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]

It's really an excellent week of debate, just the sort of thing that I had in mind when we began the long journey back in May. Ultimately, we will not all agree on everything all the time, of course, but I honestly believe that we'll come to a series of conclusions that will be as soundly based as an exercise as inexact as this can ever hope to achieve.

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

I think, if you had bothered to read the rest of the thread, jeff, that it is me and John Bloody Wayne who are wrong.

Cage. Door. Shut.

Get back in there, pilgrim, I might drop off some pedigree chum on the way back.

Locche - Yes
Lewis - Yes
La Motta - Yes
Liston - Yes

Locche the defensive master - easy yes.

Lennox is my 2nd best Heavyweight of al-ltime and a career that I studied. Easy Yes.

La Motta difficult but he has enough for me. Yes.

Liston an obvious Yes. He beat the men like Williams, Folley, Valdes and Machen that paterson wouldn't face. Liston was the champion long before his crowning. I don't understand any No vote for Liston. Liston is 100% Yes.

Lewis 2nd best heavyweight of all time? Would find it very difficult to have him anywhere near Ali and Louis personally and even in the chasing pack Im not sure he has claims to to rank ahead of several others.

To the question at hand, much of what I was going to say has already been said and with that in mind its a yes to Locche, Lewis and Loi.

LaMotta, difficult to assess. As mentioned above, Raging Bull was a double edged sword. Its probably immortalised LaMotta far beyond what his boxing creer could have but probably at the expense of underrating his skills slightly. Not sure I would agree the net product is a negative for Jake though as the fame of the film has lifted him into popular culture and many non boxing fans rate him highly as such. Were it not for the film Im not sure LaMotta would be as highly thought of or popular. Were the Hall more tolerant of non boxing critria then Jake would surely make it in but ultimately I would go with the majority who say that purely on boxing record and ability Jake falls short. Would cite captain carrantuohil on the LaMotta v Robinson win. Probably not as good in reality as on paper given the relative age, point in careers and weight of each fighter. Still a good win but not one of the all time great ones for me. Susequently being turned over 5-1 in the series also puts it in much clearer perspective and removes any doubts. Outside of that we have large periods of inconsistency and avoidance for the most part of many of the Murderers Row fighters. Most of this has been said already above so I am happy to go along and say no to LaMotta.

The final fighter Liston is one I am very surprised with how the voting is gone. Seems very strange indeed that Joe Frazier was considered a nailed on cert for the Hall by many yet Liston who I consider to be the better fighter in general and with a record not far Fraziers has collected so many no votes. Surely the excuses for Frazier in terms of his record against the top guys should apply to Liston, who also has asterixes next to his two losses to Ali it could be argued if you consider the contoversy over his injury in the first fight and the phantom punch issue in the second?

Theres also Listons obvious talent to consider which would see him being a top ten of all time in my view.

I also think its impossible not to sympathize with him for Pattersons blatant avoidance of him (or D'Amato to be more precise). I believe Liston to be basically an uncrowned champion every bit as much as the likes of Bivins or Charles for many years prior to finally ousting Patterson. Title or no title I believe Liston was comfortably the best heavyweight in the world for a good 5/6 years.

Liston is considered a top ten heavyweight by a great many sources so it comes as real surprise to see such a discrepancy between the Frazier and Liston for the purposes of this particular Hall of Fame. I notice many of those voting only have a single place or two seperating them on their overall heavyweight lists. To have Frazier in and Liston not would be very strange to me.

I would be interested to hear from those of you that voted no to Liston and yes to Frazier on what seperates them so substantially? Suspect Fraziers win over Ali would might well be the answer which is certainly a standout that Liston cant match, but not convinced it seperates them overall by such a wide margin in the context of their overall talent and careers.

To summarize:

Locche - yes
Loi - yes
Lewis - yes
LaMotta - no
Liston - yes

I think, Colonial Lion, that it was the manner of the two defeats against Ali that really trouble me.

Here was a man who had cut a swathe through the heavyweights for six or seven years before ultimately winning the title. The great bully who was unbeatable, and who revelled in that bad man reputation. Ali then represented the first time since Cleveland Williams that he had to move outside his comfort zone, to fight someone who wasn't afraid, and he failed the test, quite spectacularly, twice. Injured shoulder first time...well, possibly, but a far more serious injury hadn't stopped him against Williams. What excuse can we offer for the craven capitulation on the second occasion?

Comparing Liston with Frazier, and indeed Foreman, is an interesting exercise. Frazier, like Liston, swept aside his heavyweight contemporaries, before finally nailing his place in history against Ali, a fact that is sometimes forgotten by people who associate Joe only with the great trilogy. His victims, Chuvalo, Ellis, Machen, Bonavena, Quarry and so on, are surely at least as impressive as the same Machen, Valdes, Patterson, Williams and Folley. Folley, who at the same sort of time, was managing to lose to Henry Cooper! Joe had to earn his recognition the hard way, just as Liston did, and in a far tougher era. The Ali trilogy, of course, gives Joe a real edge, but so, I believe, do his crushing losses to Foreman. Like Liston against Ali, perhaps, Joe was faced with an opponent whom he could never have beaten. However, he went out gamely, but hopelessly, advancing into the mouth of the cannon, trying to get inside those mammoth arms of George's to land his own blows. No hint of quit about him. That matters - a great deal.

Foreman was, of course, very similar in many ways to Liston in his first incarnation. The same brooding air of menace, the same reign of terror, and then, the same opponent who wasn't scared, who put him in his place. Again, though, George gave it everything in that fight, didn't jack it in and took his licks without excuses. Up to that point, especially including the Young defeat, though, I might have had a similar problem with George's candidacy as I do with Liston's. What he did in his second career removed all doubts, however. It showed a heart and a resourcefulness, even and especially in defeat against Holyfield, for example, that I think it is fair to question in Liston.

I believe that it is entirely valid for people to take the view that Liston's achievements are such that the blemishes can be overlooked. For me, though, there are a range of intangibles that just prevent me from granting him overall absolution. He deserves sympathy for a number of reasons, not least the blatant d'Amato avoidance, but I still can't ignore the fact that a truly elite fighter does not throw in his hand, and, most especially, he does not repeat that cardinal sin.

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.

If you had an ounce of intelligence jeff, you'd avoid this embarassment by sauntering along late in the day like i do, read all the other threads, pretend you've heard of the fighters, check a few obscure early fights on boxrec that you can throw into the mix as significant and hope to give a wafer thin facade that you know what you're talking about.

Damn i've rumbled myself. Will now have to get to the thread earlier in the week in future to avoid further tarnishing what little remains of my rep.

As it goes, the debates have all been done and well argued, but i found this week a tricky one. Ususally there's a few clear cut ones and one or 2 you're unsure of, but i found myself making cases both ways on all of them.

Locce - yes
Loi - yes
Lewis - yes

Lamotta. No. Whatever the arguments pro and con for his reputation, i'm not sure we'd be having this conversation without robert de niro.

Liston. This has to be the hardest decision. Convincing cases have been made both ways, in many ways his record itself doesn't quite stack up but his capabilities as a fighter do. I am going to cut him some slack for the dubious nature of the Ali fights and give him a yes.

The Ali fights with Liston are so controversial that its hard to really know what to make of them. At worst case scenario you could say Liston simply quit in both. Best case scenario you could say he had legitimate reasons both times. For me its a case of it seeming too easy to give him the benefit of the doubt both times yet too harsh to say he simply quit both times, which would have been out of character up to that point.

Would disagree slightly with Fazier v Foreman. Granted Frazier showed courage but cant really see these fights as anything other than pretty decisive blows to his legacy overall. I think its being slightly generous to use them as an edge over Liston despite he obvious heart Frazier showed.

I suppose an obvious example would be Duran v Leonard II where Duran quite blatantly quit but hasnt seemed to affect him too badly overall. Granted Liston could be accused of it twice, but would still argue Duran is considered one of the elite in the sport.

You make a good case for having Frazier above Liston, but personally I wouldnt have the Ali defeats as being so decisive a gap between the pair to the extent one is a nailed one Hall of fame fighter and the other isnt included. I think the gap between them is smaller although on reflection I think I may be falling on the generous side to Liston based largely on his overall ability and for what I perceive as him being denied the title for so long. I think quite possibly if he had held the title rightfully for the 5/6 years prior to Ali and had a longer standing reign then he would be looked upon more favourably.

With Duran we know that the 'No Mas' fight was completely out of character and he absolved himself subsequently and more importantly had a hall of fame career before that fight.

Wouldnt argue with any of that Imperial, just that in relation to captain carrantuohils excellent post regarding elite fighters not quitting, Duran would at least be an exception to that principle.

Also worth considering that had Liston not faced Ali his career may well be far more easily deemed worthy of the Hall of Fame as from what I can see its largely the Ali defeats that seem to be keeping him out, rather than any sort of lack of acheivement prior to them.

For me his 5/6 year period as the best heavyweight in between Marciano and Ali, combined with his talents are worthy of the Hall of Fame, especially considering Lewis, Foreman and Frazier all sailed through without a single vote against them. I accept the manner of the Ali defeats may open a reasonable argument against him, but I think Frazier and Lewis have similar level blemishes. Its still a matter of specualtion as to what the real causes for both losses were and so whilst I dont want to give Liston a free pass for the Ali fights Im also reluctant to categorically say it was a case of just giving up. Its reasonably evident from the first part of the first Ali fight that Ali had the clear beating of Liston so they remain in my eyes categorical losses with little controversy in that sense. But still not fully sure if it was purely a case of just giving up. And in the event that the perceived quitting is the sole basis to exclude him is why I brought up the point with Duran. Would say Liston quitting would equally have been uncharacteristic seeing as he had fought with injuries prior to that.

Think the manner in which they quit makes a difference too, Duran didn't quit because he wasn't up for the battle but rather blew a fuse at what he considered disrespectful behaviour from Leonard and I would tend to agree with that whereas Liston just didn't seem up for it.

I personally have no problem with his loses to ali. Even Liston said that he wanted to fight Clay before he got too old. Liston was alot older than advertised. Liston seemed to recognise that.

Throw in Liston's love of alcohol and getting in trouble and I believe the defeats were genuine.

Watching his fights its obvious that he was a powerful and gifted Heavyweight and for me as stated earlier - It's an easy Yes.

Last week's fighters occasioned some superb and, at times, highly charged debate. After the dust had settled, three fighters, almost unanimously in each case, had booked their tickets to our Hall of Fame - Lennox Lewis, Nicolino Locche and Duilio Loi. Although Jake LaMotta had his champions, his disappearance from the candidates' slate was the settled will of the vast majority, with only 27% voting in his favour. No boxer so far has caused more spirited argument than Sonny Liston. The debate went back and forth, with votes for and against him generally being cast with little to spare either way. However, the result is that Sonny gained just 36% of the vote and, by our rules, is therefore also eliminated from the slate.

To this week. We begin with Danny Lopez, that hard-hitting, great value-for-money featherweight. "Little Red"opened his career with 23 straight wins, 22 of them inside the distance, before running into Bobby Chacon, almost his mirror image as a fighter, who stopped him in 9. After losing two more of his next three fights, Lopez rebounded with KO wins over Chucho Castillo and Ruben Olivares, before travelling to Ghana to contest the WBC 126 lb title against David "Poison" Kotey. Lopez boxed brilliantly to take the crown and reigned for the next three years, making eight successful defences, all of which finished inside schedule in one way or another. His reign was ended in decisive style by the magnificent Salvador Sanchez, who repeated the trick in a fabulous re-match. After one more fight, a loss, Lopez retired for good.

Little Red's namesake, Ricardo Lopez, was single-handedly responsible for dragging the straw-weight division into something like fashion. Winning the WBC title in late 1990, he held the crown for eight years and 22 defences, unifying most of the belts at various points and beating men of the calibre of Saman Sorjaturong. A further title at light-flyweight was to follow, and after two defences of that crown, Lopez would retire, with the mind-boggling record of 51 wins and a draw (later "avenged") in 52 fights.

It's hard to know what more there is to say about Rocky Marciano. Crude, practically untutored, but unstoppable, he terrified almost all his opposition and annihilated most of them, including an ageing Joe Louis, en route to beating Jersey Joe Walcott for the heavyweight crown in 1952. Six successful defences followed, including two memorable wars against Ezzard Charles, before Marciano stepped down in 1956, still unbeaten, with the famous figures of 49-0 adorning his record.

Lloyd Marshall was one of the terrifying Black Murderers' Row, who lay in wait for all aspiring middleweights and light-heavyweights in the 1940s. Marshall had signalled his ability by beating men such as Ken Overlin, Babe Risko and Teddy Yarosz before scoring famous victories over Charley Burley and Ezzard Charles. However, he would lose a fight for a spurious version of the 175 lb world crown against Jimmy Bivins, and although scoring his share of high-class victories afterwards against men such as Maxim, Mills, Chase and Williams, he would also lose to some of the same men, as well as being ultimately outclassed by both Archie Moore and his erstwhile victim Charles.

Joey Maxim came from the same vintage as Marshall, to whom he lost their one meeting. Maxim, a slick and clever boxer, rarely had it easy, fighting Lee Oma as early as his seventh fight, and generally only losing against the cream of his opposition, including Ezzard Charles twice, before scoring his breakthrough win against Jersey Joe Walcott in 1946. He would lose two tight decisions to Walcott a little later, but he had proved his point, and a split decision win over Jimmy Bivins put him in pole position for a shot at Freddie Mills' 175 lb title, on which the Briton had sat for two years. Maxim outclassed Mills and then alternated between 175 and heavy, losing a decision to Charles for the heavyweight crown, before achieving his crowning glory. On a scorching New York night when even the referee had to retire after ten rounds, Maxim grittily outlasted Sugar Ray Robinson to defend his light-heavyweight title, forcing the Sugar Man into his only inside the distance defeat. It was to be almost Maxim's last hurrah - he lost his title to Archie Moore, twice failed to regain it, and although still boxing in the highest class, often at heavyweight, was generally unable to beat the best any longer. An exception was a green Floyd Patterson, whom Maxim outscored a couple of years before finally retiring.

It doesn't get any easier does it captain with this week being one of the hardest yet

Danny Lopez much like Bobby Chacon was an exciting value for money fighter but did fail at the highest level against the aforementioned Chacon and the great Sanchez so will have to be no. NO

Ricardo Lopez has predictably got a resume of fighters who provoke the reaction of 'who the hells that' but his utter dominance of the division and I use this term loosely stepping up to win another title is enough for his inclusion. YES

No fighter has provoked more heated debate than Marciano since the induction of this forum and for me is an easy one. YES

Marshall like every member of the BMR was an exceptional fighter capable of beating anyone in the world on his day but unlike Burley and Bivins did have losing records to the best fighters he faced but having a look at his list of victims which is mightily impressive. YES.

Maxim is often wrongfully remembered for the Robinson fight in which he was comprehensively outboxed but as you point out it was an incredible feat of endurance that would have seen many greater fighters throw in the towell but even taking that into account he's more of a footnote in the light heavyweight division than anything. NO

I've fond memories of watching some of Danny Lopez's fights when I was a youngster. That World of Sport slot just around lunchtime on Saturday that was given over to championship boxing from all over the world. Happy, happy times. Sentiment can't play a part in this, though, and heavy-handed though he was, it's hard to find the really big names to compensate for the decisive losses that Little Red suffered. Castillo and Olivares were far better bantamweights, and Lopez's championship reign was entertaining, but short on really top opposition. Sanchez gave him two pretty comprehensive pastings, despite Danny's best efforts, and I feel that he is short of the very highest class that we are demanding here. NO.

I feel about Ricardo Lopez as I do about Wilfredo Gomez and Khaosai Galaxy. Whatever one may think of his division, whatever nagging doubts we may have about the standard of his opposition, dominance of the type that he exerted over the little men for roughly a decade has seldom been seen at any time or weight in boxing history. Finito was a truly great fighter with all the tools; a pity that very few opponents ever allowed us to see them all working in perfect synchronisation, but hardly his fault. A clear YES.

I'm not going to waste much breath on debating the pros and cons of Marciano. Carp as people might, he is still one of the great figures in boxing history, and without any thought, he is a YES.

Lloyd Marshall had some great moments, and some pretty ordinary ones. On the positive side are some fabulous wins, with the exclamation mark being that golden period when he beat Burley and Charles. However, I believe that this is substantially outweighed by the debit side of the ledger. The Mafia connections certainly didn't help, but for a great fighter, he was quite close to being chinny, and his record against his fellow BMR members is no better than average. Chase, Booker and Holman Williams all have roughly equal or slightly superior records against him, Bivins outclassed him when it mattered most, Charles conclusively showed him who was boss eventually, while Moore was also much too good for him. Everything considered, Marshall must be a NO for me.

The same applies, but more so, to Joey Maxim. Quite the gent, made the best of his talent, but here again, the great wins are outweighed by the disappointing defeats, albeit usually against top men. No-one can take away the Robinson win from him; it was a herculean performance to break the Sugar Man's resolve on a night when, as Maxim said, "No-one put air conditioning in my corner." However, it's also not enough; a fine adornment to the game, but he's just short of elite class for me. NO.

Some tough asks this week, Captain, and I must admit I'm quite torn on more than one of these.

Danny Lopez - gave his all in those fights against a bona fide great in Sanchez, but when taking into account that this is a truly elitist Hall of Fame that we are selecting here it takes more than heart to gain the vote. A very good fighter, but those defeats to Sanchez were, as you say, pretty comprehensive, showing that he couldn't quite cut it at the very highest level, and as such for me it has to be a NO.

Ricardo Lopez - undefeated, and despite not having the opportunity to face other true greats he showed enough (from the little I have seen of him) to suggest that he would have been quite at home if he had. A fantastically gifted fighter, and for me is a YES.

Rocky Marciano - again, undefeated, and a truly remarkable fighter. The Brockton Blockbuster didn't exactly epitomise the sweet science, but what he did have was heart, a granite chin, superhuman stamina and dynamite in his fists. Beat some very good names, despite what many detractors say, and regardless of his size I wouldn't back against him in too many contests. A definite YES.

Lloyd Marshall - despite some great wins, these were levelled out somewhat by lacklustre defeats. I was very tempted to vote yes for Marshall, as he has wins on his record that many could only dream of, however all things considered and going by the criteria for this Hall of Fame it has to be a NO.

Joey Maxim - an outstanding win against Robinson, along with numerous other fantastic performances, and another that I was very tempted to vote in, however using my Marshall vote as a yard-stick it has to be a NO.

I'll admit my vote for Marshall was quite sentimental, if there are any fighters i'll give some slack to then it's the BMR.

It was a tough one for me, Ghosty - under any other circumstances he would certainly get a yes, but if we are strictly adhering to this HoF criteria set out at the very beginning then it is a reluctant no, though I certainty don't have any qualms with your choice!

I was in agreement with the consensus with the exception of the question of Joey Maxim since, working from memory, I recalled that he had also turned over Jersey Joe Walcott once in three and had also stalled the rise of a young Floyd Patterson. Good enough for me, I thought.

Until I checked.

Sadly, even disregarding the end - of - career tailspin following the last hurrah against Patterson there are, as the captain points out, just too many losses intermingled with the glory moments.

Count me among the converted, then. Resounding ' yes ' for Ricardo Lopez and also for Marciano, together with a reluctant ' no ' to the remaining three.

Morning, captain. Another good bunch.

'Little Red' was always great box office value, but as you say his record isn't of the elite. Those fairly decisive losses to Sanchez showed the gulf between the very good and the truly great, and he's lacking in genuine top Featherweight scalps, or at least lacking enough to exclude him from consideration here. It's a no.

Ricardo Lopez was, until Ivan Calderon, more or less the only reason for the Strawweight division garnering any serious interest. It's not always easy to gauge the quality of his opposition, particularly as the division never really took off outside of the Orient during his time, but he showed a wide enough array of skills and enough sheer dominance to make him Hall of Fame worthy. I'd say yes.

Marciano's credentials, and his place in our Hall, really don't require too much explaining. To this day his record is unique amongst all great Heavyweight champions, and his impact on the history of the sport has been huge. A clear yes.

Marshall is a tricky one. Like many of his BMR contemporaries, his record boasts some seriously impressive wins, but also some considerable losses. Ultimately, fine fighter though he was, I just don't think he rose above those aforementioned contemporaries enough to warrant an inclusion here. It's a no from me, even if it is a narrow one.

Maxim is much more straightforward. He actually scored more quality wins than many people give him credit for, and is all too often (unfairly) remembered for the Robinson fight. That said, the way that he was comprehensively dominanted by both Charles and Moore, as well as needing that slice of luck against the original Sugar Ray, show that while he was a fine fighter in his own right, he clearly wasn't one of the Light-Heavyweight elite. His record is impressive, but certainly not Hall of Fame material. A definite no.

Cheers, captain.

An interesting but Marshall aside a relatively straight forward bunch this week.

Danny Lopez is a guy I have to say no to, no shame in losing to Sanchez but the manner of the defeat suggested a serious gulf in class and a level for him slightly below what we need and there is not enough on the record to mitigate this.

Ricardo Lopez is an absolute yes, can argue about the level of opposition but record speaks for itself and he proved beyond any reasonable doubt he was the best at his weight for some time.

Marciano is also a yes, acheived what no heavyweight did before or since and his impact on the game is beyond question, if Rocky doesn't make it in I'm not playing anymore.

Maxim is a no for me, looking at his record there are some decent wins but whilst this is not particularly scientific when I just did my top fifteen light heavies he was not a name I considered and is not someone who says true elite to my mind.

Marshall is tricky, have a lot of time for all the BMR and seriously regret my decision to exclude Bivins but looking at Marshall I see a guy who was very much one of the pack in the BMR and his record against those guys is not enough to quite elevate him, there are also a couple of losses an elite guy has no real business picking up so relucatantly I am going to have to say no.

theme developing this week it seems. I'm going to keep it brief, as the captain's analysis sums up my views pretty much to the letter.
d lopex no
r lopez yes
marciano yes
marshall no
maxim no

The only one to give me any real thought was marshall. One of the oldest and least active of the bmr partly due to amateur career, so you could argue that some of his wins/losses against his contempraries were down to timing. Other's no doubt down to his chin. Whichever, his results went downhill sharply after the moore losses. I don't know enough about the mob impact, but whilst there's no doubt he could fight - given the calibre of guys he beat - just too much quantity and lack of quality in the L column.

Yes to Ricardo Lopez who is a absolute favourite of mine. There was not one single thing that El Finito couldn't do in a ring and his complete mastery of his division makes him a standout member of our HoF. Beat Sorjaturong, Grigsby, Alvarez who all went on to reign as world champions after Lopez had finished with them. Unified champion, two weight champion and undefeated. All this allied to a skillset that most fighters can only dream of. Biggest yes of the lot for me.

Marciano is another obvious yes. People always seem able to criticise his record but no-one has a CV that can't be picked apart if we try. The fact is he did what no other heavyweight has ever done and is absolutely ingrained in the history of boxing. Brutal fighter and enormous reserves of will and courage. Got to be in there for me.

No to t'others.

Little doubt about last week's results - Ricardo Lopez and Rocky Marciano are overwhelmingly elected to our Hall of Fame, while Danny Lopez, Lloyd Marshall and Joey Maxim have been equally decisively rejected.

We begin this week's quintet with Mike McCallum. The Jamaican won his first title at light-middleweight in 1984 by decisioning Sean Mannion. His reign at 154, which included punishing stoppage wins over Julian Jackson, Milton McCrory and Donald Curry, established him as arguably the greatest fighter ever at the weight. Moving up to 160, Mike would rebound from a decision loss to Sumbu Kalambay by winning the vacant WBA title against Herol Graham and defending against Kalambay, Steve Collins and Michael Watson. Two attempts to relieve James Toney of his IBF title were thwarted by controversial draw and majority decision, before McCallum stepped up in weight again. At light-heavy, he would win a third belt against Jeff Harding, subsequently losing it to Fabrice Tiozzo. A month before his 40th birthday, McCallum was still putting in a heroic performance in an unsuccessful title challenge against the dominant Roy Jones.

Barry McGuigan's story is one of the most famous in the annals of UK boxing. British, Commonwealth and European titles at featherweight were followed by a move into world class with the destruction of former world title challenger Jose Caba. His career-best performance against the redoubtable Juan Laporte came next, putting him in line to challenge the great Eusebio Pedroza for his WBA crown. On an unforgettable night in London, Barry swept the Panamanian aside. He made two successful defences before falling to a shock defeat to Steve Cruz in the baking heat of Las Vegas a year after winning the crown. Personal problems then kept him out of the ring for three years before a brief comeback, ended by a cut eye loss against Jim McDonnell.

Brian Mitchell was voted South Africa's boxer of the 20th century. He earned this recognition the hard way, winning the WBA super-featherweight crown in 1986 and being forced to travel abroad for the next five years in defence of his title. 12 successful defences were the result, the last a controversial draw against IBF champion Tony Lopez, when Mitchell appeared to have done more than enough to win. A rematch, with only the IBF crown on the line was easily won, and Mitchell retired, coming back only for two relatively insignificant wins before hanging 'em up for good.

Bob Montgomery was one of the hard-hitting, all-action lightweights who made the 1940s a vintage era for the division. He fought most of the division's great names of the time, losing three times to the awkward Sammy Angott, but splitting a thrilling four fight series with Beau Jack, which included two wins for a version of the world title. Montgomery's victims also included Lew Jenkins and Ike Williams (whom he KO'd), but he also managed to lose in 63 seconds to Al "Bummy" Davis. Finally, in 1947, Montgomery took on Williams again for the undisputed title, but this time, he was decisively beaten. It was his last hurrah, and his career was to peter out in a string of losses.

Overcoming brutal poverty and an inconsistent start to his career, Matthew Saad Muhammad persisted to become one of the great light-heavyweights. A loss to Eddie Mustafa Muhammad in early 1977 was the unlikely prelude to an inexorable rise to greatness over the next four years. Saad captured the NABF title in a thrilling war with Marvin Johnson, kept winning and then annexed the WBC crown with another heart-stopping win against the same fighter. His title reign would be no less exciting, with amazing come from behind wins against men such as John Conteh and Yaqui Lopez earning him the nickname "Miracle Matthew". After eight successful defences, nemesis arrived in the shape of Dwight Muhammad Qawi, who thrashed Saad twice and virtually ended his career at the top level. A downward spiral was characterised by a series of increasingly embarrassing losses before final retirement.

Little sleep lost in saying a resounding ' yes ' to McCallum, and ' yes ' to each of Mitchell and Muhammad.

McGuigan an equally confident ' no. '

Montgomery is a wee bit tricky but, ultimately, the brutal truth is that the losses significantly outweigh the wins at the highest level, and if I couldn't persuade myself to give Beau Jack the nod then I fail to see how I could possibly do so for Montgomery.

McCallum, Mitchell, Muhammad - Yes.

McGuigan, Montgomery - No.

McCallum and Mitchell - YES
Muhammad, McGuigan and Montgomery - NO

Morning, captain. Fairly straightforward for me, this week.

McCallum is more than worthy of his place. His record reads like a who's who of 154 lb to 175 lb boxing throughout the eighties and nineties, and even when those rare defeats came (at an advanced age and having moved up in weight) he performed with dignity in them. I'd agree that he's the all-time top dog at Light-Middleweight, and a fine 160 lb campaigner, too. He was never really decisively beaten until he ran in to Jones, which speaks volumes. A clear yes.

McGuigan is equally straightforward, only he falls on the other side of the divide. He hinted at greatness with his wins over La Porte, Pedroza and Taylor - but then, for a number of reasons, didn't follow it up. As much as we all love him, there's little doubt that his peak was far too short-lived to be included here. A definite no.

Mitchell was a marvel at 130 lb, and while his opposition doesn't necessarily strike anyone as being spectacular, it represented the best available, and he earns a place through his consistency and dominance of his era. The fact that he was never able to make any of his dozen or so title defences at home due to the loathesome apartheid policy of South Africa during his reign only adds to his credentials - there's little doubt that Mitchell had to do it the hard way. A certain yes.

The Lightweight era which Montgomery campaigned in was a supremely strong one, and hence just being a championship contender in it represents a considerable achievement. However, in his own era he was playing second fiddle to two or three men - hardly a great recipe for all-time greatness. His record is too patchy at the highest level to be included, and while he scored some excellent wins, he suffered just as many defeats against the elite. I vote no.

Matthew Saad Muhammad isn't what I'd call an automatic selection, but I'm happy to give him the thumbs up. Like Montgomery, Saad campaigned in a superb era in his chosen division - however, unlike Montgomery, he did establish himself as the top man of the bunch. Plenty of quality rammed in to Saad's title tenure, some thrilling wins, and his array of skills (sometimes underrated, to my mind) is enough to earn him a place. Yes.

So in summary, a thumbs up for McCallum, Mitchell and Miracle Matthew, while McGuigan and Montgomery miss out.

McCallum as straight forward as it gets, only mar is the problems he had with kalambay. Clear yes.
Mitchell, only minor quibble is with the caibre of some of the opposition and that he never fought nelson. But at least he had his unification with lopez. Can't knock his record really. Straight forward yes.
montgomery and mcguigan fairly straight forward no's for me.

Franklin/Saad Muhammed. Hmmn. He scores very highly on a lot of peoples light heavy lists. He certainly had a good run, with some good wins, but personally i thought he rode his luck a bit. he got Conteh at the right time and Conteh still should have closed him out in the first fight. And apart from lopez who he'd already beaten his defences were pretty regulation. credit to him for his reigh anf those comeback wins. Ultimately though there are nemises and nemises. Braxton/Qawi battered him from pillar to post when Saad should still have been prime. I realise that you can draw parallels with foreman and frazier ... and still have Frazier as a cast iron cert. But Muhammed v qawi is also the most petrified i've ever seen a fighter look in a ring with the possible exception of spinks v tyson. I can't just over-look the nature of those defeats. I suspect i'll be ploughing a lone furrow on this one, but Saad Muhammed. No.

Mitchell and McCallum- YES
Everyone else- NO

Muhammad was a very good fighter, but I feel that he just misses out if we are rigidly sticking to our elitist selection criteria, based on his biggest wins against his biggest losses.

I've got the benefit of knowing exactly where we as a whole have him currently placed in the light heavyweight division which is a lot lower than other boxers who we've said no to before, so on that basis have said no to him.

...clearly not such a lone furrow. I recall numerous threads from the past where he's been highly lauded so was expecting him to be well supported. Clearly we're a tough bunch to please.

Two very straightforward decisions this week, in my view. McCallum is the epitome of a modern great, both dominating a division and showing the range to move through the weights with some success. It would have been lovely if he could have fought Hearns or Leonard at 154 at some point, but you can't have everything. Obviously a YES.

Barry isn't, of course. If he could have recaptured the form he showed against Laporte, which was one of the great all-round UK/Irish performances against a really good fighter in his prime, then we would all be singing a different song about him. However, it was pretty much all downhill from then on; I thought that he got going a bit late against Pedroza, and it was just as well that the champ had seen one or two wars too many. McGuigan dominated after the 7th round knockdown, of course, but Pedroza had shown that Barry was vulnerable up till then. The same was true of Taylor, but in spades. Totally outboxed Barry until the heat and Barry's body punches started to have their effect. The Cabrera fight was a near-disaster, which was then completed by Cruz. Not enough substance to be here, and for all the great memories, McGuigan is a NO.

Montgomery must be one of the more inconsistent very good fighters of all time. Capable of KOing anyone; just as likely to get starched himself or messed around to a points loss. I can't really make up my mind about him; he was obviously extremely capable, but I can't help thinking that his career was primarily one of missed opportunities. NO

I was quite surprised to see such a unanimous groundswell of support for Mitchell's candidacy. It was quite a feat to go on the road time and again and come away successful, but a look at his list of victims does not inspire great awe in me. One would like to have seen fights against Nelson, perhaps Fenech and Laporte or even the next tier down, the Mario Martinezes of this world, on his CV. As it was, we have to do with Irving Mitchell, who pitched a shut-out against Brian for six rounds before getting careless in the seventh, and Tony Lopez, a decent fighter, against whom Mitchell admittedly shone. I may be feeling a bit crotchety this morning, but I make Mitchell a NO.

What to do about Saad Muhammad I have no idea. If you look before 77 or from 82 onwards, the idea of him being a Hall of Fame candidate appears laughable. We're basing everything on a period of about three and a half years, during which he was responsible for some of the great light-heavyweight moments of all time. Is that enough, is the question? Well, it's unlikely to be so for Donald Curry and to my surprise, I find that I don't think it can be for Saad, either. The wins over Johnson, Conteh and Lopez are compelling, but they are outweighed by the manner of his important losses and his overall longevity at the top. With great reluctance, I make Saad a NO.

In terms of the concensus so far I think McCallum is an easy yes and McGuigan an easy no. No arguments there.

However, very surprised to see such overwhelming support for Mitchell who falls some way short of a more selective Hall of Fame in my view. Despite a reasonably long reign the calibre of opposition isnt nearly of sufficient quality to see him inducted and even his biggest win later on over Lopez is not a particularly Hall of Fame worthy win. Would also have to consider Julio Cesar Chavez and Azumah Nelson to be the top fighters at the weight at various times in Mitchells reign and I dont think Mitchell ever established himself as the best fighter at the weight. Once we move into the more modern era's where the weight classes and titles available increase, in many cases I dont think holding a portion of a title at a single weight even for a decent stretch is neccessarily a surefire means of inclusion. Especially at the lower weights. Quality of wins and opposition remain the best currency and measurement in my view, especially in the later multi belt and weight hopping eras. To this extent Mitchell falls into the good and not all time great bracket for me. Would be especially hard to see him in there when fighters like Bivins, Jack and Montgomerry dont feature who I think were all better fighters.

Which leads me onto Montgommery. In terms of quality wins he has enough to feature and as omeone who voted in favour of Jack making it in one might say is there a massive difference between the two? However despite sharing a series I think Jack was the better fighter overall and the more consistent during his best years. Something as identified as a weakness in Montgomerry who had B.C and D level games to match his undoubtadly impressive A game. Despite a number of very fine wins including wins over Jack and Williams, ultimately he never rose above his main rivals Jack, Angott and Williams and I dont think the rest of his career matches some impressive wins to the extent he makes it in.

For similar reasons Saad Muhammad misses out for me. A relative short peak (albeit including some very fine wins) might have been enough if the rest of his career wasnt quite as patchy and his losses to his rival Quawi as decisive. Like Montgommery, there is a good argument to say he has the wins to warrant inclusion but falls short in too many places elsewhere such as short peak and lack of longetivity.

Overall:

McCallum - yes
McGuigan - no
Mitchell - no
Montgommery - no
Saad Muhammad - no

Captain, if I might be a nuisance, I should like to change my vote with regard to Mitchell.

I'm afraid that I find yours and Colonial Lion's arguments against Mitchell compelling, and I am mindful of my long departed mum's advice that ' a day without learning is a day wasted. ' Something of a rush to judgement, I'm afraid, and insufficiently researched.

I'm indebted to you and Colonial Lion for setting me straight, though I cannot bring myself to say ' no ' to Saad Muhammad, also.

In summary, then :

McCallum - Yes
Muhammad - Yes
McGuigan - No
Mitchell - No
Montgomery - No.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

You lot have got me thinking I made the wrong decision now, too! However, I will keep my vote the same, despite learning a fair bit more about Mitchell as a result of your offerings. My vote is certainly more tentative than it was this time yesterday.

No problem at all, Windy. That's what this is all about - debate, which will, by its very nature, persuade people to change their mind at times. It did so for me in the cases of Bivins and Elorde, and I dare say that they won't be the last.

Can never decide whether it is better to get your votes in early or late on this, as there are so many compelling arguments made either way confusion tends to reign.

McCallum is easy, any fighter that can claim almost unchallenged to be the best at his weight deserves to be in, particularly when you consider his more than respectable record in a couple of higher weights, definite yes

Mcguigan is a similarly easy way, lovely guy and credit to the sport and where we considering contribution to the sport outside the ring he would have a great chance but we don't and his wins over the likes of an ageing Pedroza, Laporte and Taylor are simply not enough, regretable but definite no.

Montgomery is again a no, fighting in a good era but didn't really establish himself as the man in that era, and for all his good losses the poor ones probably outweigh them so he is a no

Mitchell looks to be the one who is splitting opinion the most and have to say I am in the same camp as the lion and captain, just don't think the names on his record stack up and don't feel he really established himself as the man at the time and as Lion rightly says in the fragmented belt era this is pretty important. so again a no

As for Saad Muhammad I am also in the no camp, at his best his good wins look the part, but Conteh was hardly dedicated and was possibly an accident waiting to happen and the brevity of his time on top and decisiveness of the losses to Quawi and patchy form thereon exclude him

So no's all round apart from the bodysnatcher

Still not forgiven you lot for not voting Bivins in but do feel compelled to say no to Mitchell now upon hearing a very persuasive argument.

Seems like Mitchell is the major point for debate this week. I see where the captain and colonial are coming from... i raised the same points but still included him.

We have the same problem cropping everytime when comparing old fighters with new - how does a better record in a time of multiple titles stack up to a worse one against better opposition when there could only be one champion. It's never straight forward. My take is mitchell has no names on his record, but he fought continuously on the road, during the apartheid era, and the guys he beat had beaten the names recently. Layne may have been average and lucky but he still beat gomez, lopez had wins over molina and lockridge. So he at least beat the man who beat the man.

Chavez moved up in weight not long after Mitchell became champion. Which leaves us with Nelson and laporte. I like Juan laporte as a fighter, but he's most noted for being on the wrong end of good fights (and being the one guy that could make mcguigan look better than chavez). Nelson is the glaring omission, and as the captain says there is also a lack of 2nd tier guys too. To some degree he was probably a gatekeeper in a (nelson apart) weak era at the weight.

Truth is Mitchell was no chavez or nelson, and he deserves to lose points for his very dodgy moustache. Can anyone with a better memory of the politics of the day say he actively avoided the names? I confess to wavering on my earlier conviction!

Ghosty, have recently read a biography of Bivins and have to say on the back of reading that his no vote is a shame I may never recover from, am eternally grateful he garnered enough support to make it to the second ballot and can guarantee I will be arguing long and hard to make sure the mistake is not made second time round.

Yes, must agree with Jeff there; failing to select Bivins was far from my finest hour. Only a last-minute change of mind by manos gave Jimmy the necessary score to go forward to a second ballot, and now he looks favourite to make it into the Hall next time.

Captain, I appreciate your forbearance and good grace.

From the sounds of things he'll get enough votes without any problems next time, also Jeff are you going to vote on the light welterweights?

With Mitchell, whether one wants to say he avoided fights or not is tricky. But there are several things that stand against him. His chief positive is that he held a title for a long time. But the drawback is with Chavez there initially and Nelson there later Im not sure he was ever recognised as the actual best super featherweight. Its also quite rare down on the small divisions for a guy to spend almost an entire career at a single weight, especially when there are bigger fights surrounding him. If we look at Nelson, he managed to secure fights with Fenech and Whitaker for example who were both operating either side of his division and stepped up a couple of divisions in his career to challenge for bigger titles. Mitchell never really did that and overall appeared happy with his own portion of the title defending it against reasonable but not outstanding opposition.

Although he was a long reigning champion I dont think he scores well enough in the other departments to be inculded. Ability wise he was good but never what I believed was a truly elite fighter. I also think reigned in Nelsons shadow mainly and failed to ever establish himself as the best at his weight despite holding a title for many years. His standard of opposition and overall big wins were also lacking in terms of elite HoF standards. Lopez was a good win but not enough to give him a place and there were guys like Fenech, Molina, Suarez, La Porte, Lockridge or Hernandez who werent elite themselves but would have been more credible challengers than the majority of what Mitchell faced and winning a few of those combined would certainly strengthen his claim.

Dempsey should not be in there imo. He didnt face black boxers so cant call himself the best.

Waingro wrote:Dempsey should not be in there imo. He didnt face black boxers so cant call himself the best.

Plenty of Dempsey articles on the main board over the last week or two which might be able to shed some light or give you food for thought. He's in our original thirty-one, so no need to discuss him on this particular sticky.

We have one new member of our Hall of Fame as a consequence of last week's deliberations. Mike McCallum was the unanimous choice of all voters, and takes his place as the 51st name in the Hall. Elsewhere, debate was fierce, but ultimately clear. Barry McGuigan and Bob Montgomery were unanimously rejected, Matthew Saad Muhammad scored just 25%, while Brian Mitchell, after a good deal of mind-changing, finished with just over 37%. All four lose their place on the candidates' slate.

This week, we begin with Jose Napoles. A native of Cuba, who moved to Mexico not long after Castro's revolution, he initially made his name in the mid-1960s with good wins over Carlos Hernandez, Eddie Perkins and Adolpho Pruitt. A surprise stoppage loss temporarily slowed his progress, but Napoles returned to winning ways and built up sufficient momentum to challenge Curtis Cokes for his undisputed welterweight title in 1969. Here, Napoles showed his true greatness by utterly outclassing the Texan; in his first reign he made three tough defences against Cokes, Emile Griffith and Ernie Lopez look easy, and seemed unbeatable. He was to lose the title to the unheralded Billy Backus on a shocking cut-eye stoppage, but six months later, he easily regained it and this time, kept it for four and a half years. Carlos Monzon was to prove too much for Jose in an abortive try for the middleweight crown, but he ruled the welterweights with ease until ageing overnight, losing his title on home soil against John Stracey and immediately retiring.

Azumah Nelson was a barely known Commonwealth champion in just his fourteenth recorded pro fight when challenging the immortal Salvador Sanchez for his featherweight crown in 1982. A titanic struggle went to the 15th round, with the little Ghanaian unable to resist Sanchez's booming counter-punches any longer. However, his name had been made. Two and a half years later, he ripped the same title away from Wilfredo Gomez in Puerto Rico and reigned for three years, making six defences, before jumping in weight. At super-feather, he instantly won the WBC belt, and defended it ten times, either side of a loss to Pernell Whitaker for the lightweight title, scoring notable triumphs over men such as Juan Laporte, Mario Martinez and Jeff Fenech. After losing the title to Jesse James Leija, Nelson regained it from Gabe Ruelas and defended it successfully against Leija before finally bowing out from serious boxing with losses against Genaro Hernandez and Leija.

Terry Norris was a marquee name in the light-middleweight division for almost a decade. He came to prominence with wins over Steve Little and Buster Drayton and, although savagely beaten by Julian Jackson in his first attempt on a world belt, he was to make no mistake second time round against John Mugabi. Ten successful defences followed, against names such as Sugar Ray Leonard, Donald Curry and Meldrick Taylor, before an unexpected KO loss to Simon Brown. Undaunted, Norris regained his crown from Brown and although the victim of two bizarre, and identical, disqualification losses against Luis Santana, eventually settled his account with that fighter, added the IBF belt to his WBC crown and carried on as champion until 1997, when his loss to Keith Mullings marked the end of his career at the top level, a fact confirmed by two more losses before retirement.

Ken Norton was a key player in the golden age of heavyweights. A former marine, he came to pro boxing relatively late, racking up 16 wins before suffering a shock stoppage loss against Jose Luis Garcia. It was another three years before Norton would shock the boxing world with a decision win over Muhammad Ali for the NABF heavyweight title, during which he broke Ali's jaw. Norton lost a contentious decision in an immediate re-match, but had done enough to secure a shot at George Foreman's world title. However, in one of the most one-sided heavyweight title fights ever, Norton came apart in barely two rounds. Ken went back to winning for two years, including a stoppage over Jerry Quarry, then landed another title shot, this time against Ali. One of the most controversial decisions of all time went to the champion, when almost all observers believed that Norton had done sufficient to win. A year later, Norton beat Jimmy Young in an eliminator for the WBC title, and was then awarded that title when Leon Spinks chose to defend against Ali. However, Norton's reign was to be short. He lost a classic war against Larry Holmes and was suddenly gone from view after brutal KO losses at the hands of Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney.

Ruben Olivares is one of Mexico's most beloved fighting sons. Beginning his pro career young, he tore through the bantamweight division, beating men of the quality of Salvatore Burruni, Jose Medel and Takao Sakurai on his way to a shot at Lionel Rose's world title. The ensuing destruction of Rose, and a similar treatment of the respected Alan Rudkin in his first defence, made Olivares one of the most feared fighting men on the planet. However, after one more successful defence against Chucho Castillo, Olivares would lose his crown in a rematch with Castillo on a cut eye stoppage, and, although he regained the crown, the aura of invincibility was gone. After two successful defences, he lost his title to Rafael Herrera and jumped to featherweight, where he still enjoyed his share of quality wins. Olivares beat Bobby Chacon and then claimed the WBA 126 lb title, before losing it in a war with Alexis Arguello. Undeterred, Olivares KO'd Chacon for the WBC crown, but again, lost it in his first defence, and now the trajectory of his career was generally to be downwards. Olivares lost bouts against Chacon, Danny Lopez and, in a final title try, Eusebio Pedroza, before finally hanging 'em up nearly 20 years after his first title success.

Napoles-Yes
Nelson- Yes
Norris- No
Norton- No
Olivares- Yes

Napoles is an easy choice, an all time great Welterweight without a shadow of a doubt, his win over Griffith ranks as one of the best in the divisions history
Nelson again is a nailed on yes, multiple world champion who beat good and great fighters for fun, losses to Whitaker and Sanchez don't really change anything nor should they
Norris was a long serving champion but in a generally forgotten division and while his list of victims is impressive they were all woefully out of form and had seen far better days
Norton while a great heavyweight just fell short at the highest level but were he to have deservedly got the 3 decisions against Ali then the history of that division would be viewed somewhat differently
Olivares was one of the all time great bantamweights before stepping up and claiming another portion of a world title, devastating puncher and great fun to watch

Morning captain, don't think we'll get an easier five to evaluate throughout this whole process! All very clear cut for me, either way.

Napoles, of course, is a must. Just about a top five 147 lb man of all time for me, certainly top fifty pound for pound, and he is pretty much the definition of what elite really means. An easy yes.

Nelson, likewise, doesn't require much thought. He easily meets the criteria of 'great' at Featherweight and Super-Featherweight, and his record reads like a who's who of boxing between 126 lb and 135 lb during the eighties and nineties. He comfortably won enough of those battles to warrant a place, and even in defeat always performed admirably. No doubt, he's a clear yes.

Norris was an incredibly erratic performer, but even without so many lapses in concentration and discipline I don't think his record is the sort which warrants inclusion in our Hall. He reigned for a long time at 154 lb, but most of his top wins came against men who had no business campaigning at the weight at that particular stage of their careers, and not unifying against the other top Light-Middleweight of the time in Rosi seals his fate. It's a no.

His trilogy with Ali has assured Norton a certain degree of immortality, but outside of that, what is his best win? I think we can all agree that Norton's record, including humiliations at the hands of Foreman and Shavers, falls well short of the elite, and as such he's a no all the way.

Olivares, like Napoles and Nelson, is what anyone would call an elite fighter. A marvelous Bantamweight - arguably the hardest-hitting 118 lb man of all time - and a damn good Featherweight too, even though the Castillo series had taken a lot of him by then. More than enough quality on his record to make his place safe, it's an easy yes from me.

So in summary, yes to Napoles, Nelson and Olivares, no to Norris and Norton.