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]

Would it be best to select 5 boxers from different era's each week to be up for selection. One boxer from each of;

Pre 1920
1921-1940
1941-1960
1961-1980
1981 Onwards

I think this as a rough guide might allow a wider range of people the chance to participate in the debate each week. Also I think 1 non boxer each week as well as the 5 boxers should be up for entry.

Wilde instead of Arguello maybe? Good list though - tough to pick.

bellchees wrote:Would it be best to select 5 boxers from different era's each week to be up for selection. One boxer from each of;

Pre 1920
1921-1940
1941-1960
1961-1980
1981 Onwards

I think this as a rough guide might allow a wider range of people the chance to participate in the debate each week. Also I think 1 non boxer each week as well as the 5 boxers should be up for entry.

I'd be tempted to split it based on the introduction of the belts. Image below of their history.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/BoxChamps.png

I would cover the first date range with the old NBA title. The second date range covers the introduction of WBA (nee NBA) and WBC as they where created around the same time, and the final date range would cover the introduction of the IBF and WBO titles which where created close together to give us the 4 main belts we have today.

1921 - 1961 NBA
1962 - 1983 WBA/WBC
1984 - Now IBF/WBO

I think the inclusion of the belts is important when judging as through those different periods we have had more 'world champions' at one time to consider as time has gone on to what we have now.

Thoughts?

Burley, Langford, Driscoll and co would lose out doing that though

I think every 1990 inductee is a definite HOFer. Almost worth having a fast track, although it might match up quite a lot with the original 30.

Could be an interesting thing to do Scott go through them in order of induction?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Burley, Langford, Driscoll and co would lose out doing that though

True but no matter which way you cut it, its going to affect some HOF'ers. I suppose the question for those cases that cross over sections is what's the fairest way to judge and place them.

I think so, have more at once at the start because most of the first lot will get in fairly easy, the later ones may take more debating. If you look at 1990, I don't think there's much point spending too long on them:

1 1990 Muhammad Ali Modern
2 1990 Henry Armstrong Modern
3 1990 Abe Attell Old-Timer
4 1990 Carmen Basilio Modern
5 1990 Jack Britton Old-Timer
6 1990 Jack Broughton Pioneer
7 1990 Tony Canzoneri Old-Timer
8 1990 John Graham Chambers Non-Participant
9 1990 Ezzard Charles Modern
10 1990 Billy Conn Modern
11 1990 James J. Corbett Old-Timer
12 1990 Jack Dempsey Old-Timer
13 1990 George Dixon Old-Timer
14 1990 Jim Driscoll Old-Timer
15 1990 Bob Fitzsimmons Old-Timer
16 1990 Nat Fleischer Non-Participant
17 1990 Bob Foster Modern
18 1990 Joe Frazier Modern
19 1990 Kid Gavilan Modern
20 1990 Joe Gans Old-Timer
21 1990 Harry Greb Old-Timer
22 1990 Emile Griffith Modern
23 1990 Peter Jackson Old-Timer
24 1990 Mike Jacobs Non-Participant
25 1990 James J. Jeffries Old-Timer
26 1990 Jack Johnson Old-Timer
27 1990 Jack Kearns Non-Participant
28 1990 Stanley Ketchel Old-Timer
29 1990 Jake LaMotta Modern
30 1990 Sam Langford Old-Timer
31 1990 Benny Leonard Old-Timer
32 1990 Lord Lonsdale Non-Participant
33 1990 Joe Louis Modern
34 1990 Jem Mace Pioneer
35 1990 Rocky Marciano Modern
36 1990 Marquess of Queensberry Non-Participant
37 1990 Terry McGovern Old-Timer
38 1990 Daniel Mendoza Pioneer
39 1990 Carlos Monzon Modern
40 1990 Archie Moore Modern
41 1990 Jose Napoles Modern
42 1990 Willie Pep Modern
43 1990 Tex Rickard Non-Participant
44 1990 Sugar Ray Robinson Modern
45 1990 Barney Ross Old-Timer
46 1990 Sandy Saddler Modern
47 1990 Tom Sayers Pioneer
48 1990 John L. Sullivan Pioneer
49 1990 Gene Tunney Old-Timer
50 1990 Jersey Joe Walcott Modern
51 1990 Mickey Walker Old-Timer
52 1990 Jimmy Wilde Old-Timer
53 1990 Ike Williams Modern

There's only a few that wouldn't get 100% votes.

To be honest, I reckon that the captain has it covered.

Just pick great fighters from all eras, regardless of whether or not they held titles.

I'd sooner see Charley Burley in my HOF than I would Felix Sturm.

I'd sooner see Charley Burley in my HOF than I would Felix Sturm.
__________________________________________________________

Sturm over Burley, don't even try it

If you stretch it to everyone in their first year of eligibility:

Arguello
Hagler
Spinks
Zarate
Gomez
Benitez
Pryor
SR Leonard
MS Muhammad
Fenech
Foreman
McCallum
Nelson
Qawi
Duran
Lopez
Whitaker
Holmes
Lewis
JCC
Tszyu
Tyson

Also very strong.

Some stats:

376 members.
22 in first year of eligibility (+53 for first ever ballot).
Modern Era (112 members) (Last bout no earlier than 1943)
Old-Timer (112 members) (Last bout no earlier than 1893 and no later than 1943)
Pioneer (39 members) (Last bout in or prior to 1892)
Non-Participant (87 members) (Contributions to the sport apart from roles as boxers or observers. Based upon a candidates achievements and contributions in their particular field)
Observer (26 members) (Print and media journalists, publishers, writers, historians, photographers and artist).

Gomez and no Sanchez..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Gomez and no Sanchez..

Yeah Sanchez was a year late, made 1991.

How strange..

Yeah, two of his victims get in first time but not him?

Wouldn't worry too much about the pioneers, observers or non-participants where debate would be quite slow and laborious I could imagine

Looking at the 1990 inductess am surprised by a few namely Lamotta and Walcott who wouldn't make the hall of fame in my opinion

I've just returned from my refreshing break, and am delighted to find so much debate and generally approving feedback for this idea - many thanks to you all.

It would seem that the format is, on the whole, acceptable to you all, so we'll proceed as suggested, beginning with an alphabetical assessment of the moderns, as defined by the H of F in Canastota. Ultimately, the idea is that our Hall will contain a mixture of the ancient, modern, trainer, promoter and observer without setting them into separate categories. Boxing is, and should be, a broad church.

Many of you seem to feel that Jimmy Wilde was an omission from the original 30, and I tend to agree with you. I'm shot if I know who to kick out to accommodate him, however, so have suggested simply adding him to the inaugural 606 v2 Hall, which now numbers 31. At some stage, we will need a sticky somewhere that is reserved exclusively for the names in our Hall, so that anyone can see at a glance how we have voted. Perhaps Windy or another of the powers that be would be kind enough to facilitate this at some point?

The nature of the beast is that some fighters will be nodded through, so obvious are their credentials. However, each week, there should also be plenty of scope for debate. "Heretical" thoughts are not to be discouraged, either, as long as they are sincerely held. The first week may bring several such thoughts, I would guess.

I therefore throw open the first five candidates to public scrutiny. They are:

Sammy Angott - former world lightweight champion, known as "The Clutch", with a ring style often compared to that of an octopus, but with a string of great victims on his list, including the only victory recorded against Willie Pep before the latter's air crash. Also lost to Armstrong and three times to Robinson.

Fred Apostoli - one of the very tough group of middleweights from the 30s and 40s who perhaps don't get quite the credit that they deserve. Fred became the world champion at 160 and again, has some fair scalps to his credit.

Carmen Basilio - to me, he looks like a certainty at this stage, but I am happy to listen to anyone who wants to tell me that this marvellous former world champion at both welterweight and middleweight doesn't deserve his spot in immortality! A great favourite for both his pugnacity and his determination, he remains probably best known for his pair of wars against the ubiquitous Robinson.

Wilfred Benitez - there are those who feel that the Fab 4 of the early 80s should actually have been the Famous 5. Benitez fought them all apart from Hagler, beating Duran, but losing to Leonard and Hearns. A belt-holder at three weights, Puerto Rico's finest is still the youngest world professional boxing champion of all time, nailing the light-welter crown at just 17.

Nino Benvenuti - Arguably the greatest fighter ever to emerge from Italy, this two-weight world champion was regarded as an icon in his home country and one of the best anywhere by the end of the 1960s. It took possibly the greatest pure 160 pounder of them all to dethrone him.

I am going to allow the floor to others before making my decisions and giving the reasons for them. Don't forget that a 75% vote in favour is required for successful admission to our Hall. 74.9% will not do. The closing date for all votes on our first five is midnight on Sunday 12th June. There is enough time to hear what I hope will be good strong debate before anyone has to make a final decision. The following day, we shall announce the new inductees and continue to the next five for consideration.

Hope this is all clear. Enough from me and let the process begin!

Will start by simply saying that Basilio and Benitez get in while the others don't

He had a rather patchy start to his career and often easily outboxed but the loss to Graham in their first fight seemed to give him the drive to really push on with his career with a couple of good wins over the albeit ageing Ike Williams and against the previously mentioned Graham. Lost a tilt for the title against the brilliant and very under rated Kid Gavilan, it was after Gavilans subsequent decline that Basilo really made his mark on the welterweight division with his relentless pressure, would be in a fighters face every minute of every round and simply would not let up. Eventually won the title which he defended a few times before jumping up to beat the mercurial Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight crown. One of the greatest pressure fighters of all time with a chin of granite who often ended fights with a crimson mask.

Apostoli and Benvenuti were really nothing more than contenders and don't belong in the top echelons

Benitez was a fabulous fighter with skill and style in abundance, shone far too briefly but you can't argue against his wins over Duran, Palomino and Cervantes, lost out in very close fights to Hearns and Leonard although was knocked out by the latter. Can see arguments against his conclusion as he is very borderline but right now i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Angott i'll leave for later on

First up, welcome back, captain. Hope you enjoyed glorious Cornwall and are suitably refreshed.

Secondly, a ' sticky ' containing the inductees is an excellent idea, and easily accomplished. Perhaps, once we have voted on the first group, both inaugural and the additional five candidates, you would be so kind as to open a new thread ( and alert me to it, if I should be slow to respond, ) whereupon I shall make it a ' sticky. '

Finally, to the candidates themselves. Basilio, one of my eternal favourites, is an absolute nailed on must, for me. Benitez, also, and I'm inclined toward giving Angott the benefit of any doubt, also.

To my chagrin, I'd have to give Benvenuti the thumbs down. Chagrin because I have many fond memories of his series with Griffith, which I followed avidly as a young fan, and also because he is, to my mind, one of the finest European fighters to have ever laced on a glove. That being said, I'd fall shy of calling him an ' elite ' fighter, in the strictest sense.

Apostoli would also miss out, and by a margin much wider than that by which Benvenuti misses the cut.

Thanks a lot, Windy. As ever, Cornwall was utterly glorious, I'm pleased to say.

I shall do as you suggest on the new sticky. Can I just be clear here - is Sammy Angott a definite yes for you, or are you reserving judgement for the moment?

Pleased to hear it, captain.

Yes, after some deliberation and head scratching, Angott gets my vote, purely and simply on the basis of the scalps he boasts.

Disagree with Benitez.........Not in the same class as Hearns who wouldn't be put in the same league of fighters...

Champion at 17 but so what Camacho beat Rosario, Limon etc.....

Never rated Maurice Hope much.....

Sure Benitez beat Duran but Hearns destroyed him....

Got outboxed by Leonard, Hearns outboxed Leonard....

Hearns outboxed Benitez.....

Hearns beat the "great" Virgil Hill........Hearns had more titles at different weights...

Hearns has a greater case.......so no Wilfred..

Benitez would be an insult to Tommy..who would never be considerd..

Basilio and Angott....

Sorry, Truss, can I clarify....I take it that you mean Basilio and Angott are yeses, while Benvenuti and Apostoli (and Benitez, of course) are not?

Yes Captain.....

I'll give my own take on the five, just to take us up to our quorum of four votes cast (I hope that there will be plenty more over the next week or so).

To begin with the two that I regarded as open and shut cases - Basilio's credentials are as cast iron as his chin; a great welter and a very good middleweight, he embodies what a Hall of Fame candidate should look like to me. A clear YES. Apostoli, on the other hand, is the personification of a good fighter, rather than a great one. 1-1 against Freddie Steele, a good win against Thil and another against Risko, but this is not the record of one of the elite. An equally clear NO.

So to the other three and I started with Sammy Angott on the premise that I loathed his grabbing, freestyle wrestling method so much that I would be happy to turn him away from our hallowed portals. However, in boxing, more than any other sport, it's how many, rather than how, that counts. Wins against Miller, Montgomery x3, Pep, Williams, Jenkins and the rest leave me in no doubt that his record is that of a great warrior, rather than just a good one. No shame attaches to three losses to Robinson, or the defeats to Zivic and Armstrong; all three were basically bigger men who were able to negate the octopus tactics that Sammy employed so successfully. Ultimately, I can't escape a YES for one of my least favourite great fighters.

As Windy says, omitting Benvenuti is something that I do with much more sorrow than satisfaction. Yes, a two-weight champ, yes one of Italy's best and yes, very good wins against Griffith x2, Don Fullmer x2, Mazzinghi x2 and the like. However, some inexplicable losses mixed in; Griffith is his best victim, but Emile was a long way from a great middleweight. Monzon wrecked Nino - here we see the gap between the very good and the truly great, and it's astronomical. Benvenuti must be a reluctant NO for me.

Benitez is the really difficult one. I believe that we have to consider each fighter on his own merits; it's not sufficient to say that X or Y is in or out, so A or B must be too. Benitez's title victories against Cervantes and Palomino were obviously extremely notable performances and results. However, his reigns at various weights were not generally distinguished by battles against top names. Often, Benitez barely fell over the line. In two battles against Harold Weston, for example, Wilfred only just squeaked home. On paper, the Duran win is much his best, but at 154, Duran is not of the elite, in my view. Although Wilfred was only stopped by Leonard in the 15th and went down honourably to Hearns, I can't shake the feeling that he is just the smallest notch below the absolute creme de la creme that I'd want to see in our Hall. By the smallest of margins, Benitez is a NO for me.

There we are - of our first 5, I have rejected 3 and agreed with 2. I'm not sure that I would have thought that of myself when I first looked at their names. I'll be extremely interested to see the views of everyone else.

After conducting some thoroughly unscientific research, my votes are as follows...

Sammy Angott - Unquestionably his greatest win was over Pep. However, he fought some equally as legendary names, perhaps the best CV of the bunch, Robinson, Armstrong, Williams, Zivic....However, the majority were losses and following captain's orders to be truly elitist - I'm counting him out.

Fred Apostoli - The weakest of the bunch for me, a bit out of his depth with this company, I can't include him if I'm excluding Angott. Sorry, Fred. You don't get my vote.

Carmen Basilo - Twice took Sugar Ray to a Fight of the Year, one victory against the great man, beat Williams and many other World Champions along the way. Great chin, great heart - he gets my vote.

Wilfred Benitez - Peaked extremely early and unfortunately his decline was hurried along, quickly, by one of the great eras of modern boxing. As a boxer he had all the tools. Aggression and strength on the front foot, great defence and footwork when moving backwards. All that and World Champion at 17? He's in.

Nino Benvenuti - The kind of fighter I enjoy, based on my youtubing (is that a verb yet?). Held his own against Dick Tiger, took it to Griffith twice and won one. He's a strong candidate and I wouldn't argue against a vote in his favour. But, he loses out on sheer elitism.

Thanks for your time, hope it makes sense.

Billy Shears

Having read up on Angott a bit more would have to say it's a yes to his inclusion, has been eluded to already that he was bested by both Armstrong and Robinson, but lets be slightly objective about this there's only 2/3 or fighters in history who wouldn't be and even then they would be underdogs.

The fights with Williams are more defining and whilst he lost 2 out of 3, the 2 losses were incredibly tight and the most categoric victory was achieved by Sammy. Beyond that you have a record that suggests he was one of the best around and the victory over Pep shouldn't be underestimated. On top of that he holds wins over the brilliant Montgomery, Kid Azteca, Sarron, Zanelli, Jenkins and Arizmendi.

Lacked any sort of KO power but in the grand scheme of things wasn't important to his style of fighting, think a smaller version of Andre Ward, would connect with single shots or a quick one two and would then hold to stop his opponent firing back. Its both an effective way of picking up points and frustrated his opponents into making excuses to open up more opportunites to land. Had a world class chin on top of it all.

Yes from me

Benitez is a no for me is perhaps unfortunate to be around when so many great fighters were around but fact is he lost to these guys, couple that with a relative early burn out and he falls short of true elite for me.

Angott - Level of opposition is faultess but he did tend to lose the bulk of them and as a firm believer the HOF is for the true elite of the game he is out.

Basillo - Is the easiest decision for me and is in all time great welter and very strong middle absolutely is in.

Bevenuti is again a no for me, wins over a far from peak Griffiths are not enough for me, he has some seriously dodgy losses in there also and more on instinct than anything he is just not a name I think of when I consider elite fighters.

Apostoli - Has a weaker argument than almost all the others and on the grounds Benitez and Bevenuti are out he has to be.

May be harsh but only one gets in if we are going to keep things truly elite.

Angott - No

Apostoli - No

Basilio - Yes

Benitez - No

Benvenuti - No

Angott/Benitez set the bar too low overall and dont tick enough boxes for an "elite" HoF. Apostoli and Benvenuti have even weaker claims.

Welcome back captain, will try to keep this as short as possible.

Basilio is an absolute must, and I'm glad that seems to be the general feeling. No need to justify that first one.

Apostoli? Sorry, not for me. Very fine fighter, but for me is over-shadowed by Steele, who would be a much more worthy candidate given the quality of his reign at 160 lb.

I'll say yes to Angott, though not as reluctantly as you have.

Benvenuti is an agonizing no, wonderful fighter though he was (and I have to take massive exception to Ghosty's view that he was "just a contender", too). As you rightly said at the start of this thread, the 606v2 version of the HOF needs to be done properly and, when talking about the very elite, Benvenuti just misses out for me.

Benitez? I'm going to say no, once more by the narrowest of margins. If he'd have reached his full potential, he'd have been amongst the automatic selections, mind you.

I can only say yes to Basilio at this stage. I tend to agree with Manos and would suggest that allowing the others in would be setting the bar just a bit too low.

I'm very much with you and Manos on this one superfly. Think if we start by setting the bar pretty high from the off should keep the HOF reserved solely for the true elite. We could may be have the caveat that once this process is complete we can revisit some of the more controversial exclusions or that users can put a case forward at this point for those they feel have been hard done by.

My votes would go for Nino Benvenuti, Wilfred Benitez and Carmen Basilio.

I honestly can't comment on Sammy Angott and Fred Apostoli as I know very little about them though shall do some homework.

Entirely agree with you there, Jeff. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to feel "well that's that", if one of their favourites does not gain admittance. An annual review of some would certainly be in order, although in the case of someone like Apostoli, perhaps not!

Only Carmen Basilio for me if we insist on keeping it at a real elite level. Angott and Benitez are very very close but just fall short.

Sammy Angott: Wins against the likes of Willie Pep, Ike Williams and Bob Montgomery make it hard for me to leave Sammy out. There's no shame in his losses to Robinson, Armstrong and Zivic, and only Beau Jack managed to knock him out. I've no doubt in a different era Sammy becomes an elite fighter, but falls just short for 606v2 HOF, only just.
Sammy Agnott = No

Fred Apostoli: Fred misses the cut for me but is still a good fighter with wins against the likes of Babe Risko and Swede Berglund. He has two losses against Billy Conn, in which Conn describes Apostoli as being really tough. He also lost his Middleweight belt to Ceferino Garcia, both Garcia and Conn will be up for induction soon i imagine.
Fred Apostoli = No

Carmen Basilio: With a long list of excellent opponents, basilio easily makes the list. Names such as Gavilan, Williams, Saxton, Robinson, DeMarco, Pender, Fullmer and Aragon fill his resume, and many of his 16 losses came early in his career. Basilio strolls into the 606v2 HOF.
Carmen Basilio = Yes

Wilfred Benitez: This has to be one of the hardest decisions i will make during these inductions. Benitez became the youngest champion in history when he took the crown from Antonio Cervantes aged 17. His classmates were cheering him on from the sides, and for this fight alone he probably deserves to be in there. His fight with Ray Leonard is a personal favourite of mine. He was unfortunate to be around when he was and deserved to be part of a fab five. I'm not going to let my heart make the decision though and unfortunately i'm going to exclude Wilfred Benitez from being inducted, sorry Mr Benitez.
Wilfred Benitez = No

Nino Benvenuti: Benvenuti doesn't quite make the list for the 606v2 HOF. A couple of good wins against Emile Griffith, altough way past his best, stand out on his record, years later he sent his son to New York for Griffith to train. He came up short against Monzon, and would become one of Monzon's biggest supporters while he was locked up. In 1995 he left the real world and travelled to Calcutta, India, to do volunteer work at Mother Teresa's hospice, unfortunately it still doesn't earn him a place.
Nino Benvenuti = No

I think a review process is a grand idea, jeff/captain.

Great way to get some good articles from those who want to present an argument for fighters originally excluded.

Pre-emptive strike in case Burley doesn't make it superfly

Not a chance of thAt, jeff. At least then we'll be able to catalogue all of your wumming aliases!

Chris when I called Benvenuti a contender I meant he's not an elite level middleweight and someone who's unlikely to trouble the top names at the weight

Apostoli and Benvenuti are definite no's but looking at the reasons given for the exclusion of Benitez and Angott, could they also not apply to Basilio?

It's accepted that Benitez and Angott were top level fighters and fought the best opposition available with differing levels of success and whilst Basilio did the same, he too also lost to the best fighter he faced in Gavilian at Welterweight. So if we're using losses against Leonard, Hearns, Robinson and Armstrong as examples of Benitez and Angott coming up short then do we not apply the same logic to Basilio? Would have him in regardless but something thats been on mind and thought i'd bring it up.

Would also change my previous decision to the following

Angott- IN
Basilio- IN
Benitez- OUT
Benvenuti- OUT
Apostoli- OUT

Fair point, Ghosty, although if we rightly acknowledge Gavilan as an all-time great, we also need to accept that the decision in his favour over Basilio was razor-thin and therefore that the two are not that far apart as welterweights. Throw in Basilio's performances and results against Ike Williams, Billy Graham, and Johnny Saxton, not to mention the Robinson fights at a higher weight, and his CV clearly outshines that of Benitez, for me. Carmen's losses either came when he was a relative novice or when a bit past his best (losing twice to Fullmer is, in any event, far from a disgrace).

Angott might be a different matter, in my view, but this is a democratic game, and I accept the prospect of being outvoted on him with equanimity. I agree that his wins make pretty impressive reading, but equally, I understand the points made by those who have rejected him. A borderline candidate, for sure, but Sammy just gets my nod.

Agree Captain that losing a close decision to Gavilan can't be used against Basilio especially considering the fact Gavilan is a guaranteed top 5 Welterweight but no harm in throwing it out there. The one problem I have with using Basilios win over Robinson at middleweight is the fact that Robbo was past his best, was very inconsistent at the weight and won the return, would have to say that Benitez's win over Duran at light middleweight isn't a million miles away.

I'll have to go on a mission to get people to change their minds on Angott now

One of the joys of being a member of a forum such as this lies in the potential to learn from, and be influenced by, the opinions and insights of others.

I voted ' yes ' for Benitez since, working purely from memory, I recalled the wins over Duran and Palomino and I also factored in his being the youngest world champion. However, so many of you having ruled him out, I was prompted to revisit Benitez - this time in greater detail - and I must say I now doubt the wisdom of having initially given him the thumbs up.

With apologies to the captain, whose task it is to compile the votes, I should like to reverse my call on Benitez if that is okay.

For me, therefore, Basilio and Angott are in, while Apostoli, Benvenuti and Benitez are out.

I think on reflection Imperial Ghosty may be right. But I would be inclined to not include Basilio rather than include Angott.

I think I had probably placed too much emphasis on Basilios win at middleweight over a fading Robinson.

On further inspection though his record actually as good as I remembered. His quality of opposition is good but his record against them is patchy.

Robinson was good, but at that stage in his career past his best. Ike Williams was hardly a big win at that stage of his career at that weight. Even if you give him a pass for the first half of his career which is really patchy, the business end of it against his biggest opponents was:

Fullmer 0-2
Pender 0-1
Aragon 1-0
Robinson 1-1
Saxton 2-1
Gavilan 0-1
Graham 1-1-1
Williams 1-0
Davey 0-1-1

Thats not amazing and weakened further in my opinion when you consider Williams was basically finished in top level terms and Robinson was old and past his best. He also lost to the best Welter he faced in Gavilan.

In the context of it being an "elite" HoF Basilio is actually far from the shoe in I originally thought. Looking at how the voting has been going I doubt it will matter but I think I will change my vote no for the time being and prefferaly earmark Basilio as potentially a guy to revisit later.

Glad to see I wasn't alone Manos

The margins between Angott and Basilio are so fine that in my mind you either include both of them or neither of them, you do get swept up in nostalgia with anything connected to Robinson and a win over him by itself seems enough to gain entry into the hall of fame but i'm not really sure that Basilio is the great fighter people are making him out to be. As you've highlighted Manos his top level fights consisted of as many losses as they did wins and he did harshly only become champion after Gavilan started a rapid decline after years at the top. On a closer inspection would rate Angott the higher of the two which leaves me with a dilemma of how high do you raise the bar.

At them moment I would advocaate setting the bar high and leaving the potential there to revisit some of the border line guys. To me on the face of it if you let Angott and Basilio in now then its setting a precedent that will make it tough to exclude a great many borderline fighters in the future.

Tempting though it always is, I do feel that if possible, we should try to avoid the "X is in so Y should be as well" approach. If we just consider each fighter on his own merits, certainly assessing the quality of his opposition as a yardstick, but really focusing on him alone as a deserving case or not, then I think we make life easier for ourselves.

I'm thinking ahead to next week here, when, among others, we shall be considering Ken Buchanan. Now, I'm almost incapable of being objective about Ken, but the thought has already crossed my mind that if I include him, there are good reasons why later, I shall have to include Don Curry. This is unhelpful thinking to me - I need to consider Buchanan only based on what he achieved as a fighter, just as I shall have to do for Curry. I'm convinced that to use elected fighters as a measurement will mean that we run the risk of another overblown list of successful candidates.

Thankfully it will be a long time until we rule Curry out so the inclusion of Buchanan will be long forgotten

Am reading Ken's biography at the minute. Best get my foot down, if there is even a slight possibility of me refusing Ken I need to be well researched on the subject because I know full well how strongly the Captain will be arguing for his inclusion.