got to this a bit late and i've nothing more to add to what's been said already.

Graziano is a obvious No while Griffith, Hearns, Holmes and Harada are an equally clear yes.

As above for me.

Graziano NO
Griffith YES
Holmes YES
Hearns YES
Harada YES
I don't think there is anything to add to reasons already given for the 'yes' candidates, but one thing I might add to the detriment of Graziano's case is that many believe he avoided Lamotta (watch 20 mins 45 secs into this link for my source https://youtu.be/lMXlSP4KyG0).

To be fair to Graziano can't see him standing much chance against Lamotta who while he could be outbrawled would be nigh on impossible to outbrawl at middleweight.

I tend to agree, just another reason not to have him in the hall of fame, which looks pretty unlikely anyway given the way the voting is going.

As last week, I'm going to round up the latest voting action a few hours early, for no other reason than the fact that voting has, once again, proved remarkably unanimous.

Our distinguished five candidates for the past seven days each received the same vote from every judge. Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to cast your ballot; it's the solidity of thought that lends credibility to what we're trying to achieve. As a result of the past week, we have, once again, another four new entries into our Hall of Fame. Emile Griffith, Fighting Harada, Thomas Hearns and Larry Holmes were buried under an avalanche of compliments and positive votes and have eased into boxing nirvana. Rocky Graziano, in contrast, has sunk without trace, never to trouble the candidates' slate again.

This week, we have a quintet that, I suspect, will provoke a good deal of debate.
They are headed by the teak-tough lightweight, Beau Jack, the former shoe-shine boy, who beat men of the calibre of Fritzie Zivic and an ageing Henry Armstrong on his way to winning a version of the world lightweight title against Tippy Larkin. Jack would lose, regain and finally lose the title to Bob Montgomery, against whom he fought a compelling four-fight series that finished all square. Even then, Jack's career was no back number, as he was to KO the awkward Sammy Angott, but defeating the great Ike Williams was to prove a bridge too far. In four fights against Williams, the best that Jack could manage was a non-title fight draw, and he would lose decisively in his last shot at the title and finally retire back to his original profession of shining shoes.

Lew Jenkins, the "Sweetwater Swatter", was one of the biggest punchers in lightweight boxing history. An uneven first part to his career gave little hint of the golden few years that he would enjoy around the end of the 1930s and beginning of the 1940s. Here, he would KO men such as Tippy Larkin and Mike Belloise, before performing a similar feat against the great Lou Ambers and relieving him of his world title. He would do the same to Ambers in their second meeting, but would rapidly lose the lightweight crown to Sammy Angott, who masterfully outpointed Jenkins over 15. Jenkins, a man who loved women, whisky and fast motorbikes more than he did training, would never touch such heights again and his career would peter out into relative anti-climax.

Ingemar Johansson is the only Swedish boxer ever to touch public consciousness to any significant degree. By 1959, his crude style and hammer-like right cross had made him the undisputed king of European heavyweights, while his sensational first-round KO of Eddie Machen made him the obvious challenger for Floyd Patterson's world crown. History tells how Ingo treated Floyd like a rubber ball in their first meeting, knocking him down 7 times in 3 rounds en route to the title, and how he would lose their two subsequent meetings in thrilling slug-fests. After this great trilogy, Johansson returned to ruling Europe, before retiring suddenly in 1963.

When Harold Johnson won a version of the world light-heavyweight title in 1960, he had been boxing, and mostly winning, in the highest class at 175 and heavyweight for more than a decade. Light-heavies as good as Jimmy Bivins and Bert Lytell and heavyweights such as Nino Valdes and Ezzard Charles were to fall victim to his educated fists during this period. The man who stood in the way of ultimate immortality for Harold was Archie Moore. Four times they met, and Harold lost three of them, including a marvellous tilt at the Mongoose's world title, when, ahead on points, Johnson fell victim to an inspired Moore comeback in the 14th round. Johnson would annex a version of the 175 title and then go on to secure undisputed recognition by beating Doug Jones, but his time at the top would be briefer than he deserved. After a few relatively undemanding defences, he would lose the titles in a major upset to Willie Pastrano.

Ismael Laguna's championship credentials were established at a tender age. He was just twenty-one when he first won the world lightweight championship from the legendary Carlos Ortiz, having already come out narrowly on the short side of a non-title verdict against Vicente Saldivar. After another non-title humdinger, which finished in a draw, against Nicolino Locche, Laguna lost the crown back to Ortiz and was then outclassed by the great Puerto Rican in their rubber match. Three years later, though, Laguna was the champion again, beating Mando Ramos and defending successfully against future WBC champion Guts Ishimatsu. However, in two subsequent fights in San Juan and New York, Britain's Ken Buchanan proved too skilled and durable for Laguna, winning two decisions in world title bouts and sending Roberto Duran's boyhood hero into retirement, still aged only twenty-eight.

Howdy captain, hope you don't mind me getting my votes in early, and I must say that there are a couple of very, very difficult ones to call this week. Suppose I'd better get the easier ones out of the way first!

Johansson, to me, is one of the least deserving members to be honoured at Canastota, no disrespect intended. And so, I don't need to think too much about this. Upsetting a brittle-chinned champion such as Patterson but ultimately ending on the wrong end of their trilogy and a good reign as Europe's finest big man simply isn't enough to qualify 'Ingo' for a place amongst the elite. It's a certain no.

Laguna, too, was obviously a very fine fighter, but coming off second best over his trilogy with the best fighter he ever met in Ortiz, never really establishing himself as a truly dominant champion and also losing the title to an unfancied novice (even if it was a superb one in Buchanan) in what was effectively his back yard disqualify him from any serious consideration. Once more, it's a no.

Jenkins is the first name which gives me any kind of headache, but again after a small amount of consideration I feel it has to be a thumbs down. He was definitely unlucky to be a part of such a tremendous era for the 135 lb men, but at the same time those are the kind of eras you need to stand tall in to cement a legacy worthy of the Hall of Fame. Jenkins didn't really manage that due to his relatively short time at the very top, so it's a no from me.

Now we're on to the two seriously tough ones! First up, Beau Jack. I'm a big admirer of Jack, hence why I covered him in my forgotten greats series, but I'm torn about whether or not he warrants inclusion here. Though you've suggested we stay clear of such thinking, at the back of my mind I can't help remembering that I said no to Joe Brown who I rate a place or so higher than Jack in the all-time Lightweight stakes, and though his list of opposition is fantastic, he was unable to get the better of his two greatest rivals in Montgomery and Williams (though he was obviously very close in the first case). No shame in that, of course, but I think it probably eliminates him from my reckoning. It's a no, for me.

And finally, Harold Johnson, who I also covered in forgotten greats. I'm tempted to give a thumbs down to him, though it's very, very close. Sadly, though, I can't ingore that his greatest rival at 175 lb had the wood on him, and that his other most notable win (Charles) came up at Heavyweight, not Ezzard's best weight class, and when he'd probably seen better days, too. Great, great fighter, but not quite of the 606v2 Hall of Fame mould, I'm sad to say. A very reluctant no.

So that's a clean sweep of rejections across the board from yours truly - what a miserable bleeder I am! Cheers captain.

Chris, it's always good to get your views, however early they're formulated!

I must agree with you about Johansson, surely one of the most limited fighters ever to hold an undisputed title at any weight. He must have been able to box a bit, since he won an Olympic silver medal (disqualified in the final for "not trying"), but he scarcely ever showed any evidence of it during his pro career. Wins against Machen, Patterson and a host of average British contenders for this right-hand happy hitter are just not enough to overcome a general feeling that Canastota have it badly wrong by admitting him to their Hall. NO

Ismael Laguna clearly had bags of talent, and there's no shame in losing 2-1 to a lightweight as great as Ortiz. However, despite mixing in the highest class for seven or eight years, it can't be said that he established a dominant mark over his division or any of the best fighters that he met. I rank him slightly below Ken Buchanan in the all-time 135 lb standings, and not just because of the results of their head to heads, which means that Laguna is clearly not one of the true elite. NO

The same applies to Lew Jenkins, who could probably have KO'd just about any lightweight in history on his night, if caught sober and fully focused. His record, however, is spotted with inconsistency; there are far too many bad losses, mixed in with the wins, and his dominance over Lou Ambers still seems a trifle mysterious to me. He must also be a NO.

With Beau Jack, I am really undecided. He has some marvellous wins on his record, good longevity and a willingness to fight all-comers. That KO of Angott looks extremely good from this angle, and I'm not going to deduct too many marks from him for falling short against Williams, one of the most under-appreciated champions in history, in my view. On the whole, though, I look at Montgomery as the benchmark. Jack was clearly just about on a par with Bob, and I'm not sure that this is quite enough for a properly exclusive Hall of Fame. Not without misgivings, and with the proviso that I can be persuaded to the contrary by someone with a sufficiently convincing argument, I am forced to vote Jack a NO.

It is in the case of Harold Johnson that I must disagree with you, Chris. I am convinced that up until extremely recently, I have grievously underrated Harold. I have always had him somewhere around the 15-16 mark on the all-time 175 lists, but I'm not sure that he shouldn't be as high as 11 or even, arguably, 10. From beating Godoy in 49, through trumping Satterfield, Valdes and Charles at heavy, while giving weight away, and more than holding his own against the cream of the greatest era of light-heavyweights in history, Johnson fought and won in the highest class across two weight divisions for almost 15 years. That is some longevity. The fact that Moore had the Indian sign over him should not, in my opinion, be held against Johnson any more than the Mongoose's failure to beat Ezzard Charles in any of their three bouts should be used as a stick with which to beat Archie. His title-losing try against Archie was one of the great heroic failures of all time, and Harold did, after all, reach the Holy Grail in the end. For many reasons, I feel that our Hall would not be complete without Harold, and, for me he is a confident YES.

Well, my initial gut instinct was to say yes to Johnson, so I'd have no qualms with you disagreeing with me on that one, captain. It was only upon further reflection that my mind changed, but you've countered that with a very persuasive argument for his conclusion. I'll stick with my original no for now, but while I've not done it so far, don't be all that surprised if I come back later this week with my tail between my legs asking if I can revise my vote!

Johannson, Laguna and Jenkins are all clear no's for me but Jack and Johnson are horrible fighters to try and rate on a HOF basis, both are clearly great fighters by any measure who were competing in very strong eras at their best weights which makes their defeats difficult to rate.

I am going to have to regretably say no to both having seen Angott and Bivins come up short, would give them a vote for reconsideration as they are very close to the required level.

Interesting bunch this week. Ingemar seems an obvious one, whenever I think of the plethora of undeserving fighters currently in Canastota Ingermar is never far from my thinking, however in the interests of fairness I have had another look at his record to see if that is a little harsh and on reflection I am absolutely certain it isn't, he is as big a no as possible.

Laguna similarly falls short, cannot see how I can say no to Buchanan as I did and grant a place to a guy who went two zip to him, particularly when you add in the losing record to Ortiz, for me it suggests a record less than elite. Another no

Jenkins probably also has to be a no, some good wins on the ledger such as Ambers but just far too many poor results and inconsistency along the way.

Jack is borderline, good longevity Angott is obviously a good result but for the true elite think we would have to see him establishing his dominance over either Montgomery or Williams, something he really didn't do so has to be a relutcant and close no.

Johnson is a guy I can go either way on, both Chris and Captain make compelling arguments either way, will not mark him down too much for Archie having the wood over him because Archie is some fighter, however wins over Bivins, Charles Jones and Machen have me thinking if nothing else he is a guy who deserves to at least make it to a secondary consideration and if for no other reason than to try and ensure he earns that distinction I will say yes.

With the exception of one minor inconsistency in my reasoning, I find this week's batch reasonably straightforward.

Johansson is a ' no ' and, since others have provided excellent arguments for his rejection, there is absolutely no need for me to amplify them.

Jenkins is more difficult to call, but I again agree with the consensus opinion and reasoning for his rejection. No.

Laguna is also a ' no.' Our own Ken Buchanan proved himself to be Laguna's master, and if there is no place for Ken among the true elite then it would be, in my opinion, absurd to find a place for Laguna.

The subjects of my apparent inconsistency are Jack and Johnson.

I normally would have little difficulty in rejecting Jack, simply because he came up short against the best of his day. The problem, of course, is that the ' Master Mechanic, ' Johnson, also got the short end of the stick in his series with Archie Moore. However, great though Williams and Montgomery were, I'm sufficiently persuaded that Moore's standing in the boxing pantheon is a notch or three above those of Williams or Montgomery. Johnson's coming ' second best ' to Moore is, to me anyway, akin to the excellent Valdez' having been overshadowed by Monzon or, indeed, Moore's having come very much second best to Ezzard Charles.

Wins over Moore, Charles, Eddie Machen, Arturo Godoy, Clarence Henry, Jimmy Bivins, Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes and Doug Jones, among others, together with the fact that I'm aware of at least one historian who names Johnson among his top fifteen lightheavies of all time, are sufficient to convince me that Johnson is a ' yes.'

In summary, Johansson, Jenkins, Jack and Laguna. NO

Johnson. YES.

Everyone has already said everything really.

Laguna NO
Johansson NO
Jenkins NO
Jack NO

Harold Johson I'm giving the YES to. Not only does he have all the right names splattered across his record but 11 losses in an 87 fight (20 something year) career against that kind of opposition is incredible. The win over Charles may be a past it Charles but he beat Rex Layne that year and went on to KO Statterfield the next year and give Rocky two tough fights. Johnson deserves credit for edging this old but live version of Charles.

Not being as good as Moore isn't enough to keep him down for me. YES to Johnson.

Beau Jack is the trickiest of this lot I think. I would like to include him and there are many reasons to. I think his peak years between 1942-46 is what I examine him most on. This period is marked by some really quality wins. Armstrong, Larkin, Stolz, Zivic, Greco, Angott, Joyce and Zurita amongst others with a record of something like 19-3-2 until his loss to Tyler when he was struggling with injuries and wear and tear. On the basis of that stretch which inluded wins at lightweight throught to welterweight in some cases I would be inclined to give him the nod. However other things must be considered. He would come up short against Ike Williams and Kid Gavilan. I have sympathy here for him as I think by this stage he was past his best, certainly for the majority of the Williams fights. He also competing at welter far more outside his peak years and often giving away significant weight advantages to his rivals and didnt have the luxury of the light welterweight division to compete in. We can also look at his title reign and say despite the fact he beat most of his rivals at some point during his peak years, he never put together an extensive title reign. He is a bit like Bivins in this regard, who despite going through a period where he was almost certainly a top light heavy, he never had the title reign to show for it. Jacks consistency also began to drop off in his later years and this combined with age, wear and tear, fading skills and having to compete higher up the weights saw hm drop off in the latter part of his career. Ultimately I find it very difficult to say and much depends on how much emphsise you place on the negative factors. I have noticed that more recent fighters tend to get a much more favourable break in things like weight issues or post peak losses than some of the older ones. Possibly because they are simply more well known and heard about whereas the exploits of some of these older fighters in eras where titles were difficult to win are often overlooked or forgotten. Duran for instance gets plenty of slack for his above lightweight losses that somebody like Jack would not really be afforded. With this in mind an judging him on the quality of his peak years and resume I think I will go aganst the concensus and vote yes for Jack choosing to highlight him when he was at his best as a lightweight for a solid 4/5 year period.

Lew Jenkins is a frustrating one and is summed up largely by being inconsistent. His questionable lifestyle and dedication combined with his horribly inconsistent record means its rather difficult to get a true reflection of his quality, or where his potential would have seen him end up with more focus. He has enough quality wins there in the form of Ambers, Montgomery, Lello and Larkin plus many divisional contenders to convince one of his overall talent but his inconsistency, short reign and his exensive losses to both rivals and lower level fighter and his relatively short stint at the top means I just dont think he has the career to match his potential or talent.

Ingemar Johansson is a fighter that I had a soft spot for having remembered his fights with Patterson and our own Cooper, London and Richardson amongst others. There was a Swedish family that lived close by whos father was in merchant shipping and I was friendly with their son who would follow Johansson eagerly. However despite his only losses coming to Patterson, outside of that his wins fall into the largely European/domestic bracket and I think his place in the Hall was largely basd on the excitement of the trilogy with Patterson rather than the actual quality of the fighters. So hes a rather decisive no for me despite fondly remembering his fighting days as amongst my earliest boxing memories.

Harold Johnson is a fighter that I certainy feel is worthy of inclusion. Im slightly reluctant to embrace the principle that if you lose to your biggest rival overall then you struggle to get into the hall. Surely Willie Pep, Archie Moore, Joe Frazier and many more would be exluded on that basis? I think you have to try to look at everything overall and in this instance I think Johnson has enough going for him to make the cut.

If we look at the top lightheavies in what was an extraordinarily competitve era then wins over Moore, Charles and Bivins are indicative of quality of the highest level. If we add to that further wins over top rated rivals such as Lytell, Morrow, Satterfield, Doc Williams, Cotton, Machen, Jones and Slade plus a heavyweight Valdes then his overall resume is extremelly strong. Whats more, his career spanned three decades where Johnson was a top rated contender and was consistently beating top ranked contenders in the division. I think he was rated in the top three lightheavies by the Ring for about ten years, spanning three decades which is a remarkable acheivement in itself.

Unfortunately a great deal of emphasis seems to be placed on the lack of a quality title reign and his losing record to Moore, which in the circumstances of the time I dont think is any real disgrace (also included a very debateable loos for the title to Pastrano). He scores extremelly highly in terms of longetivity and quality wins which I think are sufficient to warrant inclusion.

Ismael Laguna is a no for me. Can be argued that by the Buchanan fights he was reaching burnout. But outside of that he just has too many defeats to his rivals to warrant inclusion. His quality win over Ortiz I think is offset in large parts to the subsequent two losses and further losses to the likes of Flash Elorde (himself not deemed worthy enough for automatic placing), Saldivar, Espinoza and a draw with Locche mean I cant consider him for inclusion.

So to conclude:

Beau Jack - yes
Lew Jenkins - no
Ingemar Johansson - no
Harold Johnson - yes
Ismael Laguna - no

Colonial Lion, as ever, you provide masses of food for thought there. As I mentioned, I have found Jack to be one of my toughest calls. I guess that taking everything into account, the deciding factor for me at this stage is that series with Montgomery,an extremely fine fighter, but one whom I'm fairly sure falls slightly short of our Hall requirements. I can't seem to rise above placing Jack and Montgomery on a more or less equal level, just below the cut-off point. Is this short-sighted, in your view? What am I missing?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Colonial Lion, as ever, you provide masses of food for thought there. As I mentioned, I have found Jack to be one of my toughest calls. I guess that taking everything into account, the deciding factor for me at this stage is that series with Montgomery,an extremely fine fighter, but one whom I'm fairly sure falls slightly short of our Hall requirements. I can't seem to rise above placing Jack and Montgomery on a more or less equal level, just below the cut-off point. Is this short-sighted, in your view? What am I missing?

I honestly couldnt fault anyone for choosing either way such is the fine margin. I would give Jack the edge overall over Montgomery by a small fraction as during the period of their rivalry when both were similarly at their best circa 1942-46 I think Jacks resume edges it with the wins over Angott, Larkin and Armstrong (albeit ageing) notwithstanding their own series. Montgomery came off second best to Angott although did hold an impressive win over Williams in a very competitive period.

Its fine margins so his failure to best Montgomerry who along with Angott was probably his biggest rival (Williams came emerged just slightly later in my view) is worthy of consideration. However I would place less importance on the Williams bouts and as I mentioned above, there seems to be generally a more favourable amount of leeway given to more well known fighters or ones more recent in memory when it comes down to what is forgiveable and what isnt. Consider if we could transplant the records of many fighters that are well know (Roy Jones, Roberto Duran, Holyfield, Frazier) for example it seems they are given much greater slack for things like weight and post prime losses or losing to rivals overall. If we transplanted the records of these men back to pre war with far less information or footage to go on would they on brief inspection look anything as impressive? The fact we know so much more about them undoubtadly seems to help their cause. Fighters campaigning above their career weigh also tend to have defeats ignored now whereas many of the forgotten fighters like Jack or members of the Murderers Row for example seem to get dismissed out of hand at times for similar kind of defeats despite often having resumes bursting with quality wins. With Jack, I think his peak years 1942-46 had he been around now and was well known would probably see him qualify but to some extent he has been lost to obscurity. However I think its close and on another day could probably make an argument for not including him so really cant fault anyone for having him just miss out, albeit by slim margins.

Jack and Johnson are the perfect fighters for us to debate, they both have pros and cons for induction, I for one will be voting yes to both in the hope we can re-evaluate them at a later stage, feel they're a step above the fighters we've cut from the HOF but very much on a level playing field to Angott and Bivins in the wilderness in between.

I think I will have to give it a clean sweep of no's. Harold Johnson is a tough call but cant say hes a level up from the likes of Bivins who failed to place. His short title reign and loss of title to Pastrano also hurts his claim.

Beau Jack - no
Lew Jenkins - no
Ingemar Johansson - no
Harold Johnson - no
Ismael Laguna - no

i have to remind myself that we are judging by the highest standards here. There's a case for both jack and johnson in particular as others have very well made....but not a strong enough one imo. Besides if we put them through together we'd have two jack johnsons... milky reaches for coat.

Johnson, gave me most food for thought... he had a very good run, but not that long a title reign, his highlight is a win over charles, but that was when charles was coming to the end of his golden run and just starting to pick up defeats... not shot obviously but not at his very best either. Close but no cigar.

I'd like to find a place for ingo, for no other reason than sparking our 'enery (obviously with the help of the blinding sun)... but i guess that's probably insufficient reason for others.

5 no's from me.

Milky vote on the 15 ATG thread mate.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Milky vote on the 15 ATG thread mate.

i've been psyching myself up for that one ghosty! I have a long train journey tomorrow, so will try and rustle 1 up for you then

Cheers mate, hoping to get up to at least 20 votes

No to all of them.

Round-up time once again, and we're a hard lot to please, no doubt about it! Lew Jenkins, Ingemar Johansson and Ismael Laguna failed to trouble the scorers at all last week and take a one-way trip through the door marked Exit, so far as our Hall of Fame is concerned. Joining them is Beau Jack, who picked up just 20% of the vote, despite a number of positive comments, which have, as ever, failed to butter any parsnips. Harold Johnson polarised opinion to a greater extent than most that we have reviewed over the past few weeks. However, despite not gaining enough support for automatic qualification for the Hall, he lives to fight another day, with his 60% score easily sufficient to put him in with folk like Angott, Bivins and Berg for another shot at admission next year.

On to this week's quintet, which may cause a number of arguments - at least, I do hope so! We begin with Jake LaMotta, former world middleweight champion, raconteur and lounge lizard, who is not to be confused with the actor Robert De Niro. La Motta's story is one of boxing's best-known, from the great wins against Zivic, Holman Williams, Robinson and Cerdan, through the admission of throwing fights to his last-second title defence over Laurent Dauthuille and his final famous abdication of his crown to Robinson in the "St Valentine's Day Massacre". Still alive, irascible and just past his ninetieth birthday, LaMotta is living proof that there is more than one way to grow old.

Lennox Lewis, a staple of 606 debates over many years, was the last dominant champion of a much maligned division. From his destruction of Razor Ruddock to his final victory over Vitali Klitschko, Lewis fought exclusively at the top level for more than a decade, establishing himself as the last man standing from one of the heavyweight division's most talented eras. Losing his title twice in huge turn-ups, but regaining it each time, Lewis never allowed any opponent a winning record over him. Became undisputed champion by beating Evander Holyfield and capped his career with victory over Mike Tyson.

One of Lewis's predecessors as heavyweight king was Sonny Liston, for about five years the most feared man on the planet, bar none. By crushing men such as Nino Valdes and Cleveland Williams, Liston was regarded as the champion in waiting, even while he was increasingly blatantly ducked by Floyd Patterson. Eventually, Patterson was shamed into the ring, but not for long; Liston destroyed him in one, repeating the trick in his first and only successful defence. The Muhammad Ali saga followed - was either fight truly on the level? We'll never know, of course, but what is clear is that Ali put an end to Liston's championship career. Liston fought on until just before his untimely death in 1970, a final question mark in a life that had been full of them.

Two great, and possibly undervalued, light-welterweight champions with similar styles complete our offering this week. Nicolino Locche and Duilio Loi compiled records that read, respectively, 117-4 and 115-3. Loi was the older of the two, making his mark initially in Europe, winning the lightweight championship of the continent at the second attempt and never losing it in the ring. He would also add the 147 European crown before he finished. At world level, though, it was at 140 that Loi would make his mark. He had already beaten fighters as good as Bud Smith and Orlando Zulueta when he began a trilogy with the great Carlos Ortiz, a series that Loi was ultimately to win 2-1, persuading Ortiz that his future lay at 135 instead. Loi fought a similar trilogy with the tough Eddie Perkins, which ended 1-1-1, with Loi still champion at the end of it. Without warning, arguably the most popular boxer in Italian history then suddenly retired at the beginning of 1963.

Locche was 29 when he finally won his belt at 140, but had already given notice of his freakish defensive talent in a series of bouts in his native Argentina. He went to Tokyo to take the title, then defended against the tough Carlos Hernandez, but his crowning glory came in his defence against the future legend Antonio Cervantes. Completely befuddling Cervantes, Locche registered a 15-round shut-out on all three cards against the outclassed challenger. He remained champion for more than three years before surprisingly losing to Peppermint Frazer, and lost his final title fight on a cut eye to his erstwhile victim Cervantes. In Argentina, only Carlos Monzon stands in higher esteem than the man that they called "El Intocable".

Since this weeks contenders were put up here I have wrestled with a couple of names like none since we started this process. Will get the gimmes out of the way first and say I like both Locche and Loi, exceptional records, Locche is one of the finest defensive fighters ever and for Loi going 2-1 to Ortiz pretty much says as much as is needed about his abilities, yes for both of these.

Also am going to say yes to Lewis, whilst it would have been nice for him to secure some of his bigger name fights a bit sooner and not to have the frankly sloppy losses on his record, he established at various points he was the dominant heavyweight in the world and in these days of fragmented belts and politics that is no mean feat and his inclusion is deserved for me.

La Motta is a little tricky, do think on the back of the film he perhaps gets a little over-rated, his best wins look impressive and obviously handing Robbo his first loss is exceptional, however to lose the next five kind of takes the sheen off this a bit and when I look at his record for every impressive Zivic or Robinson win there are some pretty bad defeats such as dropping decisions to Robert Vilemain and Cecil Hudson which just doesn't say a true elite guy to me, so think on balance will probably have to say no to Jake.

Which brings me to Liston and possibly the hardest decision thus far, am a big fan of the man and think at his best such as in the Williams fights he was a truly exceptional heavyweight, however I am, as I have said in the past conscious of trying not to apply a different criteria to heavyweights than I would to other divisions and I am wondering if Sonny was a middle, who had beaten some solid guys pre title before managing one defence of the title before getting clowned twice, all be it off a great fighter I would be so forgiving and deep down I suspect I would not. Although on the flipside to that I genuinely think had Sonny got a title shot two or three years earlier as he deserved to he could have had a three or four year reign and possibly would be a lock for the Hall, however as that is speculation and didn't happen have to go with what actually he did in his career and with great reluctance am going to say no.

Summary

Locche - Yes
Loi - Yes
Lewis - Yes
La Motta - No
Liston - No

rowley wrote:Since this weeks contenders were put up here I have wrestled with a couple of names like none since we started this process. Will get the gimmes out of the way first and say I like both Locche and Loi, exceptional records, Locche is one of the finest defensive fighters ever and for Loi going 2-1 to Ortiz pretty much says as much as is needed about his abilities, yes for both of these.

Also am going to say yes to Lewis, whilst it would have been nice for him to secure some of his bigger name fights a bit sooner and not to have the frankly sloppy losses on his record, he established at various points he was the dominant heavyweight in the world and in these days of fragmented belts and politics that is no mean feat and his inclusion is deserved for me.

La Motta is a little tricky, do think on the back of the film he perhaps gets a little over-rated, his best wins look impressive and obviously handing Robbo his first loss is exceptional, however to lose the next five kind of takes the sheen off this a bit and when I look at his record for every impressive Zivic or Robinson win there are some pretty bad defeats such as dropping decisions to Robert Vilemain and Cecil Hudson which just doesn't say a true elite guy to me, so think on balance will probably have to say no to Jake.

Which brings me to Liston and possibly the hardest decision thus far, am a big fan of the man and think at his best such as in the Williams fights he was a truly exceptional heavyweight, however I am, as I have said in the past conscious of trying not to apply a different criteria to heavyweights than I would to other divisions and I am wondering if Sonny was a middle, who had beaten some solid guys pre title before managing one defence of the title before getting clowned twice, all be it off a great fighter I would be so forgiving and deep down I suspect I would not. Although on the flipside to that I genuinely think had Sonny got a title shot two or three years earlier as he deserved to he could have had a three or four year reign and possibly would be a lock for the Hall, however as that is speculation and didn't happen have to go with what actually he did in his career and with great reluctance am going to say no.

Summary

Locche - Yes
Loi - Yes
Lewis - Yes
La Motta - No
Liston - No

Taking the easy way out here, but my thoughts are exactly the same as Jeff's.

Locche - Yes.
Loi - Yes.
Lewis - Yes.
La Motta - No.
Liston - No (only just, mind).

I'm fascinated by your take on this week's five Jeff, because it mirrors my own thinking almost exactly.

I think that Loi might be one of the most underrated fighters at any weight in all boxing history. He wasn't knocking over rubbish; he was beating, and often outclassing, some really good fighters. His series win over Ortiz cements his right to a place in the Hall, for me. YES

Locche was a genius, not a word I often like to use. There's no other one that will really do in his case, however. Before he even became champ, his winning performances against foes such as Lopopolo and Perkins indicated that he was something quite out of the ordinary, and anyone who hasn't watched his first fight against Cervantes....well, just do, that's all. YES all the way.

Like Jeff, I have to say YES to Lewis, although without the enthusiasm that I would like. I happen to believe that he was the best of his generation, but he so rarely put his foot down, cast caution aside and went and proved it. We can't ignore his two losses, but we equally can't ignore the methodical way in which he went about putting things right in each case. A deeply cerebral fighter, a shrewd calculator of the odds and when all's said and done, a Hall of Famer beyond doubt, even though he somehow never really stirred the blood as one would have wanted.

LaMotta's a NO for me for any number of reasons. Most of his best wins came from beating up men a good bit lighter than he was, although one has to tip one's hat for the Robinson win, not to mention those against Williams and Lytell. His title reign wasn't that much to write home about, in my opinion. Dauthuille, who had already done Jake easily enough in a non-title fight, was kicking his backside from New York to Calcutta before the 15th round miracle. I guess it reflects well on Jake that he was able to mount such a comeback, but the whole business says something about his level, I reckon. I really can't have him among the genuine elite.

I thought I was going to be the only one looking furtively around, scribbling down a no for Liston and then running away before anyone could challenge me. I'm half pleased and half annoyed that I'm not, because Liston could have been so many things and never quite was. Only partly his fault, of course, and one still feels rather sorry for him, but I still think that exclusion is the right course. He was a bruiser and he could kill you with his jab alone, but although one doesn't usually like to damn someone for losing to all-time greats, the manner of the Ali losses simply doesn't square with a Hall of Famer, whatever the truth about those fights. We have said about George Foreman that he probably needed that amazing comeback in his 40s to reinforce his claim to the Hall after his cloak of invincibility failed him first time round. I think that the same is true of Liston, and in his case, there was to be no such redemption. NO it is for him.

Evening Captain. I think this is the best group so far, a really interesting selection, so thanks.

The one decision I find the easiest, if that is even the right term is Locche. Great fighter that he was, and a genuine defensive wizard, I just don't the right feeling about him joining a HoF with such tough entry requirements. He obviously had a huge amount of fights and a great win/loss record but he rarely left Argentina and doesn't have all that many superstar names on his CV. He beat Cervantes first time up, which is a good performance, but lets not forget, this is the same Cervantes we have already rejected from memory? It's strange because he won his title in Japan and then rarely left his homeland following that, and one of the few times he did, he lost to Cervantes. I understand that he was revered in Argentina and must have enjoyed fighting there as a hero, but is that really what we expect from our HoF entrants? Whitaker was a defensive genius like Locche, but Sweet Pea has a far more impressive ledger. No to Locche for me.

Loi is a little harder. Real gritty, nuggety fighter who was a tough as nails. A winning record against Ortiz and splitting 3 fights with Perkins is impressive stuff. Aside from that, his record is decent but not spectacular. Is it enough to get in, seeing as we have already said no to some terrific fighters? I am going to say no, having already said no to Locche, but I am not saying that with any real conviction and would be happy to see him considered again.

LaMotta is the fist yes for me. Teak tough and really extracted the most from his limited skillset. He has names like Zivic, Williams and Cerdan on his record which is impressive enough, but it is, of course, the Robinson series he is best known for, especially taking the undefeated record of the greatest fighter who ever lived. There are obviously unsavory parts of his record, but he is part of the very fabric of boxing history and forgetting all the other achievements, Ray Robinson in 1943 is enough for me. I am not sure he will get support from everyone, but I would at least hope he makes it to a second ballot if he doesn't get through this time.

Liston is a no for me, although it is a mightily tough one to call. He was a feared fighter in his pomp, showing great heart in the first Marshall fight, and then beating people like Machen, Valdes, Folley and Williams before destroying Patterson twice. Then comes 1964 and the emergence of the greatest sportsman ever to be seen. Would anyone have beaten Cassius Clay in 1964? Maybe, maybe not, but he had far too much for Liston. Taking '64 and '65 at face value, then they are both crushing defeats for Sonny, and he never really came back from them. He had all the tools, and the intimidating nature that we like from our heavyweight champions, but neither the reign or superstar names to get in our "elite" HoF. I think he competes well in head to head matches against anyone in history, but that is not what I understand this HoF to be about. Much like LaMotta, he is ingrained in the history of the sport for the two fights with Clay, but unlike Jake, he lost against his greatest foe. I know LaMotta lost his series with Robinson, but who wouldn't have, at least he won the first fight, something Sonny was unable to do with Ali.

Lewis is the most modern of this weeks fighters, but for me, the easiest to pick. He is a yes for me, and with something to spare. A three time heavyweight champion, the last genuinely undisputed champion, despite who held what belts, and someone who beat everyone he faced and faced everyone he could, Bowe aside who obviously didn't fancy it for whatever reasons. Tyson was well past his best when Lewis beat him, as was Holyfield, but he still beat them, and has a host of very capable fighters on his ledger. He often gets criticised for not having a "defining" fight, but I feel he did in the second Holyfield match. Evander was slightly shopwarn, but ignoring what went before and after, he really put in his final great performance against Lewis. The old bounce was there, the jab, the lefthook, the educated pressure, was all in evidence but Lennox found a way to deal with it. He stood his ground more and toughed it out. A great and defining performance in my book. He also has Vitali Klitschko in his win column, and he was the next dominant champion in the division. If this was a top 10 of heavyweight greats thread, then Lewis loses massive points for the McCall and Rahman defeats, but for an entry into our HoF, he has done more than enough for me. He comprehensively avenged the only blemishes on his record and was the last truly great heavyweight champion we have seen.

Nothing original in my thinking on these, I'm afraid.

Three for a ' yes ' and two - LaMotta and Liston, for a ' no.'

In some ways LaMotta epitomizes the reasons why we are compiling our own list of candidates. Colourful, controversial and the first man to beat the immortal Robinson he's a cinch, under Canastota criteria, for inclusion. Our HOF, however, nobly aspires to greater things, and LaMotta falls short of elite, in my opinion.

One thing and one thing only persuades me to give Liston the thumbs down, and that is his capitulation to Ali second time out. We forgive Duran, who was exasperated and frustrated to the point of blowing a fuse against Leonard, but Liston's ignominious exit after less than a couple of minutes and with nary a punch landed, ( by either fighter, ) disqualifies him. I'm aware, of course, that not everybody agrees that Sonny took the easy way out, but I'm afraid that even in the absence of proof, I really do believe he quit rather than face a prolonged humiliation.

Even now, I'd like to vote ' yes ' for Liston in the hope that we might see him in a second ballot, but I'm really not sure that tactical voting is the order of the day, here. A very reluctant ' no ' then, for Liston.

Evening captain, as always there's lots to ponder over when it comes to this week's five.

First up, La Motta, and this one is giving me nightmares I have to admit. An immortal come-from-behind victory in one of the most astonishing fights I've ever seen against Dauthuille, a victory over probably the greatest fighter of them all (albeit he was a Middleweight fighting a Welterweight that night) and a spell as undisputed champion in one of the four elite divisions gives him a solid enough foundation for consideration. The fact that he really had no business struggling so badly with Dauthuille in the first place (and as you said, had already been soundly outpointed by him in a non-title affair), lost his other five meetings with the greatest of them all and never really established himself as a dominant champion seemingly smashed those foundations to smithereens. Ultimately, fine fighter and great entertainer though he was, I think I'd have to leave him out. It's close, but I'll go with a 'no' for the Bronx Bull.

Lewis is a straight-forward yes. The Heavyweight division he boxed in wasn't a golden one, but a fairly competitive one all the same and, though it took him a while to do it, he did prove himself to be the standout big man of that era. Wiping out those two disappointing losses in rematches mean that his place is beyond doubt. A clear yes.

Liston, to me, just doesn't quite have the depth on his resume needed to make up for his relatively short title reign and gain entry in to our version of the Hall of Fame. I have absolutely no doubt that, from a technical point of view, he was easily talented enough to make it, but those unsavoury underworld ties and the way he was frozen out of the title picture for a considerable amount of time mean that we perhaps never saw the very best of him at the highest level. No shame in losing twice to Ali, regardless of the controversies each time, but what went before (which was impressive, no doubt) doesn't quite turn the tide back in his favour. It's a no from me.

Loi is a yes, for me. On the outset, his resume may be lacking in mega names, but there is much more quality there than some seem to think. Like Lewis, avenging all his defeats is a big factor, and getting the better of a genuine all-time great in Ortiz seals it for me. It's a yes.

I rate Locche higher in the all-time stakes than Loi, and so it goes without saying that he gets the nod from me, too. As I have said a few times before, I've never seen a genuine great of a division be made to look so hopelessly outclassed as Cervantes was in his first title bout with Locche. 'The Untouchable' is very much at the forefront when it comes to the best men to have operated at 140 lb, and keeping in mind that Light-Welterweight (along with Super-Featherweight) is the best division outside of the original eight, it speaks volumes. Another yes.

So in summary, yes to Lewis, Loi and Locche. No to La Motta and Liston.

Cheers captain.

Horrible horrible list of fighters to assess with pros and cons for them all but will get the easier two out of the way first Locche and Lewis are nailed on certainties, yes Lewis was knocked out by McCall and Rahmann but the majority of fighters have a loss or two that they shouldn't but very rarely are they so clinically reversed in rematches.

With Locche scoring such easy victories over men the calibre of Cervantes and Hernandez shows the quality he had, couldn't punch himself out a paper bag but was untouchable and a hall of fame wouldn't be the same without him.

Loi much like Locche couldn't punch but had limitless ability and beating Ortiz 2 out of 3 again speaks of his talent, with a division like light welterweight it's natural to have a fairly thin resume but is a nailed on top 5 man at the weight so yes.

LaMotta arguably has a better win column than either Loi or Locche but he was constantly getting beaten by men he shouldn't have and unlike Lewis he rarely reversed the result nor did he look as good when he did, without the losses he'd be a certain yes but I can't overlook such a huge part of his record.

Just to save myself the effort i'll just say no to Liston.

Captain, unless I have missed him I was reading about Abe Attell the other night and don't think he has come up for discussion, which given we are doing these in alphabetical order should have happened. Can't believe he is not in Canastota so have we just missed him?

rowley wrote:Captain, unless I have missed him I was reading about Abe Attell the other night and don't think he has come up for discussion, which given we are doing these in alphabetical order should have happened. Can't believe he is not in Canastota so have we just missed him?

He is an 'Old Timer'. The 'modern' boxers (fought after 1943) are being done first.

As Scott says, Jeff. This week's quintet see us halfway through the moderns; Attell, it won't surprise you to learn, will be up for consideration in week one of the old timers' section (late October or so).

Cheers Scott, captain, makes a little more sense now.

Captain, I think I would like to change my votes for Locche and Loi to a yes. Having been mulling it over and reading so many good arguments for their inclusion, I have been persuaded to switch my vote. On reflection, I was probably been a little harsh on them both and at the risk of sounding like Leon from the Apprentice, I am now happy to vote yes.

I do still feel that Locche is been given a smidge too much credit for shutting out Cervantes, when we have already decided that Kid Pambelé wasn't up to the required standard for our HoF, but having thought about it, Cervantes was still a great Light Welterweight and Locche should be given more credit for it than perhaps I gave him. I also wish he had stepped out of Argentina a bit more, but this is being over critical. I am not was wowed by him as some on here but I think I was too tough originally.

To be honest, I didn't really need convincing about Loi and reading over the posts in support of him, it was more easy for me accept my change of heart. I think I was too quick to lump him in with Locche and say no. His wins over Ortiz and his standing in the division mean he should be in for me.

My other votes remain unchanged, with Liston a no and Lewis and LaMotta still a yes.

I seem to alone on LaMotta, but his win over Robinson in '43 is a far greater achievement than anything Locche did in my book. I know he was a Middleweight against a Welterweight, but the vast difference in skill and pedigree evens that particular field for me. Robinson is pretty much nailed on the greatest fighter of all time, at the very least he is a top 3 guy and Jake did something truly spectacular in beating him. Yes, he lost the series and lost too a fair bit of chaff in his career, but that win, coupled with a host of other good fighters mean he is must for me.

Seen as everyone's already sold on Locche, Loi and Lewis I'll just say YES to thse three straight off.


Liston. This guy was the best post Marciano heayweight on the planet for years but nobody would let him have his shot. If it wasn't for the great sporting attitude tht Floyd Patterson showed he may well have ended up as a heavyweight edition to the black murderer's row. Once he got his shot he trashed the lineal heavyweight champion in one round, twice. He was only stopped from dominating the era by running into The Greatest in his prime who few would bet against in ANY matchup. He was taken to school and lost the title, had it not been for Ali's hernia we may have seen a genuine fight for the heavyweight crown in the rematch but that is history. Throughout his career Liston was defeated four times. One early slip up that was avenged, two to a man who could beat anybody and one when he was an old man to Leotis Martin. Martin suffered a detatched retina during the bout and never fought again. From 53 to 64 he had an Ezzard Charles-eque run of dominance, splattering top contenders like Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley and Nino Valdes. He mopped the floor with Patterson and even after Ali, when nobody wanted him he racked up another 14 victories, only one going the distance. The guy had boxing ability, underrated speed and huge power. He had it all and is hard to pick against head to head. Just imagine how good he would have been if he had any luck at all. YES to Liston.

As for Lamotta, although he was inconsistent, he took Robinson's 0 and beat another great in Cerdan to take the middleweight title. I think his skills are severaly underrated because of two things
1. Robert De Niro. I loved Raging Bull and thought De Niro was awesome, but it depicted Lamotta as a terrible boxer with nothing more than a chin. You don't beat a prime Robinson without being immensely talented.
2. Most footage is of the later parts of his career, when he perpetually struggled with making weight and was falling out of love with the game.
He may be hugely inconsistent, but the towering highs of his career are enough for me and I think he's a top ten ATG middleweight. YES

YES to all

I agree whole heartedly on LaMotta JBW, raging bull was the worst thing that could have happened for his reputation as an actual boxer, it overshadows what he did achieve inside the ring and despite his inconsistency beat enough top quality fighters to deserve a higher standing.

Robinson, Cerdan, Dauthuille, Yarosz, Bell, Williams, Saterfield, Zivic and Wilson is a very impressive set of victories but do think his inconsistency goes against him but doesn't miss out by much.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I agree whole heartedly on LaMotta JBW, raging bull was the worst thing that could have happened for his reputation as an actual boxer, it overshadows what he did achieve inside the ring and despite his inconsistency beat enough top quality fighters to deserve a higher standing.

Robinson, Cerdan, Dauthuille, Yarosz, Bell, Williams, Saterfield, Zivic and Wilson is a very impressive set of victories but do think his inconsistency goes against him but doesn't miss out by much.

Morning Ghosty. For me, and it is all about opinions, I think LaMotta's win against Robinson is up there with the greatest, stand-out victories in boxing history. It kind of reminds me of Frazier in that Smokin' Joe gets enormous credit, and quite rightly so, for beating Ali in 1971, even though he lost in the return fights and lost twice to Foreman, his other premier opponent. He still comfortably makes the HoF, and I do wonder how much of it is based on that first meeting with Ali. I wouldn't say the rest of his wins are any better than LaMotta's. You make a very good point about Jake's inconsistency, and it is there for all to see, but I just can't imagine a HoF without the guy who took Ray Robinson's '0'. If it was any old fighter, then so be it, but not Sugar Ray. This is a guy who didn't lose for another 8 years and is probably the greatest fighter ever to lace up the gloves.

Need to stop reading this thread once I've voted, every time I do it I just start to question the wisdom of my original choices.

rowley wrote:Need to stop reading this thread once I've voted, every time I do it I just start to question the wisdom of my original choices.

I agree. I was convinced that Locche didn't deserve to be in but having read yours and everyone elses comments, I realised I was probably way too harsh.

I think this is why it is such a great thread. Either that, or I am just a lilly livered weakling. Not sure which!

Can't agree about LaMotta's win over Robinson being one of the all-time stand-out victories, I must say.

This was a fight between two highly promising 21 year-olds, greats in the making perhaps, but it couldn't be more at that stage. Robinson, who was only a year or two removed from fighting lightweights, was asked to give more than a stone to a career middleweight, some four years before he actually fought for the welterweight title. It was a fine performance by LaMotta and a conclusive win, but to compare it with Ali-Frazier I seems way off-beam to me.

Robinson was LaMotta's greatest victory, but does emphasise that Jake did not have many great wins over his fellow-middleweights. Holman Williams, yes, Cerdan, if you like, although the shoulder injury robs that one of much of its gloss. And then? Dauthuille? Great comeback, as I said, but to have lost all but a couple of minutes of two fights against a limited, European-level fighter doesn't make me think that LaMotta is top 10 middleweight material. 15-20 tops, for me.

You'd probably also have to add for Jake that the Williams win came when Holman was in his 14th year as pro, is a fine win but has to be said it is far from win over Williams in his prime. Is always a risky business putting caveats like this against W's because there is a reason to do this with any win but with the Captain's examples already provided and this one am similarly struggling to see fights where Jake got the job done against prime middles at something near their best.

Well, we can pull apart anyone's record if we try hard enough. I appreciate that this HoF is attempting something different to Canastota but I wouldn't want the bar to be set too high.

In the context of their relative abilities, then for me, LaMotta's win is a stand-out win in boxing history. Apart from weight and physical strength, Robinson far more to bring to the table than LaMotta. His skillset was way superior, empathised by their respective careers and historical standing.

For me, it was a truly great performance and enough to get my vote.

Fair enough Tino, it's all about opinions, if we just accept yours is wrong and move on everyone's a winner.