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]

pryor, one of favourites growing up and undoubtedly a great fighter... i feel he gets maybe too much credit for the arguello fighters... who was moving through the weights. The only other name was cervantes who was a great fighter, but did he get him at the right time. That said he was champion for 5 years. I think with pryor its more qualitative than quantitive... he had an air of greatness about him. YES.

qawi...always had a soft spot for dwight, late into the game and as tough as they come, unlucky in many respects to have met spinks and holy whom he gave very tough fights to but came up short... in an other era it might have been different, but he it means he comes up short here too. NO

rosario, great to watch, some explosive wins, but ultimately shy of what we're looking for here imo. NO.

I think this week might be the cuban hard luck story.

Ramos walked into 2 all time greats. Rodriguez had some almighty battles with another, but kept slipping up elsewhere. Both clearly terrific fighters and, like qawi, both are maybe in that unlucky timing category... but i'm saying NO to both.

AS everyone else has said, with Pryor it is the impression of invincibility that he gave, rather than his record in the round, that leads one to believe that he is an all-time great. There was something indomitable about him; the way that he won against Cervantes, and above all, his performance in that first fight against Arguello, for my money one of the five best fights of all time, showed skills and a fighting heart that very few fighters have ever possessed. On paper, he perhaps should not be the clearest choice for the H of F, but not everything in life can be assessed so drily. For me, Pryor is clearly a YES.

It disappoints me to have to say no to Dwight Muhammad Qawi. His performances against Saad Muhammad showed an unbelievable killer instinct, and it took two all-time greats to stop his march across two divisions, but one can't quite place him among the very elite of the sport. I loved his determination to rise above his origins and I loved his all-action style, but the Camden Buzzsaw must be a NO.

No difficulty in making Ramos a NO. Clearly in the "very" good, rather than "great" category", he basically won against the fighters he was expected to beat and lost against those to whom he was supposed to lose.

Rodriguez is much more difficult for me. In ability, longevity and achievement he was nearly the total package. If he had been a little luckier, his record against Griffith could have been 3-1, or even 4-0. As it is, I have to look at the rest of his career. I don't penalise him too heavily for his middleweight loss to Benvenuti - Rodriguez was getting on by then - but I find his dropping two fights out of three to Cokes when somewhere near his prime just too much to accept in a Hall of Famer. It's quite close, but I'd be failing in my duty not to call Rodriguez a NO.

I watched Rosario fight Frankie Randall in London, an amazing encounter which did something to dispel the idea that he was basically the ultimate flat-track bully. However, I still can't entirely shake the notion that he was awesome when he was in charge, all at sea when his opponent also possessed the heavy artillery. Ramirez broke his aura, Camacho outslicked him, but it is the Chavez fight that remains the indelible impression of Rosario for me. At his best weight, in his prime, he was utterly annihilated. The difference between very good and great encapsulated in eleven brutal rounds. Rosario is a NO.

Not for the first time I find that any comment I might offer would be rendered superfluous by the superb and detailed analysis already presented by others.

Suffice to say, then, that :

Pryor - Yes.

Qawi, Ramos, Rodriguez and Rosario - No.

I wrote a a detailed review of why I thought all but pryor shouldn't, then it asked me to log in and the bloody thing got deleted.

Briefly,

Pryor - decisive against his best opponents, power stamina and gutsy.

Qawi - points loss to a rather green Holyfield

Ramos - found wanting at the top - ODLH syndrome better than everyone else but not good enough to beat the top

Rodriguez - Eubank syndrome. Great one night, Lazy and listless the other. too many shocks to put him in

Rosario - Mullered by Chavez who was coming up a weight or two if I remember correctly. Lost to his three top opponents and never decisive enough to get the decisions against griffiths.

Nothing much to add this week. Agree with the general concensus.

Pryor - yes
Qawi - no
Ramos - no
Rodriguez - no
Rosario - no

General opinion seems spot on

Pryor- yes
Qawi- No
Ramos- No
Rodriguez- No
Rosario- No

Have been looking through the other four guys to see if there was anyone in there I could be contrary about and try and buck the general consensus and bon-homie that has befallen this weeks nominees but is nobody that justifies such an argument. So it is yes to Pryor and no to the others I'm afraid

As much I hate to disagree with Rowley. I'm a no to all five tbh.

I can't argue with what I've read about the other 4 good but not great.

Pryor unfortunately doesn't quite have the record of the elite. Yes he retired undefeated first time around but he lacks the names on his record to justify a place amongst the absolute elite of the sport imo.

I was going to let this week go by as the decision seemed unanimous, but apparently not so I'll weigh in with
Pryor, YES
The others, NO

The place just wouldn't be right without The Hawk.

prettyboykev

Don't think you can underestimate two wins over a genuine all time great like Arguello who went on to beat some respected names at 140lbs too and add to that a decisive win over the very good Antonio Cervantes.

...well he beat billy costello at 140, money, if that counts as respected names plural

i loved watching pryor fight, and i've voted him in. I think for a few of us it seems, its a judgement made on seeing him fight as much as what he actually achieved on paper. Given we're meant to be purely objective, and tough task masters, i think kev has a valid point... and i can see why some would question his inclusion

I'm not under estimating his wins over Arguello although it was a good Arguello he wasn't at his strongest weight.

He has good names on his record like Cervantes although he was past it at the time they fought. Just not enough stellar wins to be regarding amongst the elite imo.

Although considering I'm the only one who thinks so either I have very high standards or I talk cr@p!

I'm going to get this week's roundup out of the way early, since there has been near total unanimity on the five candidates. By a landslide decision, Aaron Pryor becomes the latest member of the v2 Hall of Fame. Everyone also decided that the candidacy of Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Sugar Ramos, Luis Rodriguez and Edwin Rosario should be brought to a permanent end.

This week's offering features some superb candidates. We begin with Vicente Saldivar, whose run to a shot at the world featherweight title featured classy victories over future lightweight titlist Ismael Laguna and former bantamweight stalwart Eloy Sanchez, against a single disputed DQ loss that was later avenged. In 1964, Saldivar took on Sugar Ramos for the crown in front of his own Mexican fans, and took the champion apart in twelve rounds. So began one of the great dominant reigns; Saldivar would defend his title seven times, including a memorable trilogy against Merthyr's Howard Winstone, before retiring unexpectedly. Two years later, Saldivar was back, winning a decision against former WBC champ Jose Legra and then becoming champion again with a decision win in Italy over Johnny Famechon. This time, his reign would be brief, as he lost his crown to Kuniaki Shibata in his first defence, and a later ill-advised comeback was terminated by a conclusive loss to his fellow veteran great Eder Jofre. Sadly, Saldivar did not enjoy a lengthy retirement, dying of cancer at the age of just 42.

Another great Mexican featherweight is next. Turning pro at just 16, Salvador Sanchez amassed a record of 33-1-1 during the next five years, losing only an early shot at the Mexican bantamweight title. As a featherweight Sanchez kept winning, and was given a WBC title try against Danny Lopez in 1980. The unheralded challenger dominated Lopez, stopping him in 13 and repeating the dose in 14 in their rematch later in the year. Sanchez would defend five times before his finest hour, a masterful counter-punching dissection of the fearsome Wilfredo Gomez. Another three defences followed, the last a tough, but ultimately conclusive, stoppage of a green Azumah Nelson. Less than three weeks later, Sanchez was killed in a car crash in his native Mexico, still aged just 23.

Max Schmeling had had his share of ups and downs by the time he first challenged for the world heavyweight title. German and European honours at the weight were balanced by shocking stoppage losses to men such as Larry Gains. However, victory against Johnny Risko in The Ring's fight of the year for 1929, and another win against Paulo Uzcudun, lifted him to the head of the queue of men who were vying to succeed the retired Gene Tunney as champion. In one of history's most controversial fights, against Jack Sharkey, Schmeling became the only man to win the title on a foul. One successful defence followed, before Schmeling lost the title to Sharkey in another controversial bout where many thought that the German had done enough to keep his crown. Schmeling continued to campaign at the top level, losing a thriller to Max Baer and beating Mickey Walker before bursting Joe Louis's bubble in spectacular style, via 12th round KO. The rematch, this time for Louis's world title, took place two years later in an atmosphere charged with political overtones, and Schmeling was smashed to defeat inside a round. Schmeling did win another European title bout before the war and campaigned in desultory fashion for a few years after it, but from then on, his mark would be made most prominently in the world of commerce.

D*ck Tiger was a hugely popular fighter on three different continents. Beginning his career in his native Nigeria, Tiger moved to the UK to try his luck, where he lost his first four fights. However, he persevered and improved rapidly, stopping men such as Terry Downes and Pat McAteer en route to the Commonwealth middleweight title. Tiger would then move his base to America in search for world honours and was soon splitting a pair of non-title fights with Joey Giardello. Major wins over Florentino Fernandez and Henry Hank would follow, and so, eventually did a world title shot, against the great, but ageing Gene Fullmer. By decision, Tiger became champion, drew a return bout and then put the issue to bed with a decisive stoppage win in front of his home fans in their third fight. Tiger dropped his crown to Joey Giardello, won it back after two years chasing the American, and then lost it to Emile Griffith. Undaunted, he rebounded in his very next fight to take away Jose Torres' undisputed world light heavyweight title, becoming the first world champion at 160 and 175 since Bob Fitzsimmons. After two successful defences, the 5 foot 8 Tiger fell to his only KO loss against the great Bob Foster, but even now, he was not finished. A symbol of the Biafran people's struggle in the brutal Nigerian civil war of the time, Tiger would win a Ring fight of the year against Frankie DePaula and beat reigning middleweight champion Nino Benvenuti in a non-title fight before losing again to Emile Griffith. Eighteen months later, Tiger was dead of cancer at the age of 42.

Jose Torres' progress during the first five years of his pro career was smooth, with a perfect record disturbed only by a draw with Benny Paret. This was rudely halted by a stoppage loss at the hands of the dangerous punching Florentino Fernandez. Now campaigning at both middleweight and light-heavyweight, Torres rebounded, beating Don Fullmer and KOing the ancient Bobo Olson en route to a tilt at Willie Pastrano's world 175 lb title. An easy TKO for Torres was the precursor to a two-year reign, encompassing three successful defences, before he lost his title to D*ck Tiger and was also beaten in the return. That was the end of his career at the top level, but not the end of Torres' contribution to boxing. He became a respected administrator of the sport and also found the time to pen a biography of Muhammad Ali.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I'm going to get this week's roundup out of the way early, since there has been near total unanimity on the five candidates. By a landslide decision, Aaron Pryor becomes the latest member of the v2 Hall of Fame. Everyone also decided that the candidacy of Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Sugar Ramos, Luis Rodriguez and Edwin Rosario should be brought to an end.

This week's offering features some superb candidates. We begin with Vicente Saldivar, whose run to a shot at the world featherweight title featured superb victories over future lightweight titlist Ismael Laguna and former bantamweight stalwart Eloy Sanchez, against a single disputed DQ loss that was later avenged. In 1964, Saldivar took on Sugar Ramos for the crown in front of his own Mexican fans, and took the champion apart in twelve rounds. So began one of the great dominant reigns; Saldivar would defend his title seven times, including a memorable trilogy against Merthyr's Howard Winstone, before retiring unexpectedly. Two years later, Saldivar was back, winning a decision against former WBC champ Jose Legra and then becoming champion again with a decision win in Italy over Johnny Famechon. This time, his reign would be brief, as he lost his crown to Kuniaki Shibata in his first defence, and a later ill-advised comeback was terminated by a conclusive loss to his fellow veteran great Eder Jofre. Sadly, Saldivar did not enjoy a lengthy retirement, dying of cancer at the age of just 42.

Another great Mexican featherweight is next. Turning pro at just 16, Salvador Sanchez amassed a record of 33-1-1 during

Think you missed a bit there at the bottom captain. Looks like a good line up. will post response here during the week.

What a line up this week, captain! Some of my personal favourites, and all of them, of course, damn fine practitioners of the sweet science.

Saldivar is my idea of what a true Hall of Fame inductee should be. An all-time great at 126 lb, I can only think of a very small handful of Featherweights who'd rank ahead of him. As you say, his road to the title was impressive - with far fewer slip ups than most others have suffered - and his championship reign was magnificent; the Winstone bouts, particularly the second one, are amongst my favourites. More than enough quality wins on his record to make him an easy choice. A huge yes to one of the greatest southpaws of them all.

Sanchez, likewise, is one of the Featherweight immortals (believe me, there is no tasteless joke intended there). The only aspect of him which makes me pause for thought is how much greater he could have potentially have been had it not been for the aforementioned tragedy. However, when it comes to whether or not to include him here, I need no thought at all. Despite fate dealing him a cruel hand, he still compiled a record at 126 lb which is only trumped by Pep and Saddler in my eyes - let's not forget that three of them men he beat while defending his WBC title (La Porte, Gomez and Nelson) went on to win it after he died, and in the case of Gomez, Sanchez produced one of the great individual displays. Another easy yes.

Schmeling has as compelling a life story as just about any other boxer who ever lived - but keeping things strictly to business, he falls short of our elite standards here. As you rightly allude to, you'd have to wonder what a man who was capable of toppling a young Joe Louis was doing losing emphatically to men such as Gypsy Daniels and the like, and while controversy persists to this day about the verdict which cost him his title against Sharkey, there is no way that his reign was dominant enough to eradicate the doubt there. Fine fighter, but not a Hall of Famer. It's a no.

Dick Tiger is another big favourite of mine, and I'm a little torn, though I reckon that's perhaps down to some bias on my part. A genuinely great Middleweight, not a bad Light-Heavyweight and usually involved in some very good bouts. However, I have to stay as balanced as I can and, on reflection, I'd say he falls a little short. I can't quite shake the idea that Fullmer had perhaps seen better days by the time the man from Nigeria dethroned him, and we need to factor in that Giardello, who himself has fallen by the wayside in this process, was able to split their title fights with him. His wins from there on in at the top level were matched pretty evenly with losses, and while it adds to his credentials that he found success at 175 lb, his reign there doesn't quite tip the scales back in his favour. With a sense of disappointment, it's a reluctant no from me.

Torres falls comfortably short, though. He certainly proved that he was deserving to wear the 175 lb crown for a period of time, however his impact on the division in an all-time sense is very limited. Pastrano (another who fell short a few weeks back) was as inconsistent as they come, and the nature of Torres' defeats to Tiger seal his fate. Good, but not great. Another no.

So in summary, an emphatic yes to Saldivar and Sanchez; two equally emphatic no votes to Schmeling and Torres, with an agonizing one to Tiger.

saldivar, good reign, great names on the cv. could argue that he retired quite young and his comeback was unconvincing but clear. YES

sanchez. Packed a lot of good names into those few but active years as champion. clear YES.

schmeling, vote him in along with buster douglas if you think shocking the world and kOing a great is enough. If not vote NO with me.

torres, bit short of required cv, clear NO for me.

Tiger. Pause for thought. It's hard to think of someone with so many defeats throughout his career and losses to ordinary fighters as being worthy. But from about 1960, he only dropped a few disputed decisions including the first griffiths fight in the next 8 years until he got stiffed by foster. A late maturer, who learnt hsi trade the hard way and on the road... and a similar story to dennis andries a few decades later. Only tough call of the week for me, but it feels like he should be in. I suspect i've been easier on him than some in the past though. YES.

Tiger is the problem for me, also, among this week's batch.

Saldivar and Sanchez are each a nailed on certain ' yes ' and, as far as I'm concerned, Schmeling and Torres are a pretty confident ' no.'

Back to Tiger.

On paper, he's probably a ' no ' by the strictest criteria. However, he wasn't hitting Gene Fullmer with his record during their series and there were times when he made the teak tough Fullmer look decidedly uncomfortable ; probably more so than had Robinson, for that matter. I can't shake off those images, and nor can I easily shake off the testimony of former pro referee, sparring partner to the greats, close friend of Emile Griffith and modern day historian, Ron Lipton. Lipton is adamant that Tiger, during his short peak, was one of the best fighters he ever saw in the flesh. Lest we forget, Lipton had, in addition to Tiger, shared the sharp end of sparring sessions with Griffith, Carter and even Frazier and Ali, among other luminaries. No starstruck sparring partner, this.

Fair to point out, of course, that I haven't summoned the opinions of men like Lipton in making my other choices and that, in that case, I am making special allowances for Tiger. I can't really argue, except to say that I believe he's one of that breed who really might constitute a ' whole being greater than the sum of the parts ' situation.

I'm not certain he should be in, but I'd like to see him, at the very least, get another chance in a second ballot and so, to that end and to go some way toward alleviating my incompetence in making a hard and fast decision, I'm going to say ' yes ' in the hope that it will keep the door ajar.

Saldivar, Sanchez, Tiger - yes

Schmeling, Torres - no

As others have said Saldivar and Sanchez are hall of famers against any criteria and are firm yes'

Schmeling is a fighter and a man I rate but alas as Liston was already given a no in this exercise I struggle to imagine how one can construct an argument for Max and I have no intention of trying, likewise Torres, far better light heavys than him have found themselves receiving nos thus far and so surely Torres has to.

Have been som pretty interesting arguments put forward for Tiger, and I am finding things no easier, If memory serves I voted Fulmer in but as others have said Gene had probably seen better days by the time they fought, and a split series with Giardello and some patchy form besides has me leaning slightly towards a no for Tiger with no great certainty though.

There's no possible doubt about the credentials of Saldivar and Sanchez, two of the top six featherweights of all time, in my opinion. There is equally little that could persuade me that Schmeling and Torres would be deserving entrants to our Hall.

So to Tiger, and I increasingly find myself convinced that this was the greatest African boxer of them all. He may only have an equal ledger with Giardello and a losing one to Griffith and Foster, but I think that his achievements are extraordinary. How many men have won undisputed titles at 160 and 175? How many at age 40 have been able to beat a reigning middleweight champion? Tiger beat a lot of very good fighters in a career where nothing was given to him on a plate. I understand the objections to his candidacy, but I'm in his corner. For me, like Saldivar and Sanchez, he is a YES.

Cant really find a spot for Tiger myself. Impressive as it was to be successful into his late 30s, it also highlights that he wasnt much more than domestic/euro level until his early thirties. Fought alot of good fighters during his best years but his record against them isnt good enough to include him for me. He fails on alot of the criteria people have used in the past to include or reject fighters - lack of real dominance at any weight, mixed record against the top fighters he faced, overall consistency and so on. If the likes of Montgommery, Jack, Bivins, Angott, Johnson etc havent been included then I think Tiger falls into a similar bracket of just short.

Think I would be in agreement on all the others.

Yes to Saldivar and Sanchez. No to Schmelling, Tiger and Torres.

Yes to Saldivar and Sanchez, two truly elite and outstanding fighters, but no to the others.

Can't really add anything more than you fine fellows have already contributed.

Manos - great to see you back.

Fists of Fury wrote:Yes to Saldivar and Sanchez, two truly elite and outstanding fighters, but no to the others.

Can't really add anything more than you fine fellows have already contributed.

Manos - great to see you back.

Thank you very much Fists

Clear yesses to Saldivar and Sanchez. I just watched Sanchez v Gomez again and the guy really was a freak, the way he could take punches without even blinking and his expression seemed never to change.

Schmeling had peaks and troughs in his career, too inconsistent and never really spectacular outside of his Louis upset. No.

Torres, good as he was, doesn't have the names nor the consistency. A no.

And now the one who's got folks scratching their heads, Tiger. He's difficult to rate as he had no period of real consistency. His early days had plenty of defeats and his rise to world level had all the defeats too, along with spectacular wins. I really wanted to defend Tiger to the hilt, or at least leave eligible for reconsideration, but I feel he just doesn't have the record. Fullmer, a great win but Gene was certainly on the slide after a grueling career. Torres, we've already declared not hall of fame worthy, another top win but his top wins, including Benvenuti et al aren't enough for me. They're outweighed by the defeats at all levels, Griffith having his number and never asserting himself at any weight class. A reluctant no for a fighter I respect greatly.

I second the Welcome Back to the Hall of Fame's most difficult to please judge. Good to see you damning candidates again, manos.

Count me among those delighted by your return, manos.

I had been wondering where you were and whether or not we would get the chance to lock horns in debate again. Always enjoyed your input, and particularly some of the good natured tussles we've shared.

Easy to pick hell yesses to Sadivar and Sanchez and a firm no to Schmelling and Torres.

Ordinarlily I would say yes to Tiger but given the strict criteria and the fact that have missed a few weeks of voting, I'd like to see how he measures up against other fighters who have been rejected on the first ballot. For that reason, I'm prepared to give him a 2nd chance and will vote yes.

Its threads like this makes me all the more sad not being able to have a chin wag with you fellas about boxing, a brilliant idea and thread Captain and fabulous discussion from the good old chaps of 606, hope you're all very well by the way. If it's welcome for a vote from an absent fan this week.

I'd say a massive yes to Sanchez, on the basis of the discipline, conditioning, intelligence and consistency Sanchez brought to the table convinces me that he would clearly have come to be rated higher had he lived to retirement from the sport. Danny Lopez was at his peak and seemingly invincible when Sal dominated him twice. Sanchez ended his career by stopping Azumah Nelson in 15, a match where Sal was clearly not feeling his best. Nelson never would have beaten Sanchez, something to consider in light of Nelson's subsequent career. Sal's crushing of Gomez was one for the ages is as many have mentioned.

Another yes for Saldivar for me He was the best featherweight of the '60s, which on the whole is a very underrated era. Perhaps no single one of his opponents was a spectacular all time great featherweight but the era was one of the most consistently solid and deep in the history of that weight class. From the early/mid '60s until the end of his career in the early '70s, virtually every fighter Saldivar fought was a noteworthy contender or titleholder of some kind.

Tiger fought some excellent contests He competed, and was the top dog, in one of the deepest Middleweight divisions of all time. He has wins over guys like Giardello, Fullmer, Carter, McAteer etc... and ruled very dominantly. However as Super mentioned earlier the very fought criteria and like Super I've missed every week of voting I reckon Tiger might deserve a nod.

As many know man Schmeling fan he beat the greatest heavyweight of all time didn't he ! The heroisism of the man is something i greatly admire, as a fighter I've always agreed with those who've found a top 20 spot I believe they've pegged him about right.

His record has lost a bit of its sheen over the years because people do not know the ranking of his opponents when he fought them. Most of the top fighters he fought, he met at their absolute pinnacle, taking on two of the finest punchers in the history of the sport, however as much as I love the guy to bits the standard of voting would see me cross the no, unfortunately.

Torres is another guy I'm going to have to scratch no at, he kinda reminds me of a modern day Cotto, strengths and weaknesses. His virtuoso performance against Pastrano was outstanding, but those dark defeats by Flores and Tiger certainly stammer his legacy.


Wonderful thread, disappointed I haven't been around to appreciate the discussion, I'll do my upmost to log on each week to have vote.

Thanks and all the best.

Jimmy good to see you around, if you could try and get in next week see Tyson is up for consideration, could raise a few heckles that one.

Thanks Jeff appreciate it and likewise to yourself mate, If Tysonking has migrated to these new shores, It could be a long long thread. Fact !

Great that you should take the time to share your thoughts, Jimmy. You may be interested to know that we have just three weeks of the modern fighters left to work through after this one. It will then be the turn of the old-timers, beginning with Ambers, Arizmendi, Attell, Baer and Jimmy Barry, to appear under the microscope.

Thanks very much Captain, massive kudos for a great thread. Really look forward to the old timers as you mentioned, shall be fascinated when voting comes around.

Would you really describe Tiger as dominant? Seems that the era was competitive but no one really ruled the division for an extended period. The titles switched hands fairly regularly in that He posted losses to all of Archer, Giardello and Griffith during his middleweight reign so I wouldnt neccessarily consider him a dominant champion even if he was a very good one. Appreciate the division was quite strong then but his failure to really set himself out from the competition at middleweight was a key reason as to why I didnt include him. He was a good ight heavyweight also but very much second best to Foster at least.

manos, i voted a hesitant yes for tiger but can quite understand your point. My view was that, when a fighter obviously improves over time, you can cut some slack for early performances. I'm judging tiger on an 8 year period where his only losses were marginal/disputed... and foster, well lots of people were second best to him - and tiger was nudging 40. He's a marginal call either way for me.

Jimmy - interesting to hear your comments on sanchez nelson. The common viewpoint is that sanchez struggled with a green nelson who'd taken the fight at very short notice. Your view is that sanchez wasn't well? I hadn't heard that but magnificent fighter sal was, it's a bold statement to suggest nelson would never get near him. My view is the contrary... that an older wiser nelson (they were similar age but distinctly different in terms of experience) would have been a different proposition for sanchez and a very hard fight to predict. I'd err to sanchez, but a rematch would almost certainly go the distance - as nelson went from fatigue more than anything else in their actual fight - it would be very hard to predict with real confidence for me, particularly given nelson's ability to raise his game in rematches.

Given the strength of your convictions to the contrary on this one, i'd be interested in your reasoning. Sal was a great fighter, but he wasn't the infallible god we sometimes hear about - for every gomez performance there was a cowdell and a ford.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I second the Welcome Back to the Hall of Fame's most difficult to please judge. Good to see you damning candidates again, manos.

Yeah Ive tried to keep standards as high as possible for the purposes of an elite Hall. Just cant find a spot for Tiger as I think you need more to get in at least first time around but would not mind a second look at him later on down the line. I think the likes of Johnson, Elorde, Bivins, Angott have set a precedent for second chance guys and Tiger would be along those lines for me.

Manos whilst i agree with keeping things elite think most would acknowledge denying Bivins a place was something of an error, certainly on the back of learning a bit more about the man I consider my no a definite mistake.

It seems an age ago, now, but I believe that I finally voted ' no ' for Bivins - I really should go back and check - and, that being the case, I certainly regret it now.

rowley wrote:Manos whilst i agree with keeping things elite think most would acknowledge denying Bivins a place was something of an error, certainly on the back of learning a bit more about the man I consider my no a definite mistake.

Yeah I voted in favour of Bivins in the end (I think!) but would consider his record stronger than Tigers albeit with no titles to show for it. I stil think Tiger falls down in some key areas though at least for the purpose of a first ballot entry. Mediocre for so long and then when he eventually does hit his peak fails to really dominate and has a patchy record against his rivals, albeit very good ones. Could also argue he came up short against the two best fighters he faced in Griffith and Foster although Fullmer might have a fair argument there.

I am also a bit less sympathetic to arguments excusing him for losses or poor performances due to his age simply because he acheived very little on world stage until very late. Have to consider some of those losses as during his peak years I think rather than excusing him on an age basis if that makes any sense.

I think Bivins has another shot at it so seems he will get in next time around anyhow without too much difficulty.

manos de piedra wrote:I think Bivins has another shot at it so seems he will get in next time around anyhow without too much difficulty.

He'll certainly get my vote, manos.

Superb thread, this one. I've learned a great deal from it, already, and I look forward to learning more.

Salvador Sanchez gets mine..greats on record in Nelson and Gomez and likely to beat young Julio at 130 before he'd finished..

Great then and factored in still great at least 3 years later...

I think that the feat of winning undisputed titles at 160 and 175 has been so rarely accomplished throughout history that this was the major reason that I felt Tiger deserved inclusion. If, as looks possible, he will be in the second chance saloon, I think, on balance, that I would be content with that. He's possibly not out of the absolute top drawer, but the fact that he still had enough to beat Benvenuti at age 40 does weigh quite significantly with me. I may well be wrong about this one, and certainly accept the contrary view as well-founded.

Can't really add anything to what I've read and agree with the general consensus. I'm really disappointed I missed this until last week.

So for me it's a yes to Sanchez and Salvidar and a very certain no to Schmelling and Torres.

Unfortunately it's a no for Tiger just not quite the absolute elite imo very close though. Fulmer was probably just over the hill when he beat him, his split series with Giardiello and his inconsistency at times. Just sway it to a no imo.

The next ones should spark some lively debate.

With cases like Tiger I dont really think there is a right or wrong per se, just small differences in opinion or standards really. Those that vote no for him probably only have him missing out by a small amount and those that vote him in is probably by a narrow margin.

My policy is that in the boderline cases I tend to vote no in the interests of preserving a more elite Hall but would like to revisit some of the near misses when the originals have been voted in.

I think Captains point about Tiger winning titles at 160, 175 makes my decision a firmer yes, just out of interest fellas what's your general feeling on Tigers overall all time ranking at 160? A shoo in for top 10?

Manos apologies never answered you earlier see your point about dominating but worth remembering he Decisively beat Fullmer, Giardello, and Benvenuti when all were reigning and formidable champions. Also is one of only two guys ever to stop Fullmer. Also decisively beat a good number of quality contenders, ie: Fernandez, Hank, Carter, Armstrong, etc. On top of that, he is one of only two undisputed middleweight champs to also become the undisputed light-heavy champ as mentioned by Captain.

That he dropped his title in upset losses to Giardello and Griffith is the one big mar against his legacy like you pointed out mate and what may keep him out of the elite middleweight fighters top 5-7 etc However, he did decisively avenge the loss to Giardello, and the Griffith loss was on a questionable decision.

Too add don't think many fighters faced Champions past,present and future as Tiger did.

Thanks for the reply Jimmy, certainly see your argument.

The point about winning undisputed titles at middle and light heavyweight is more than valid but I also think that it has to be looked in the context of boxing history whereby I would consider politics as being the main issue it hasnt happened more rather than quality issues. There have been too many periods where its been too difficult to acheive. For instance the colour line disqualified guys like Langford from having a shot and politics also prevented the murderers row as well as guys like Moore, Charles and Bivins who were probably all capable of winning the undisputed titles in both classes. Then in the more modern eras you have the additional weight classes and titles making it extremelly hard to become undisputed. For instance would one consider Hopkins bonafide undisputed at both weights or would he have to literally hold all titles? So for me its a little bit more complicated.

His 2 wins and draw with Fullmer were good results but tempered by the fact they were Fullmers last ever fights and his stoppage of him proved to be Fullmers final bout.

I am in agreement on the quality wins he has and the standard of opposition. No real argument there. But if we take his peak years as being between 1962 - 1968 he also has 4 losses to most of his rivals in that period in Giardello, Archer, Griffith and Foster. 0-2 v Griffith, 2-2 with Giardello, 0-1 to Archer and 0-1 to Foster go some way to counter his 2-0 v Torres, 1-0 v Benvenuti and 2-0-1 v Fullmer plus wins over some solid contenders. I also dont like the way he failed to really set himself out from the competition with any real authority during what could be considered his best years. Its somewhat reminiscent of guys like Beau Jack who existed in a very strong field and racked up many fine wins but had losses to show for it also.

When you combine it with the fairly long period of real averageness in his early career all the way into his thirties it falls just short of what I would consider a first time entry. But I appreciate theres a strong argument for him and would like to revisit him when a more complete picture of the Hall is painted.

of the 4 losses you quote manos, the consensus seems to be that he was jobbed against archer and griffith, which would make those stats look a little better.

I understand you docking him points for his early career, but given his background a slow start isn't that surprising . Its where he got to, not how he started, that matters imo - think i'm trying to convince myself more than anyone else here.

Yeah I have been looking at his losses trying to get as good an idea as possible about them.

Ive no problem with his loss to Foster or his second loss to Griffith as they are easily excuseable in the circumstances.

But I kind of feel that a really elite fighter should be not be dropping decisions to Archer or Giardello during his peak years. The concensus on the Archer fight seems to be it was very close capable of going either way with Archer boxing off the back foot and Tiger trying to force the fight.

He ended up splitting a series with Giardello but he only avenged his title loss when Giardello was pretty ancient and who then went on to lose to a journeyman so as I said above this was a Giardello near the end of his career and one would not really expect Tiger to lose his championship to him in the first place.

The concensus on the first Griffith fight seemed to be again a very close competitive fight which Tiger maybe edged so will take that on board. I guess ultimately its the Archer and Giardello losses that stick out as poor ones. I could more easily forgive dropping one or maybe two hard fought decisions to rivals during a peak regn but three to three different fighters is pushing it especially as two of them at least (Archer and Giardello) fall into the good but not great category and were late in their careers while Tiger was considered around his peak.

Well it seems Tiger is the one splitting opinion this week. My initial reaction was a yes to Tiger but having read some strong counter arguments I had to go back to some earlier material I had collected before casting my final vote.

Tiger definately took the long road to the top and it wasnt until his thirties that he really impacted the world scene. However he earned his way challenge for the title vacated by Pender with a strong run of wins over rated contenders such as Casey, Hank and Fernandez who were all considered amongst the top contenders at the time.

This brings us on to the the trilogy with Fullmer. There is some suggestion by others here that Fullmer was faded by then but its not quite true. He had excellent form going into the bout having notched up wins over Robinson, Fernandez and Paret the previous year and was rated as the number 1 contender and favourite over Tiger. There may be an arument to say by the final fight in the trilogy that Fullmer was on the slide (he was stopped decisively) but after the trilogy with Tiger he had few other options for a championship and opted to retire rather than spend another few years fighting back into contention. Fullmer was very highly rated at the time and these were impressive wins for Tiger.

There are some valid criticisms of his championship years following then. 3 losses at middleweight and a decisive loss at light heavyweight. However overall I think his record at middleweight is very strong. Wins over Fullmer, Giardello, Benvenuti, Carter, Casey, Hank, Fernandez, Don Fullmer and Gonzalez represent the vast majority of the top middleweights of that decade. Debateable decision losses to Archer and Griffith (both fine fighters) plus an avenged loss to Giardello are not neccessarily an excluding factor for me. I think the Benvenuti win at 40 odd years of age is also a very underrated win. So his middleweight tenure impresses me especially in what was a very strong middleweight division. No decisive losses and a large number of wins over top ranked guys is a strong showing.

Then you have his wins over Torres at light heavyweight who was very much the man at the time in the division which for me expell any remaining doubts of Tigers worthiness. As others have said this feat has proven very hard to accomplish in the past although Manos makes a very good point about the political difficulties both historically and at present that have made this feat even more tricky. His loss to Foster was decisive but given the quality of the opponent and the weight class I think its forgiveable.

Having reviewed some old material just to refresh myself I am happy to go along with my original instict and think the Hall would be richer with Tiger in it.

As for the other fighters, I think I am in the majority in saying yes to Saldivar and Sanchez and no to Torres. I was tempted to make a case for Schmelling I must say who I would like to see in there and who I think is one of the more underrated heavies in history and I might again go back for a refresher and see if I can make a case for him but on a stict basis I think a reluctant no is probably the case.

Very convincing stuff, CL. I think that one can add the name of Downes to the list of Tiger's victims at middleweight and suggest that only Pender, of the best 160 lb men from the 1960s, is missing from his record. I don't think it's excessive, on that basis, to make a claim that Tiger might have been the best middleweight operating in that ten-year stretch.

Now may be a good time to flag up something that will happen in a couple of weeks, as we hit the end of our analysis of the modern greats. After the current round is complete, we shall have two more complete weeks of Canastota Hall of Famers to work through.

Following that, however, the last man to be reviewed by right in this section will be Fritzie Zivic. I would like there to be five names to consider for our Hall of Fame in the last week of this first section, and therefore propose to add the names of Donald Curry and Naseem Hamed, whose merits as potential Hall of Famers have often been given extensive scrutiny on these boards in past years. Now will be the chance to make their cases for good and all. I also hope that everyone will excuse me exerting editor's privilege and further adding the name of Santos Laciar to the mix, a great little fighter who has been mystifyingly absent from the IBHOF's calculations over the years.

This leaves us with space for one more potential name. What I would like is for everyone to don their best thinking caps and come up with a really plausible fighter for consideration for our final week of the moderns. If there is a general groundswell of opinion behind one candidate over the next fortnight or so, that man will be added to the names of Zivic, Curry, Hamed and Laciar to form our last quintet of moderns. If there is no such general agreement, I think that it would be fairest to restrict ourselves to four candidates for that week alone.

Over to you lot, then.