The 606v2 Hall of Fame

First topic message reminder :

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

I propose the ground rules to be as follows:

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

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

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

Let's be unashamedly elitist!

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

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

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

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

I don't normally comment on this thread but read it weekly. I'm always miffed as to why Wilfredo Vasquez hasn't been inducted when there are many who are less deserving already in. I don't know if he has ever been up for nomination, but he is at least as deserving of a place as the Canizales' or McGuigan's of this world.

It's a tough problem which you have set us, captain and particularly so, given that we have been systematically pruning away at those who have been inducted. To reverse the procedure, and nominate somebody who might have slipped through the net, is quite a challenge.

The only one who springs to my mind among the moderns would be Paul Pender. Here we have a worthy but unfashionable champion who went about his business in a thorough and professional manner, despite needing to adjust to serious hand problems and having fought in the shadow of men such as his predecessor, Robinson, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio.

That he should have retired as champion and finished with a respectable record might be sufficient to warrant his candidacy, but I'm not convinced that he would garner too many votes.

HumanWindmill wrote:It's a tough problem which you have set us, captain and particularly so, given that we have been systematically pruning away at those who have been inducted. To reverse the procedure, and nominate somebody who might have slipped through the net, is quite a challenge.

The only one who springs to my mind among the moderns would be Paul Pender. Here we have a worthy but unfashionable champion who went about his business in a thorough and professional manner, despite needing to adjust to serious hand problems and having fought in the shadow of men such as his predecessor, Robinson, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio.

That he should have retired as champion and finished with a respectable record might be sufficient to warrant his candidacy, but I'm not convinced that he would garner too many votes.

I intend to be making the case for Prince Naseem Windy, although given who has been excluded thus far fear a uphill battle, but feint heart ne'er won fair maid. Would also like to think Truss would be doing similar for Don Curry.

Has anyone mentioned Battling Battalino yet?

He was a featherweight champ who beat Cocoa Kid and fought up to welterweight but rarely gets a mention. His record is patchy but so are plenty of top guys from his era.

Battalino will appear in the second week of the old-timers section (in November), JBW. His last fight was in 1940, which explains that. If I may correct you, by the way, I think that it was Kid Chocolate, rather than Cocoa Kid, whom Battalino beat in the 30s. Cocoa Kid was more a middleweight, whose prime fell a decade or so later.

Having looked it up, I stand utterly corrected and ashamed JBW; I see that he beat both Kid Chocolate and Cocoa Kid. Lends weight to your point and reminds me to check before speaking!

Ah, I hadn't read the rules too closely.

Cocoa Kid was a fluke on my part, I assure you. Although I shall revel in this rare moment where my memory outlasts in any of you guys

I better make the most of it, it won't happen again until the next time Venus passes over the Sun!

Captain, having read your request for us to get our thinking hats on, I'd agree that Windy's shout of Pender was a good one; however, I'm perhaps more inclined to give the nod to Michael Nunn and / or Eduardo Lausse. I'll make them my 'first ballot' in this particular exercise, so to speak.

Outside of that, I'd say guys like Lupe Pintor, Gus Lesnevich and perhaps even Pone Kingpetch or Rodrigo Valdez - but that really would be stretching our 'elitist' credibility! Gun to my head, I'll make Nunn my official pick.

Nunn's only credible loss is James Toney - but points towards a lack of focus, - he should have beaten the others quite badly, holds him back a little. Little,Liles, shouldn't even have come close and Rocchigiani was late in his career - so won't hold that against him. Excellent career otherwise.

Shah, care to give your verdict on the most recent quintet, while you're here? Could have a serious effect on one fighter.

Salvidar
Sanchez
Tiger - all in

A little contentious but tiger has beaten about 15-20 fighters- not all of em great but certainly good anough to trouble any fighter from any era.

The other two fall short by a distance.

Not much to add to the excellent discussions on the previous page.

Wanted to get my thoughts out there early for Tyson as I suspect once others vote I will get confused by what I suspect will be compelling counter arguments, but I am going to say a yes to Mike. I have said on more than one occasion that decisions for the hall should be reserved solely to in the ring but occasionally there are guys who make such an impact on the sport that you simply have to consider these in whether you say yes or no.

Normally in the case of guys like Ali and Robinson this is aligned to the sort of record that renders such considerations academic, however with Mike his record perhaps does not do this so one has to consider his impact alongside his record in the whole and few if any have impacted on the sport in quite the way Mike has, whether you love him, hate him, think he is over rated, under rated everyone has heard of Mike and he revitalised the sport in a way few if any have. Couple this with his record that is far from as poor as many might tell you, his status as youngest champion ever, which shows no sign of being outstripped any time soon and whilst it may be in contradiction of things I have argued previously and I genuinely think there should be a place for Mike in the Hall, even this version so for me he is a yes.

As for the others I don’t think I can find a place for Walcott, based on who I have previously excluded such as Liston at heavy, similarly don’t find myself convinced of Kostya’s credentials, is a little unlucky because spent plenty of time when he was probably the best lightwelter in the world injured and whilst at the time beating Judah looked impressive, Judah’s subsequent ability to blow hot and cold has perhaps taken a little lustre off this win and his record beside this simply does not justify his inclusion.

Likewise do not feel one great win is enough to find a place for Turpin and looking at his record I do not see enough besides that to justify his inclusion.

Williams is about as easy a decision as the rest of the BMR which is not easy in any way shape or form, but looking at his record and the fact that he didn’t really seem to have the edge over any of those fighters I am perhaps going to have to give him a reluctant no, but would like the opportunity to revisit that decision when the inevitably compelling counter arguments are presented.

In summary
Tyson YES
Tzsyu NO
Walcott NO
Williams NO
Turpin NO

Apologies for my tardiness in getting the latest installment to you all - a lunch yesterday went on rather later than I'd imagined (till midnight, in fact), with the result that I'm doing everything a bit slowly today. Well done to Jeff for carrying on regardless!

A terrific week's debate ended with two new members of our Hall of Fame, two consigned to permanent oblivion and one who will live to fight another day. Vicente Saldivar and Salvador Sanchez were unsurprisingly and unanimously elected to the Hall, while Jose Torres and Max Schmeling received no votes at all. Dick Tiger's late charge earned him just over 50% of the vote, which entitles him to second ballot consideration next year.

To this week, where we begin with Kostya Tszyu. Having moved to Australia from his native Russia, Tszyu quickly made a name for himself with his explosive hitting. He won the vacant IBF 140 lb title by beating Jake Rodriguez and made 5 defences (1 a no-contest), before coming an almighty cropper against the unheralded Vince Phillips. Some 18 months later, Tszyu was back, winning the interim WBC title in a war against Diosbelys Hurtado, cementing his crown against Miguel Angel Gonzalez, thrashing Julio Cesar Chavez and unifying the major light-welterweight belts. He was still widely acclaimed as the top man at light-welter when he lost his final fight on an emotional night in Manchester to Ricky Hatton.

Randolph Turpin's fame rests largely on one sensational evening at Earl's Court. On that night, he ripped the world middleweight title away from the great Sugar Ray Robinson, handing the Sugar Man only his second defeat in more than 120 fights. 64 days later, Turpin would lose his title back to Robinson when, apparently on the brink of a cut-eye defeat, Robinson launched a furious assault that left Turpin unable to beat the count. Turpin had made himself the leading man at the weight across Britain and Europe before the Robinson fights and he would add British and Commonwealth titles at light-heavyweight, as well as a spurious European version of the middleweight crown. However, in his last shot at the real thing, Turpin was floored and easily outpointed by Bobo Olson. His career never reached the heights again, and just two years after his last fight, Turpin would take his own life.

The facts of Mike Tyson's life are too well known to need much repetition here. From his debut in 1985 to his still barely believable loss to Buster Douglas just five short years later, Tyson was the man who single-handedly reinvigorated not just heavyweight boxing, but the sport itself. The youngest heavyweight champion of them all, he packed a total of 17 championship fights into his startling career, winning 13 of them. The highs, the lows, the bites, the fights, the sheer sense of show-business - I'm sure we all have our own particular memories of Iron Mike Tyson. Boxing would certainly have been a duller place if he had never existed.

Jersey Joe Walcott was a one-man advertising board for the virtues of perseverance. For the first six or seven years of his career, undistinguished would have been the kindest word to apply to it. He won some, lost others, and it wasn't until a gallant loss to Tiger Jack Fox and a KO win over the fearsome "Violent" Ray in 1937 that a spark of something better appeared. The war was to intervene, however, and only in 1945, now aged 31, did Walcott begin the run that was to lead to the world heavyweight title. He lost to Ray and Joey Maxim, avenged both defeats and landed a shot at Joe Louis's world title. One of the worst decisions of all time was given to the champion, who then stopped Walcott in their rematch. A year later, Walcott would lose another decision to the new champion Ezzard Charles, but he would not give up, KOing Harold Johnson and losing yet another decision to Charles in his fourth try at the title. Charles would immediately give Walcott a fifth chance, and this time, with one of boxing's greatest single punches, Walcott took it, becoming the oldest heavyweight champion ever (at the time). He outpointed Charles in his first defence and then went head to head with Rocky Marciano, outboxing the Rock until himself being on the end of one of the sport's most celebrated punches. After losing by one round KO in the return, Walcott finally retired.

Holman Williams was one of the many members of the so-called Black Murderers Row who never got the chance to fight for a world title in the years around World War II. Williams fought a memorable series of battles against Cocoa Kid, losing overall by a score of 3-8 and Charley Burley, with whom he finished 3-3-1, and went in against almost every great middleweight and light-heavy of his era, winning and losing his share against most of them. Ineffectually managed for a time by Joe Louis, Williams could never manoeuvre himself into title contention and after losing to both Marcel Cerdan and Jake La Motta, he faded from the scene, following a career spanning two decades.

Got in before my mind changes about Tyson, which is sure to happen at least 10 times over the coming week!

There will probably be a good deal of discussion revolving around one man this week, but I actually think that this is one of the easier quintets to sort out.

For me, the difficult one is Tszyu. His longevity is good, he was unquestionably the best man in his division for a number of years and he beat some decent opponents, not all of them, it has to be admitted, in the first flush of youth. On the face of it, he has plenty going for him, but my real difficulty is that appalling loss to Vince Phillips. Without it, he would be a certainty, in my book; as it stands I'm highly undecided. On the basis that we shouldn't damn a man for a single ordinary night's work, I'm tentatively leaning to a YES for Tszyu.

Randy Turpin is an easy one to reject. One great win, a superb second effort against Robinson and a handful of creditable victories against tough European opposition do not efface the memory of that dreadful showing against Olson or that one-round shocker against Tiberio Mitri. He can't be here. NO.

Nor, unfortunately, can old Jersey Joe. You can't but admire his determination, but the record is just not solid or consistent enough to consider him anywhere near the true elite. Another easy NO.

To me, Holman Williams actually has one of the weakest claims of all the BMR to be in a Hall of Fame. Without that tied record with Burley, we'd probably be talking of him as a talented, smooth as silk gate-keeper, however unfair that may seem. Even with the Burley slate, I don't see the evidence that he rose above his talented era in any way. Someone like Cocoa Kid would clearly be just as deserving a candidate, and I don't believe that he is Hall of Fame-worthy, either. Another simple NO, for me.

Which brings us to Mr. Tyson. Whatever transpired afterwards, a lot of which was his own fault, we can't just pretend that the years 1985-90 never happened. He was the most feared man on the planet, he made fine fighters quail before him, and he produced some of the great heavyweight performances of any generation. Not his fault that in cleaning up his division, he terminated the careers of a bunch of talented under-achievers. For those five years alone, he deserves boxing's thanks and, beyond dispute, in my opinion, a place among the sport's elite. Tyson is a YES.

Tyson - Yes

Tsyzu - No - Vince Phillips, Judahs exposure as a Talented underachiever and even the loss to Hatton was a rather premature retirement. I still think he was game and should have tried to win. He was top of his division for a long time and that with stellar opposition. Phillips loss may have an impact but I think the more compelling reason is how his record is taken apart easier than most. I would have him in but it would only be a choice of a fan rather than an observer.

Turpin - Bit of the ragamuffin man there - One great fight and several tough but limited opponents. No

Williams - No - not exceptional in his era - quite a distance behind. Sort of the Mayorga fighter - not the greatest but not someone to take lightly

Walcott - Persistence and inconsistency personified - No.

Let me say straight out of the chute that, were it not for the captain's defence of Tsyzu, I would have voted ' no.' However, the captain's argument is persuasive, in that many of our inductees would have missed the cut had we been less charitable about ignominious losses. The positive side of Tsyzu's ledger constitutes sufficient credentials,and I don't believe that the Phillips fight is sufficient to erase them.

Tsyzu - Yes.

Tyson, absolutely no question - Yes.

Turpin and Walcott, equally clear - No.

Would love to say yes to Williams but, as with many of his contemporaries, we would need to consider ' might - have - beens ' and we haven't done so for others.

Williams, then, is a - No.

Tyson yes. Underrated record and simply a boxing icon.
Williams yes. May be generous because his record is so mixed but couldn’t leave out someone with wins over Cocoa Kid, Burley, Booker, Chase and Moore. Losses against the top guys only while in his prime, and beat almost everyone he faced.
Tyzyu no. No real standout wins, shouldn’t have lost to Philips and never appeared to have the ability of most of those inducted.
Turpin no. Very good, but other than a standout night against an underprepared SRR his career wasn’t exceptional as a world class fighter let alone an ATG.
Walcott no. Shaky record, no dominant period.

Interesting stuff so far, genuinely thought I would be pressed to argue my corner for Tyson today, just goes to show doesn't pay to assume.

tyson is a tricky one, straight yes on ability at his best, probably no based on overall ring record. sometimes you can't be purely objective, there is no doubt that his mopping up of the fat 80's heavies was impressive and dramatic and re-invigorated boxing. He had his flaws in the ring as well as out, but might just be the best 3 round heavy ever. Tyson is a yes.

No need to add further to comments on williams, turpin (huge talent but not reflected in the record) and walcott. All NO's.

Tszyu is a toughy. He was regarded as the best light-welter for some time, but there's a lack of career defining names on the record (at least ones not past their sell by). The real names were half a weight up... could he/should he have gone up and mixed it? I feel that would have shown us his true quality, but maybe he just didn;t feel he could adequately carry the weight. To me though, with limited challenges at the weight a true hall of famer would have stretched himself rather than take the relatively easy paydays. That said i'm not sure i've been this tough on others, and injuries late in his career may have hindered his options! I'm going to take the splinters put and give him a marginal YES.

I was going to say no to Tyson until I was swayed by the above arguments, damn you for getting in first, Rowley! However, I feel that the overall impact he had on boxing and it's fans just about justifies his inclusion, whereas his record alone certainly wouldn't have. Yes.

For all the others this week it is quite an easy no. Must say I'm surprised that Tsyzu has been included as a yes by some, as I feel that his record is relatively weak and that he was the benefactor of a weak division, more than anything else.

I think that when considering Tszyu's record alone, I started with the premise of how inferior it was, if at all, to that of someone like Aaron Pryor, who also campaigned in just the one division. Pryor beat a good, but ageing fighter to win the title; Tszyu dismantled a great, but ageing fighter in Chavez. Clearly, Pryor's two wins against Arguello are a notch above anything on Tszyu's record, but the rest of his victims are nothing special. They are actually arguably of lower rank than the majority of Tszyu's victims.

Pryor admittedly doesn't have a prime loss to someone like Phillips to blot his escutcheon; that's the factor that really makes me pause. However, to counter that, Tszyu's longevity - the best part of a decade as belt-holder - and the fact that he unified the belts, finally sways me to his side. It's tight, but I think that he is just worthy of admission.

I really can't see how Liston failed to make the grade but Tyson sweeps it. Liston fought and dominated a far more competetive group of heavyweights and could have reigned for longer if, like Tyson, he'd got the title shot when he deserved it. Instead Liston had to wait or he may have reigned for several years. It seems Mike can get away with not actually beating a single great heavyweight anywhere near his best and still get by on outside of the ring fame, sounds like a waingro style of logic to me. I just can't justify having Tyson in, he was a great fighter at his best with great potential, but so were lots of guys. NO to Tyson.

Tsyzu is a tough one. To me he has one bad performence, but so do lots of guys. To say that's the only really bad loss on a guy's record that was so cosistent against such great opposition for so long isn't enough to keep him out. He fought quality opposition with great consistency for years. From old veterans like Chavez - nobody had done that to Chavez before even if he was past his best - to young upstarts like Judah, whom he famously made dance to his tune. It's a YES to Kostya

I really want to say yes to Jersey Joe, as his name is sewn into a couple of different eras of heavyweight history. He fought them all and heavyweights with his attitude are in short supply these days. He had gret movement and skill but not the consistency or the names to get him in. Maybe if the Louis decision had gone the other way it would be different, or maybe I'm punishing him too much for having an even record against a great light heavyweight on the slide but he's not in for me. NO to Walcott.

It's all already been said on Turpin. NO.

I'd love to put Williams in. I read a quote in Charley Burley ad The Black Murderer's Row (I've forgotten who from, possibly Eddie Futch) that he'd rather see Williams Shadow box than most guys actually fight, such was his skill. He fought for a long time, was busy, and fought them all. However he just didn't have the results. NO.

I don't know, JBW. If we really analyse the group of heavyweights over which Liston held sway, we're basically talking about Valdes, Patterson, Machen, Williams and Folley, I guess. Patterson, who was notoriously fragile, Valdes who kept losing when getting into prime position for a title shot, Machen who was usually second best when it really counted and Folley, who also managed to lose to Henry Cooper at about the time that Liston beat him. They're good names, but I don't see them as demonstrably superior to those that Tyson beat.

We also need to remember that Liston, having finally got his disgracefully delayed shot at Patterson and won the title, did damn all with his belt for the eighteen months or so that he had it. Blowing out a man so palpably scared of him for a second time was a poor return, considering what he'd gone through to get there. I just can't see that Liston's prime can quite compare with Tyson's absolute annihilation of a generation of fighters, blubbery and unmotivated though it often was. Whatever we may think of Thomas, Tubbs, Tucker et al, they did represent the cream of the crop. His win over Biggs, who many were giving a serious chance beforehand, should also not be underestimated.

No, I genuinely believe that, regardless of his position as a boxing icon or any other extraneous factor, Tyson's record entitles him to our nod. The Liston decision, when I/we made it, was one of the toughest that I've had to contemplate in this context. I have no problem with someone taking the opposing view about Sonny. I still don't think that his record at the highest level matches that of Tyson.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I really can't see how Liston failed to make the grade but Tyson sweeps it. Liston fought and dominated a far more competetive group of heavyweights and could have reigned for longer if, like Tyson, he'd got the title shot when he deserved it. Instead Liston had to wait or he may have reigned for several years. It seems Mike can get away with not actually beating a single great heavyweight anywhere near his best and still get by on outside of the ring fame, sounds like a waingro style of logic to me. I just can't justify having Tyson in, he was a great fighter at his best with great potential, but so were lots of guys. NO to Tyson.

Tsyzu is a tough one. To me he has one bad performence, but so do lots of guys. To say that's the only really bad loss on a guy's record that was so cosistent against such great opposition for so long isn't enough to keep him out. He fought quality opposition with great consistency for years. From old veterans like Chavez - nobody had done that to Chavez before even if he was past his best - to young upstarts like Judah, whom he famously made dance to his tune. It's a YES to Kostya

I really want to say yes to Jersey Joe, as his name is sewn into a couple of different eras of heavyweight history. He fought them all and heavyweights with his attitude are in short supply these days. He had gret movement and skill but not the consistency or the names to get him in. Maybe if the Louis decision had gone the other way it would be different, or maybe I'm punishing him too much for having an even record against a great light heavyweight on the slide but he's not in for me. NO to Walcott.

It's all already been said on Turpin. NO.

I'd love to put Williams in. I read a quote in Charley Burley ad The Black Murderer's Row (I've forgotten who from, possibly Eddie Futch) that he'd rather see Williams Shadow box than most guys actually fight, such was his skill. He fought for a long time, was busy, and fought them all. However he just didn't have the results. NO.

re chavez, he'd had two batterings from oscar, and was coming off a comprehensive defeat to the great willy wise, so i don't think kostya gets too much kudos for that one.

I think i voted for Liston as well as tyson, but think there are strong counter arguments for both.

Despite being fragile, Patterson was among the fastest heavyweights of all time and according to Ali the most skilled fighter he ever faced. He beat big men like Chuvalo using that skill and was no easy target. Liston also had the consistency not to be dominated and knocked out by a 42-1 under dog when at his physical peak. It's ok to say Liston didn't do much with the title but he'd gone through hell to get there and it's much easier to say he should've made more defenses in retrospect, he didn't know he was about to lock horns with the greatest heavyweight of all time. Nobody did. I dare say if Tyson's next fight after beating Spinks (note, Tyson's best victory came against a light heavyweight) was Ali at his best then he'd have lost it too.

Liston had quick wins over truly dangerous, Patterson-ducked, scalps like Williams and Folley who were at their best when Liston fought them, Ali fought Liston's left overs during his first title reign, but Ali gets all the credit.

I guess I find it rather hypocritical that w're meant to be voting on them based on in the ring achievements and Tyson gets in ahead of Liston, despite Liston being voted ahead of Tyson in the 606v2 heavyweight rankings. I can't quite figure that one out.

I know Chavez was past it but he'd been stopped in his corner and on cuts to Oscar, Kostya was the first to really beat him to the ground in that way. I'm not saying he's better than chavez, it's just an interesting achievement to me.

Well, I think a fair few people voted on the heavyweights, and a number of them don't vote on this thread, more's the pity, JBW. That probably accounts for the discrepancy. I can see your argument for Liston; as I say, I didn't say no to him without a hell of a lot of soul-searching. However, I have Tyson two or three spots ahead of Sonny on the heavyweight lists, so I do feel that I can just about justify my choices here.

I can understand people having Tyson sliightly ahead (although personally I have Liston far ahead) I just can't believe that Liston gets mostly NOs and Tyson gets almost all YES's for any other reason than fame. The difference in lgacy isn't that great.

Tyson should be in the hall of fame no doubt him and Ali are the two most famous boxers he is one of the best of all time. Guy was a monster who destroyed people for fun even when he was just a kid.

Can I change my vote Captain?

Course you can, Jeff. Do you really want to?!

No mate, just a joke

Waingro was correct to be fair.

Absolutely gutted that a new job with no internet access allowed means that I'm getting in late on these debates these days! An interesting bunch, though four of my decisions have been very straightforward, with the other giving me a little headache of sorts.

Tszyu, of course, is the headache I'm referring to. My initial thought was that I'd vote yes to him. A while later, I found myself thinking that a thumbs down might be the way to go. But for now, I'm back on the 'yes' side. To me, Tszyu boasts a Light-Welterweight record which only a small handfull of perhaps six or so men can match. Given how high a regard I hold the 140 lb weight class in, I think he'd be unlucky to miss out. Anyone who unifies a competitive division in this day and age has my full respect, and while many of Tszyu's vanquished opponents don't stand out as dazzling, he scored a long enough series of solid wins at the top level to get the nod from me, just about. Would add that while the Phillips loss was, in every sense of the word, a shocker, his other losing effort was a very fine one. Just about worth a yes vote, I reckon.

Turpin is just about as emphatic a 'no' as you could wish to find. One absolutely magnificent win (and a respectable loss) against the greatest of them all - but outside of that, we have the loss to Olson in his next most significant outing, and a body of work which lies primarily at domestic and European, rather than world, level. The 1951 version of Turpin may well have been Hall of Fame worthy, however on either side of that year his record in no way entitles him to consideration. An easy no.

And now for Mr Tyson. Keeping it strictly to what they did in the ring, I reckon there have been fighters who achieved more than Iron Mike who have fallen by the wayside in this process. On that basis, voting Tyson in could be seen as a bit of a conflict of interest, so to speak. However, I think Jeff is right in saying that there are a few (no more than four or five, I'd say) fighters who need to be judged in a slightly different context sometimes, and Tyson is one of them. His achievements alone - which are very impressive, of course - make him borderline, probably verging on the yes. But throw in the fact that he cut through the Heavyweight division with an arrogance not seen since Louis, reignited interest not only in his own division but throughout boxing as a whole and the fact that, even more than two decades after his famed peak, he continues to attract new fans to the sport, and I simply can't imagine a Hall of Fame without him. I doubt everyone will agree that the rules be bent or slightly altered for the odd fighter here or there, but I feel it's justified in Tyson's case. His impact and phenomenal fame make what would normally have been a borderline thumbs up and emphatic one from me. Yes.

Walcott is a fighter who I admire massively; the remarkable turnaround of his career at such an advanced age is nothing short of astonishing. However, we can't ignore that aforementioned beginning to it, which was disctinctly average. His two efforts against Louis - where he was perhaps unlucky not to emerge at one apiece - are to be praised, however I can't help but feel he'd have struggled to emulate such performances against the pre-WW2 version of the 'Brown Bomber', and while he went through boxing hell to claim the title, his reign simply wasn't long or dominant enough to warrant a place here. To me, the way he surrendered the title to Marciano - having been so close to holding on to it - sums Walcott up; damn good, but always falling just that little bit short of greatness. It's a no.

Williams, likewise, represents the very good rather than the great. Splitting his series with Burley is, of course, impressive - but there lies the whole point. He was never dominant against the best group of men he faced, and to my mind there are far more deserving members from the BMR fighters. Another easy no.

And so, after all my rambling (sorry everyone!) it's a yes to Tszyu and Tyson, with Turpin, Walcott and Williams missing out.

Quite possibly dont see this weeks five as straightforward as the majority do and will make an effort to argue my case for each fighter barring Turpin who I wholeheartedly agree falls short of the mark. With this in mind, if its not too problematic, I will do a seperate post for each in order to try do each fighter justice (or injustice some of you may percieve!)

Il start with Tszyu. I think Tzsyu misses out for me primarily because the opposition beaten there just isnt of sufficient calibre to see him in for me.

Judah is one of the most overrated fighters out there. Continues to carry a brand but other than momentary flashes of skill he has actually done very little to justify his status and has lost nearly all of his meaningful fights often to some mediocre fighters. Likewise Mitchell just isnt all that great and Julio Cesar Chavez was on his last legs.

Other names like Tackie, Pineda, Ruelas and others do provide a solid if unspectacular foundation but overall I think he lacks an elite level win or quite possibly even top level win. Appreciate Judah and Mitchell were unbeaten at the time but I think they were no better than decent in the grand scheme of things.

He has a rather poor loss to Phillips and a far more excuseable one to Hatton, but overall he does have some good consistency.

At this point I would say that I do have issues with the modern introduced divisions. I think its a very underestimated luxury that modern fighters have to be able to avail of these new divisions and its had the effect of diluting quality and making it easier to avoid more difficult fights. Older fighters did not have this luxury of up to three or four divisions to choose to operate as well as mulitple belts to choose from. My impression of the light welterweight division is thats its often been neglected and overlooked. For much of Tszyus career he had fighters like De la Hoya, Trinidad, Mosely, Mayweather, Forrest, Castillo, Whitaker, Quartey operating above or below him that without the light welterweight division he would almost certainly have had to face a few of them. All of these fighters are better than the likes of Judah, Mitchell, Tackie, Ruelas and so on but few of them ever did a real stint at light welterweight and much like Hatton found later, the division was something of a passover one for these higher quality figters. Dare I say it appeared something of a leftovers division? It makes it difficult for me to value his tenure there highly because all the quality fighters in or around that weight never really bothered with the divison. the names he beat there just arent of a high enough quality, especially compared to the ones either side of the division.

So despite a a quite long and reasonably consistent reign founded up solid fighters, Tszyu falls short of making the modern Hall for me. To his credit he unified the division but the abscence of what I consider the much more quality fighters of the time plus his own failure to move up or tempt up these fighters for matches means in reality I think Tszyu was beating the best of the rests.

The next fighter I would discuss is Walcott. I must admit, when I first thought of him I immediately thought about parrallels between himself and the Tiger who ws discussed last week. There are many similarities between the two most noteably the very long road to the top and the somewhat inconsistent results even during their peak years against strong opposition.

I can see already that Walcott almost certainly will not make the cut and in truth I fully appreciate the reasons why, especially if the likes of Liston are deemed unworthy (who I rate higher).

However I do think hes one of the more underrated heavyweights and beat a large number of top contenders during his peak years from about 1945 onwards. Noteable wins over the likes of Lee Q Murray, Joey Maxim, Curtis Sheppard, Lee Oma, Jimmy Bivins, Harold Johnson, Joe Baksi, Elmer Ray and of course Ezzard Charles represent a fine list of scalps and most of the top contenders of the day.

His argument for entry really starts to creak when you look at his results against the really big guns. 2-2 against Charles, but 0-2 against both Louis and Marciano respectively. I do feel though that other than his very last fight with Marciano where it looked like age had finally caught up with him he performed very credibly in these fights with many feeling he deserved the no over Louis in their first enconter and had been ahead until the championship rounds in his fight with Marciano and second Louis fight so despite the negative result coulmn theres plenty in the fights to indicate his quality and skill as a fighter during that time and in Louis and Marciano he was against arguably the greatest heavyweight of the lot and one that is easily in the top ten of all time and retired without a defeat.

Ultimately though when you consider everything and look at the various angles I feel compelled to agree he falls short although I do think its not be a massive amount and that his record and status as a champion seem to be underplayed to the point where hes sometimes viewed as little more than a stopgap champion when his results over many of the top contenders of the day and his performances against two all time great heavies suggest he is alot more.

I would pretty much agree with Colonial Lions take on Tszyu. If I remember rightly there was some talk of whether he would make it into the current HoF first time as it seemed to be a shoot out between himself and Hamed.

Some good point made about Walcott there but I dont really see him having a particularly strong argument for an elite Hall even if there are some who feels he is being sold a bit short. Although he beat many contenders on the way up he fell short at the top and I wouldnt neccessarily consider that to be a particulalry strong era for heavyweights with many of those contenders being only average or better at light heavy. So he falls short for me.

Turpin is probably the clearest no and I would agree with whats been said so far.

Holman Williams, again a no, too light for me on the big wins vs big losses ratio despite having many fine wins. As others have said, didnt really distinguish himself from the pack to any great extent although some of his wins indicate a very good fighter.

Tyson, like rowley I thought I might be in the minority mounting a defence for him but find I dont really need to. A definate yes. Im not sure if the general rule was to vote purely on in ring acheivement or whether to incorporate things like transcending the sport but it would seem perverse to have a Hall of Fame with him absent. I think there has a been tendancy to give the heavies a bit more slack given its the flagship division but even outside that I think Tysons ability and record during his best years might see him through.

Tszyu - no
Turpin - no
Tyson - yes
Walcott - no
Williams - no

Holman Williams I feel, like Walcott, has been a bit a bit underrated here. Certainly I would not consider him a fair comparison to someone like Mayorga. He was far finer fighter and I do think the tag of gatekeeper is a little harsh especially as none of the title holders or top fighters wanted to pass through that particular gate!

I find it very hard to readily look past a fighter that can boast wins over Moore, Burley, Marshall, Wade, Cocoa Kid, Lytell, Basora, Henry, Carter, Tunero, Booker, Satterfield, Belloise, Chase, Leto, Fernandez and others whom he engaged in countless bouts over an extensive career spanning 15 years. This represents many of the murderers row and top contenders between welterweight and light heavyweight for the best part of a decade. It was only when Williams starting to fade that he was able to take on Cerdan and LaMotta.

Williams was also unfortunate that he was really a welterweight at most but forced up to higher weights to secure fights an seek opportunities much like Burley. As a result he had very little power up at those weights (and also suffered from chronic hand problems due to poorly treated broken bones) usually against much naturally bigger men and had to rely almost exclusively on outboxing his opposition. That he was able to compete and be competitive at those higher weights against bigger opponents is itself very impressive.

Other favourable evidence of his quality is that he held the coloured version of the lightweight title (at just 21 yrs old) and middleweight title (arguably worth more in retrospect than the actual title given Burley was then champion in comparison to Zale). In nearly 200 bouts he was only stopped 3 times. Once by Burley and then twice late on in his career against Archie Moore and Jose Basora so this highlights just how slick and defensively sound an operator he was especially given he was in with naturally bigger men much of the time and had little power of his own to keep them away. The great Eddie Futch described him as having all the finesse of Robinson minus the punch.

For nearly a decade he was consistenly ranked as a top ten fighter at either welterweight or middleweight by publications such as the Ring magazine and its unfortunate for himself and Burley that when they were both ranked as the top two contenders for the world middleweight title it was during the height of the war years involving the U.S in which the title went undefended. Otherwise Williams may potentially have found himself with a title shot which would have been very winnable.

Now on to the counter arguments, which which appear to be leaving Williams shy of making the cut. A split series with rivals Burley and a comprehensively lost one to Cocoa Kid appear to be the chief reasons behind this. Theres not much denying that the Cocoa Kid seemed to have antidote to Williams but I think if we look at Williams best years between 1940-45 its something like 70-12-6 with almost every defeat being to a top opponent and including wins over a host of quality opponents and top contenders. I can understand the arguments citing lack of dominance over rivals or a win/loss ratio not high enough against them but I thik Williams just has too much quality in his win column over too many quality fighters which leaves little room for doubt over his actual quality as a fighter. I would agree with the sentiment that perhaps Bivins or Burley may possess stronger claims, but I still see Williams as a worthy of a place so with that in mind I will vote a yes for him.

eloquently put case colonel. The obvious problem with the bmr fighters is that generally they all beat each other, which brings their win/loss ratio down to a level that stops their face value record from being elite. You are then left with a decision, do you say it was the greatest period ever in the middleweight(s) division(s) and put them all in. Or do you say, if no one fighter dominated their era, maybe, just maybe there was no stand out fighter among them and put no-one through. Or, what we have generally ended up doing which is trying to pick the best out of them as we go along. I think if you take cocoa kid out of the equation there is a case for williams, his record against his contemparies isn't bad.

Most people's judgements on the bmr come from just a few well written books, but the consenus seems to be that they were genuinely a freakishly good set of fighters around at the same time. Bit like those 70's heavies... when all you have to judge them against is each other, its hard to compare era's to say for sure.

Given the Bivinsgate scandal earlier in the thread.... maybe all the bmr fighters should be given special dispensation over previous voting and get a week to themselves to really thrash it out at the end.

Last man standing, a prizefighter elimination for the murderers row. I should be in marketing .

milkyboy wrote:

Given the Bivinsgate scandal earlier in the thread.... maybe all the bmr fighters should be given special dispensation over previous voting and get a week to themselves to really thrash it out at the end.

That is actually a pretty good idea Milky will be honest outside of Burley my knowledge of many of them is shamefully patchy. I initially voted a no for Bivins but subsequent to that bought a brief but pretty good biography of him and on the back of that realise my no vote was wildly misplaced. Suspect as I do more research on the other guys I may realise similar is the case.

It has been a recurrent fearure of this superb thread that I have found the utter impotence of my knowledge of boxing history in certain areas cruelly exposed. I had thought, for example, that I had possessed a reasonable grasp of the fighters who constituted the BMR.

Not so.

The upside of this is that I have been inspired to damned well go and learn what I believed I knew already.

milkyboy's is an inspired idea, in my opinion. To assess the BMR en masse would offer us the opportunity to be far more incisive in our judgements.

I'm beginning to think that this is the best thread with which I have ever been involved.

I don't know, fittest babes shouldn't be overlooked.

milkyboy wrote:eloquently put case colonel. The obvious problem with the bmr fighters is that generally they all beat each other, which brings their win/loss ratio down to a level that stops their face value record from being elite. You are then left with a decision, do you say it was the greatest period ever in the middleweight(s) division(s) and put them all in. Or do you say, if no one fighter dominated their era, maybe, just maybe there was no stand out fighter among them and put no-one through. Or, what we have generally ended up doing which is trying to pick the best out of them as we go along. I think if you take cocoa kid out of the equation there is a case for williams, his record against his contemparies isn't bad.

Most people's judgements on the bmr come from just a few well written books, but the consenus seems to be that they were genuinely a freakishly good set of fighters around at the same time. Bit like those 70's heavies... when all you have to judge them against is each other, its hard to compare era's to say for sure.

Given the Bivinsgate scandal earlier in the thread.... maybe all the bmr fighters should be given special dispensation over previous voting and get a week to themselves to really thrash it out at the end.

Last man standing, a prizefighter elimination for the murderers row. I should be in marketing .

The circumstances of the era throw up strange conundrums thats for sure, but the quality is almost unparalleled across two or three divisions. Given so many of these top fighters were given so few opportunities and the war itself caused several titles to go undefended for years it makes the problem all the trickier.

I guess my policy is place a great deal of emphasis on the actual win columns of fighters as this is the most difficult area to manufacture or disguise. Dominance and even longetivity can be deceptive if the competition is weak or fights are handpicked but its not possible to consistently fluke great wins without being a great fighter. The Klitschkos brothers will probably rule a weak era for over a decade without losing for example, but their win column would be surpassed by a guy like Bivins or Williams in a single year of their careers.

Ive no doubts for instance that Williams was a superior fighter to Kosta Tszyu for example and going off their records I think its clear this is the case. I mean do a handful of good wins over Mitchell, Tackie, Judah, Ruelas and so forth come any way close to the huge number of top wins Williams can boast over guys like Burley, Moore, Marshall, Basora, Cocoa Kid, Booker, Chase, Carter, Lytell, Wade and so on? Tszyu might have greater dominance but I find its remarkably hollow especially when one considers the vast differences in the era and opportunities afforded. One can only imagine if these kind of murderers row fighters were let loose on up to 7 various divisions to choose from and as many as 28 titles to target.

Thats not say fighters that acheive titles and dominance and so forth should be ignored of coure. You have to make the best of the era you are in and the given circumstances and things like title acheivements, dominance, longetitivy and so on are all evidence of this. But I do think that a strong effort should be made to appreciate the differences in circumstances between some eras and greater margins need to be accounted for fighters like Wiliams for example with nearly 200 bouts against extraordianry competition. If I see a win column like Williams or Bivins then Im left in no doubts to their quality and things like dominance become the secondary issue.

This is not to say I dont appreciate the arguments against the inclusions of Williams or Bivins because I do see them and there are valid points made but in practical terms there are guys in the current Hall that dont even have a quarter of the kind of quality wins these fighters have and I think expecting these fighters to dominate an hugely talented competition pool over several weights given the regularity of which they fought is too heavy a burden. Someone like Tszyu dominating a niche division of average talent, fighting a couple of times a year does not neccessarily rate above Williams fighting and beating (albeit with losses) a greater talent pool including a number of all time greats from 147lbs-170lbs - notwithstanding a lack of dominance or titles to show for it. I think his number of top wins more than make up for it.

Lets not forget Tsyu was stopped against Hatton so if Tsyu is in there then Hatton should be aswell imo he was also massive in Britain and only ever lost to the best fighters of the decade so no shame in that the guy was quality

Waingro wrote:Lets not forget Tsyu was stopped against Hatton so if Tsyu is in there then Hatton should be aswell imo he was also massive in Britain and only ever lost to the best fighters of the decade so no shame in that the guy was quality

Lol Grover Wiley stopped Julio Cesar Chavez so they should have him in there too defo for real no homo. FACT.

Kostya Tszyu- Lack of a real stand out win on his record. No

Hollmam Williams- Some good wins but very patchy record at times. No

Randolph Turpin- One win over the greatest of all time isn't enough and lests not forget it was over a middleweight Robinson who while he was better than most it wasn't him at his peak. No

Joe Wallcott- Lacks the consistency or record to make it unfortunately. No

Mike Tyson- His in ring record doesn't stand out as an elite boxer imo. I fully accept the other stuff he brought to the sport that were good. But if you take out of the ring factors in to it then you must consider the fact he was a convicted naughty person, a woman beater, he bit a chunk out of Holyfields ear and failed a drug test. No

Guys, apologies for my late response to a marvellous series of thought-provoking contributions. While, I'm not in principle opposed to a radical reappraisal of the BMR when it comes to our Hall, it does seem to me that we would be doing so at the risk of having to do likewise with a host of other fighters as well. So far, we have appraised Charley Burley (unanimously elected), Jimmy Bivins (I think very likely to get the nod on the second ballot), Lloyd Marshall (not elected, and I genuinely believe, reasonably enough) and now Holman Williams. Are we saying that men such as Chase, Lytell, Booker etc are deserving of a turn under the microscope? Fair enough if that's the case, but are we not thereby also suggesting that the Philly War fighters from the 70s (Monroe, Watts, Hart, Seales, Briscoe) deserve a turn in the spotlight? Good as they all were, is it not the case that some were a cut above the others among the BMR? Burley and Bivins on one level, Williams and maybe Marshall a notch below?

If there is one fighter who may have been short-changed by posterity it seems to me that it might have been Cocoa Kid. I would propose that he might be our fifth candidate for the final week of the moderns, if sufficient of you would agree with that. To me, it would be absurd to consider Williams a Hall of Fame man without at least scrutinising the claims of a man who went 8-3-2 against him. Every excellent post makes me reconsider opinions that I thought that I held fast; however, I do believe that we need to be clear about some kind of pecking order among these greats of the 30s and 40s. Remember too that Cocoa Kid got stopped by Battling Battalino, a much lighter man, in the 30s - is he really a hall of famer?

Makes perfect sense to me, captain.

I fear that I might have jumped at the ' special case for the BMR ' idea simply because I am dissatisfied with, and disappointed by, my own shoddy analysis thus far. Ultimately, a shortcut in order to redress these failings does smack of cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.

Captain any chance you want to run for prime minister? You have this gift of getting the best solution without trying to please everybody in favour of something that works. Far better than We're-all-in-it-together-but-some-less-than-others Cameron or im-a-donkey-lead-me-where-you-will Clegg