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 would certainly give Holman Williams a stronger claim to the Hall than the Cocoa Kid, notwithstanding his "hex" over him.

Williams displayed a far stronger consistency overall during his peak years insofar as his losses were generally all to either top contenders or genuine great fighters.

The Cocoa Kid never had this kind of consistency however it gets very difficult to measure because of the sheer regularity at which he fought. Almost a fortnightly basis racking up around 250 bouts. Trying to find a middle ground between this and a fighter with barely 40 bouts is dreadfully difficult. I think greater slack for consistency is needed for those fighters who fight on such a regular basis. Its far more excuseable that they are not aways in top form and in many cases were fighting while only partially fit.

However Williams exceeds Cocoa Kid in overall consistency and in the strength of his win column. He has many fantastic wins in there. For a fighter who began his career as a lightweight to later step up and defeat someone as talented as Archie Moore at light heavyweight is a truly remarkeable win and one that seems to be lost in history to a large extent. Cant help feel that this kind of thing is synonamous with the murderers row fighters and they have been genuinely underrated and forgotten about in history. Were these fighters let loose on the titles and put in the mainstream boxings eye then I think their quality would seldom be doubted. The likes of Charles, Moore and Robinson highlight the comparitive difference between the effect of holding and competing for titles compared to the Burleys, Bivins and Williams who could so easily have been part of the same gang and were not a million miles away in terms of ability.

Going to add a series of articles on Cocoa Kid to the boxing vault, think you will enjoy them.

This section relates to Williams.

Many thanks, Scott. Excellent work.

Colonial, you're doing your usual thing of making me think myself into knots!

However, let me try a stream of consciousness reply. You made the point that the BMR could be reasonably compared with the 60s/70s group of great heavyweights. I think this is fair; the point must surely be that even within that exalted group, there are some whose deeds are such that they demand preferment over others, good as they were. After all, even men such as Frazier and Foreman had to endure a little scrutiny before taking their places among the elect, while Ken Norton was unanimously rejected. As for men like Quarry, Bonavena and so on - tough fighters, who could beat top people on their day, but not really the types to be considered for a Hall of Fame.

It seems to me that we need to treat the BMR in the same kind of way. You rightly point out that it is difficult to compare fighters with over 100 fights with those with 40 or 50. However, when you have a talented group of boxers in an era when fighting twice a month was the norm, it is inevitable that each will beat the other from time to time, all things being equal. Trying to spot the truly great CVs and attempting to weed out the anomalies are therefore the key factors, I believe. Someone like Ezzard Charles fought the leading BMR men of the era, although not the second tier of them. His record was extraordinary and places him at the apex of the pyramid that one could construct of that generation of fighters. Moore and Burley would probably come next, with Bivins not far behind; the consistency of their records against the very best of their generation entitle them to that sort of placing. Now while I would accept that Williams has some marvellous wins to his credit, I don't believe that we can simply toss aside a record such as 3-8-2 against a fighter whom we would agree was a touch inconsistent from time to time. Sugar Ray Robinson had his problems with Henry Brimm, but he still came out of their bouts with a 1-0-1 slate against him. That record is a millstone around Williams' neck, for me. When we add this to a more or less even record against someone like Marshall - again, a man who just falls short, by the most stringent standards, of true greatness - I think that it is far from automatic that Williams gets the nod for a Hall of Fame. His record against the Chases, Lytells and Bookers is very sound, but is it not comparable with someone like Ellis establishing superiority over the Bonavenas, Pattersons and Quarrys? That is to say, praiseworthy, but not necessarily demanding of Hall of Fame Entry.

The Archie Moore win certainly indicates Williams' quality, although I read that Moore lost a number of rounds through a series of low blows, making that majority decision somewhat contentious. Moore did also decisively beat Williams a few weeks later. All of which is not to denigrate Williams; it's just to point out that for me, in a discussion of the true creme de la creme of boxing, I still remain narrowly on the side that believes that Williams didn't quite prove that he belonged there.

The consensus is that the current crop of heavies is terrible, and the klitschko's would never rule in another era. But none of us know that for sure... it could be that they're so good (or have such physical attributes) that they make fighters who might have looked ok without them, look terrible. After all, save for the cut lewis was behind on points to vitali. Overlaps in eras usually involve guys past their prime fighting relatively inexperienced guys on the way up, its a rights of passage and makes it nigh on impossible to really evaluate quality across different eras.

The BMR have been criminally short changed, no doubt there, but is there a danger that we go ott in redressing the balance?


Let's take the domestically popular quartet of benn, eubank, watson, graham. Good fighters all, but no-one is going to tout them for the hall of fame. Let's chuck in some friends from across the pond: nunn and toney, mccallum, mcclellan, maybe jackson and barkley. From memory, just 1 of whom has been elected. Lets ignore roy jones and politically make him the 'sugar ray' champion. Now, lets stick them back in the 1940's with only limited scratchy film footage, and make them fight each other a stack of times over 10 years. They'd all win some and lose some.

Now lets assume none of them fought jones... only 2 of them did anyway... and write a book detailing the politics that denies them their fair crack, and saying what great fighters they are. These guys were all good enough for that to be a fair assessment...and the scribes and trainers of the day would happily confirm what a terrific era they were.... get dewey eyed talking about the benn eubank rivalry and mention how mcclellan beat jones in the amateurs, how someone else did him in sparring etc etc.

50 years on would we be discussing them as hall of fame contenders? I think we might be tempted, and i include me in the we. We are male after all, the gender of nostalgia.

I'm not belittling the murderers row fighters - far from it, i genuinely believe they were a cracking bunch of fighters. I've watched for example the scratchy footage of burley, and he looks a beautifully balanced fighter if a bit haymakerish with the right.

Now, I don't know whether holman williams is a better fighter than kostya tszyu, i agree he certainly fought a better standard of opposition, and i'm inclined to think he might have been. But i personally can't over-focus on the win column. Fighting regularly as in those days does make losses inevitable (unless your name is robinson) - but it swings both ways... it means you might get charley burley on an off day too.

Without multi weights and multi belts, these guys couldn't cherry pick their opponents like today, but most had their share of 'filler' on the cv too. We're comparing chalk with cheese every time we compare era's.

I've picked the late 80's/early 90's middles/super middles purely for example, the captain earlier picked the phillie middles in the shadow of monzon/hagler, Some of them may be better fighters than some guys who have got in, we don't know, its unavoidable really. If it wasn't for roberto duran we might be talking about esteban de jesus as one of the greatest lightweights ever. But we don't. We have to look at the best of the era,and cut some slack for those who we subjectively feel were in strong eras.

I guess its all about how much slack you're prepared to cut

Burley had an even record against Williams I believe, losing one vs Charles, Bivins and Marshall. Really much more consistent or better performances against his top opposition? Was only really Cocoa Kid getting the best of Williams near his prime, and he faced a wider variety of top fighters I believe.

Burley got in, I went narrowly for a yes vote on Williams. Am concerned that he didn't really have a dominance over a division, but his opposition is impressive and more often than not came at least even.

I am wavering a little now on Williams, think like Burley the thing we need to bear in mind is he was a natural welter or by modern standards would have probably sat most naturally at light middle at best. Think with this in mind we perhaps have to be willing to make a few allowances for some spotty form in a light heavyweight division that is perhaps as strong as it has ever been.

Burley also had a winning record over Archie Moore, Scott, just to further complicate the picture! Only Charles could be said to have had the call over all the contenders of the first rank, which is why he is rightly placed at the very top of an absurdly talent-laden era.

Oh yes, of course. It's a bit difficult, especially when I can't be totally familiar with the circumstances of fights. I think perhaps I'm being too forgiving with Williams, whereas I wouldn't be the same if someone nowadays was picking up a lot of defeats against contenders, no matter how good the contenders are.

As with many great match-ups, controversy surrounded Moore vs. Burley. In this fight, however, the only controversy surrounding the bout revolved around what happened before the bout took place. Indeed, on the day of the fight, it has been generally accepted by many noted sources that Burley, who had moved west just like Moore, was actually in San Diego working in an aircraft factory, and was over 100 miles away from Hollywood just hours before the fight. Burley reportedly got a call at the factory mentioning that Moore’s scheduled opponent had fallen out, and they were looking for a substitute. Burley then packed his gear, took a bus to Hollywood, wrapped his hands, and got in the ring.

Other sources claim Burley knew about the bout two weeks prior to 4/21/44, and was actually in Hollywood with ample notice. Moreover, much to the chagrin of Moore, some later claimed Burley, who was known by many to be God-fearing and humble, was actually up late the night before the bout, drinking whiskey and playing cards. It is also noted that Burley really didn’t train hard for the Moore bout because he knew he would win regardless of pre-fight preparation. All told, to this day, we may never know the full truth regarding what happened prior to the bout, but we do know what occurred once the two combatants stepped into the ring.

Burley completely dominated Moore and won a ten round decision. Newspaper sources claim Burley knocked Moore down in rounds one, three, four, and eight. Most of the knockdowns were a result of Burley’s fastball---the right hand. The knockdown in the eighth was reportedly the result of a jab. I’ve seen film of Burley, and it was a hard, rising jab somewhat like Bennie Briscoe’s unorthodox “Neckbender.” Burley was adept at feinting opponents out of position, and in this context, it’s completely understood why Moore would hit the deck.

Sources close to Burley believe Charley actually carried Moore just for the sake of punishing him. Rosenfeld quotes eyewitness Howard Branson: “This fight was really no contest. Burley didn’t like cocky fighters and Moore was a little cocky in those days. Burley could’ve knocked Moore out anytime he wanted. Burley would hit Moore hard and Moore was going down and Burley would walk to Moore and hold him up. This happened five or six times in the fight. Burley just wanted to torment Moore.”

Moore reportedly ended up in the hospital for three days after the fight. He told Branson it was the worst beating he took in his entire career. The fight made an indelible impression on Moore, and to his credit, he emerged a better fighter and ran off an impressive win streak after being dominated by Burley. Hard times breed hard men.

“Very few people could make me fight out of my system….Burley was one. Charley Burley tricked me. We both boxed and did things….similar. Mine was an apparent forward movement whereas Burley’s was a continuous serpentine movement. He’d swivel his hips and his body would sometimes lean over towards you, and he’d pull it back fast, just in time. His head would be flying like a threshing machine, and any angle he got into he could punch from that angle. He was never off balance but he seemed to be off balance on many occasions.”

Scott report on the Burley Moore fight, should be noted in Harry Otty's biography of the fight am sure he says he found reports either advertising or previewing the fight at least a fortnight in advance which suggests he did have at least some notice for the fight.

Cheers for that. Have the book, only about halfway through. Always hard to judge what to believe regarding preparation or how much mind to pay it.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Colonial, you're doing your usual thing of making me think myself into knots!

However, let me try a stream of consciousness reply. You made the point that the BMR could be reasonably compared with the 60s/70s group of great heavyweights. I think this is fair; the point must surely be that even within that exalted group, there are some whose deeds are such that they demand preferment over others, good as they were. After all, even men such as Frazier and Foreman had to endure a little scrutiny before taking their places among the elect, while Ken Norton was unanimously rejected. As for men like Quarry, Bonavena and so on - tough fighters, who could beat top people on their day, but not really the types to be considered for a Hall of Fame.

It seems to me that we need to treat the BMR in the same kind of way. You rightly point out that it is difficult to compare fighters with over 100 fights with those with 40 or 50. However, when you have a talented group of boxers in an era when fighting twice a month was the norm, it is inevitable that each will beat the other from time to time, all things being equal. Trying to spot the truly great CVs and attempting to weed out the anomalies are therefore the key factors, I believe. Someone like Ezzard Charles fought the leading BMR men of the era, although not the second tier of them. His record was extraordinary and places him at the apex of the pyramid that one could construct of that generation of fighters. Moore and Burley would probably come next, with Bivins not far behind; the consistency of their records against the very best of their generation entitle them to that sort of placing. Now while I would accept that Williams has some marvellous wins to his credit, I don't believe that we can simply toss aside a record such as 3-8-2 against a fighter whom we would agree was a touch inconsistent from time to time. Sugar Ray Robinson had his problems with Henry Brimm, but he still came out of their bouts with a 1-0-1 slate against him. That record is a millstone around Williams' neck, for me. When we add this to a more or less even record against someone like Marshall - again, a man who just falls short, by the most stringent standards, of true greatness - I think that it is far from automatic that Williams gets the nod for a Hall of Fame. His record against the Chases, Lytells and Bookers is very sound, but is it not comparable with someone like Ellis establishing superiority over the Bonavenas, Pattersons and Quarrys? That is to say, praiseworthy, but not necessarily demanding of Hall of Fame Entry.

The Archie Moore win certainly indicates Williams' quality, although I read that Moore lost a number of rounds through a series of low blows, making that majority decision somewhat contentious. Moore did also decisively beat Williams a few weeks later. All of which is not to denigrate Williams; it's just to point out that for me, in a discussion of the true creme de la creme of boxing, I still remain narrowly on the side that believes that Williams didn't quite prove that he belonged there.

Certainly I would agree with you that there would be a tier system in place for the murderers row fighter. Even the who exactly belongs in the murderers row could be debated as different members have been added over the years.

I think the fundemental point for me is that one is dealing with an immensely talented group of fighters. So even if a fighter like Williams, who may rank below say Bivins or Burley, would not neccessarily be disqualified for me. Theres no denying that the Cocoa Kid got the better of him in their series but he was really the only fighter to do so out of a whole host of top fighters that Williams faced consistently. I would tend to view Williams as alot closer to someone like Frazier than Ellis largely because he was in a much tougher competition level. The likes of Moore, Marshall, Burley, Booker and so on would be far stiffer competition than Bonevena, Patterson, Quarry etc. Especially when you consider Marshall and Moore were really light heavies and Williams was not much more than a blown welterweight.

I suppose part of the reason that it rankles me is that things were so much more difficult for these fighters back then. Few if any opportunities, often fighting above their natural weight, an extraordinary tough competition field, having to fight very other week (in some cases not fully fit) as well as dealing with a boxing political culture seemingly hellbent on keeping them down and a society not particulalry sympatetic towards them. Its very hard not to bear this in mind and make allowances. Especially if you contrast somebody like Tszyu getting in on the back of a handful of decent wins (none outstanding for me) and with all the luxuries associated with a 17 division and 4 belt system whereby opportunites are plentiful and one can pick and choose what belt and what division one wants to compete in. It just seems dreadfully lopsided and I am convinced Williams is the better fighter overall. I understand one can point to dominance or titles in which Tszyu can boast more success but I have to say I think Williams boasts a much superior record outside these concepts of dominance and titles. Williams never got to fight for titles much less have his pick from umpteen and existed in a competition field across nearly three weights that I think its almost impossible to expect one individual to dominate given how regularly Williams fought. I think only really Ezzard Charles can have any sort of claim to dominate that era.

I think you make a fine argument against Williams inclusion and the points you make are more than valid, but I just feel that Williams was an elite fighter existing in remarkeably tough circumstances which for me allows a greater measure of sympathy I suppose. The amount of quality in his win column gives a strong indication of his talent and for me goes along way to compensating for thing like lack of dominance (which I would consider all but impossible in the circumstances) or lack of titles (again next to impossible in the circumstances). But I appreciate if these elements are prioritised, along with Williams record against the Cocao Kid then one would consider him short. But would point to instances like Charles not holding the light heavyweight title or Moore failing to dominate the murderers row era to highlight that circumstances can provide valid reasons as to failures in this regard.

I would also add that Tiger last week was given the nod by many (myself included) but had a record that included,

0-2 v Griffith
0-1 v Archer
0-1 v Foster
2 - 2 v Giardello

as well as an enormously patchy record outside that. I would also say that he lacked real dominance and longetivity insofar as the title was traded arounded alot in that decade between the likes of Giardello, Benvenuti, Griffith and Tiger. However the feeling was that he had enough good wins as well as acheivements in two weight classes which made up for the failings elsewhere.

With Williams I see a similar sort of thing. He may have losses, he may lack dominance, but I think he has enough quality wins and talent overall to make up for what he lacks elsewhere.

Oh sod it, you've talked me round Lion, can I change my vote for Williams to a yes Captain. Really may have to put lion on my foes list, he just confuses me.

It's going to be fun running through this week's debate and tabulating precisely who has voted for which fighter, Jeff! Of course you can change your vote; it's precisely the kind of thing that we are encouraging. There should be neither sacred cows nor any preconceptions so set in stone that they can't be changed by an excellent argument, backed up by well-marshalled facts.

At this stage, let me say that the final spot in our last week of assessing the moderns (the week after next, in fact) would appear to rest between Michael Nunn and Cocoa Kid, just running through people's opinions up to now. As I said earlier, we don't absolutely have to consider a fifth boxer, but if we are missing out by not considering a particular fighter's claims, I would like to do it.

Sorry Captain blame Lion, but I do suspect if he put his mind to it he could persuade me Robinson did not deserve his place.

captain carrantuohil wrote:It's going to be fun running through this week's debate and tabulating precisely who has voted for which fighter, Jeff! Of course you can change your vote; it's precisely the kind of thing that we are encouraging. There should be neither sacred cows nor any pre-conceptions so set in stone that they can't be changed by an excellent argument, backed up by well-marshalled facts.

At this stage, let me say that the final spot in our last week of assessing the moderns (the week after next, in fact) would appear to rest between Michael Nunn and Cocoa Kid, just running through people's opinions up to now. As I said earlier, we don't absolutely have to consider a fifth boxer, but if we are missing out by not considering a particular fighter's claims, I would like to do it.

Tommy Hearns has been retired over 5 years!

There are good arguments on both sides.

But I think things like dominance or even being able to set yourself apart from the general competition have to count for something. Is a strong win column alone enough for inclusion when you dont have any of the above?

Im happy to ignore the lack of titles as being irrelevant in the circumstances but asuming he did have ample title shots, can we really say he would have won? On the basis of his record I dont think he was garaunteed to.

Plus the flipside of the great win coulmn is the loss column, which is also reasonably large and for every top guy he beat there seems to be a top guy he lost to or a split series.

It becomes a little tricky when you start trying to compensate for weak or strong era's I think because you can apply that to any fighter really. Benitez may well have dominated other welterweight eras, Frazier and Liston other heavyweight eras and so on so sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time hurts you and once can argue that just the way the cookie crumbles.

When you fight so regularly against such stiff competition I think you have to look at the overall win/loss ratio rather than simply the big wins. For me Williams appears to be a little short in this regard.

I appreciate all the arguments for Williams and think they are valid and I actually have a great deal of sympathy with them but overall I just dont think his win ratio at the highest level is big enough in terms of big wins v big losses and a strong win column alone is not enough for a spot. Would be more than happy to see him the existing Hall but for an elite Hall designed to be exclusive I think Williams falls just short of the more elite requirements. But to be honest I would not complain if others feel he merits a place.

Hearns was voted in to our Hall in week 8, Scott. Always ahead of the game, that's us!

Colonial Lion wrote:I would also add that Tiger last week was given the nod by many (myself included) but had a record that included,

0-2 v Griffith
0-1 v Archer
0-1 v Foster
2 - 2 v Giardello

as well as an enormously patchy record outside that. I would also say that he lacked real dominance and longetivity insofar as the title was traded arounded alot in that decade between the likes of Giardello, Benvenuti, Griffith and Tiger. However the feeling was that he had enough good wins as well as acheivements in two weight classes which made up for the failings elsewhere.

With Williams I see a similar sort of thing. He may have losses, he may lack dominance, but I think he has enough quality wins and talent overall to make up for what he lacks elsewhere.

I didnt vote for Tiger but I think its an interesting comparison. Williams I would agree has more quality wins and probably better consistency - I still think Tigers near 30 years of averageness really counts against him. But Tiger was at various points able to call himself the best at his weight in the world. This has to count for something. Were Williams akin to Charles and the best in world at his weight in all but name then thats one thing but Im not sure he can lay that claim given he failed to really propel himself ahead of his main rivals and in the case of Cocoa Kid has an obvious bogey man.

manos de piedra wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:I would also add that Tiger last week was given the nod by many (myself included) but had a record that included,

0-2 v Griffith
0-1 v Archer
0-1 v Foster
2 - 2 v Giardello

as well as an enormously patchy record outside that. I would also say that he lacked real dominance and longetivity insofar as the title was traded arounded alot in that decade between the likes of Giardello, Benvenuti, Griffith and Tiger. However the feeling was that he had enough good wins as well as acheivements in two weight classes which made up for the failings elsewhere.

With Williams I see a similar sort of thing. He may have losses, he may lack dominance, but I think he has enough quality wins and talent overall to make up for what he lacks elsewhere.

I didnt vote for Tiger but I think its an interesting comparison. Williams I would agree has more quality wins and probably better consistency - I still think Tigers near 30 years of averageness really counts against him. But Tiger was at various points able to call himself the best at his weight in the world. This has to count for something. Were Williams akin to Charles and the best in world at his weight in all but name then thats one thing but Im not sure he can lay that claim given he failed to really propel himself ahead of his main rivals and in the case of Cocoa Kid has an obvious bogey man.

I would certainly agree that being able to call yourself the best does count for something but how does one measure if the opportunities are not given?

I would also add that Williams won the then negro versions of the lightweight and middleweight titles and possibly the welterweight too although I cant quite remember. In the circumstances these were prestigous titles to hold. The fact he beat Burley for the coloured middleweight title I would say say gives him at least an argument as to being the best in the world at that time, especially as the world holder Zale was a fighter I consider to be inferior to Burley and the world title was then undefended for several years due to World War II.

However on principal I would agree that given the competition of the era and the record Williams had against that competition we can pretty much rule him out as being a long reigning or dominant champ. I do think he was more than capable of winning the title though on a given day as wins over Burley and Moore would indicate.

Colonial, just one query to clear up. Did you finish by voting in favour of Tyson or against him? I can't seem to find a clear yes or no on that one.

Ah, apologies, I forgot I had neglected Tyson.

Was going to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments laid out by John Bloody Wayne regarding Tyson but when push comes to shove I think I am with the majority in saying that the Hall just wouldnt seem right without Tyson in it.

I think by the strictest of in ring acheivements only Tyson would quite probably fall short for me, especially if one offers little margin for his modest second coming. However if one is prepared to offer a little more leniancy and judge him primarily on his 3/4 peak years and consider his transcending status then I bellive he can be justified as an inclusion. So overall I am yes for Tyson despite acknowledging his somewhat unique case.

Curse democracy! Although I don't agree with the inclusion, I can see Tyson is a unique case and the one thing everyone can agree on is that he will polarise opinion. Boxing forums would be awful quiet without him, that's for sure.

John I never voted him either I think we may have been the only ones. I sort of dug my own grave when I said no to Aaron Pryor. I'm starting to think I set the bar to high.

I'm sure you won't be held to that standard forever, but that is a heck of a high level to say no to. Ever had a bad experience with a Hawk?

Haha no. It was based on the lack of big names at there peak on his record. I would say that I've probably changed my mind now.

Colonial Lion's post confirms the place of Mike Tyson among our Hall of Fame. A great week's debate was highlighted by particular discussion over the credentials of Holman Williams and Kostya Tszyu. Ultimately, both fell short of the required threshold, Williams scoring 25% and Tszyu around 42%. Both therefore join the voteless Jersey Joe Walcott and Randolph Turpin on the sidelines.

The penultimate week of our deliberations on the modern era of boxing begins with Ike Williams. Renowned for his brutal punching and his Mob-connected management, Williams' talent became quickly apparent. After a few learning losses, he racked up a 34-fight win streak that was abruptly terminated by his fellow rising lightweight star Bob Montgomery. Williams persevered, scoring two decision wins over Sammy Angott and beating future welterweight titlist Johnny Bratton, before winning the New York State version of the 135lb world title against Juan Zurita. Although he would subsequently get stopped by Angott and drop a couple of non-title decisions, Williams was the dominant lightweight force when it mattered for the next six years. He unified the crown by stopping Montgomery, knocked out Beau Jack in a defence and even found the time to beat Bratton twice more and take one fight out of three in a closely contested series against welterweight great Kid Gavilan. Williams lost his title to Jimmy Carter in 1951 and continued to win and lose his share for another four years, finally bowing out in 1955 with a KO of Beau Jack.

Albert "Chalky" Wright took the hard road to the top of the featherweight tree. His punching power was too much for all but the very best for many years and enabled him to put on good showings in decision losses to Freddie Miller, Babe Arizmendi and the much heavier Cocoa Kid. However it was not until 1940, 12 years after turning pro, that Wright put together a sequence of 15 straight wins that propelled him to a shot at Joey Archibald's New York State world featherweight title. In his 139th fight, Wright prevailed by 11th round stoppage and he defended successfully twice. However, in his third defence, the genius of Willie Pep was too much for him, and Wright was finished at the top level, although he boxed on until 1948.

Tony Zale came from the hard proving ground of the steel mills of Gary, Indiana. His fighting style embodied the blue-collar ethic as well, and his road to the top of the middleweight tree was initially marked by a series of losses. Eventually, his record improved, and by 1940, a non-title victory over New York State world champion Al Hostak made a rematch with the title on the line inevitable. Zale won in the 13th, dropped a non-title fight to Billy Soose, but beat Fred Apostoli and, in defence of his crown, Hostak again, before becoming undisputed middleweight champion against Georgie Abrams. He was then outpointed by light-heavyweight great Billy Conn, before war was to intervene. Four years later, Zale was back, beginning the three-fight series for which he is best known. He won, lost and finally won a thrilling rubber match against Rocky Graziano, with each fight a war ending inside the distance. Just three months later, Zale was battered into retirement by France's hero Marcel Cerdan.

Daniel Zaragoza was another to take the slow-burning route to boxing success. Initially a bantamweight, he won the Mexican title, but lost an attempt at the NABF crown, before losing to Miguel Lora in his first shot at world honours. In his next fight, his first at super-bantam, Zaragoza was widely outpointed by Jeff Fenech, before beating men such as Mike Ayala and landing a shot at the vacant WBC title against ageing former bantam great Carlos Zarate. To some surprise, Zaragoza won by 10th round stoppage and made five successful defences before losing the crown to former victim Paul Banke. A year later, Zaragoza was back, winning the same title against new champion Kiyoshi Hatanaka and this time making two successful defences before losing to Thierry Jacob. A further two unsuccessful attempts to regain the title from Tracy Harris Patterson followed, but Zaragoza was not for giving up. After a disputed draw in yet another shot at the WBC 122 lb title, Zaragoza finally won the title once again in a rematch against Hector Acero Sanchez. Four more successful defences followed, including one against Wayne McCullough, before Zaragoza was finally shown the door marked "retirement" by a new star in Erik Morales.

Carlos Zarate is acknowledged as one of the hardest hitters at any weight in boxing history. Apparently born to knock people out, his reign of terror over Mexican bantamweights propelled him to a WBC title shot against Rodolfo Martinez in 1976, at which point, he was undefeated in 40 fights, with 39 of his victories coming inside the distance. Martinez would also fall by the short route, and Zarate defended three times via KO before his crowning glory. Although Alfonso Zamora was stripped of his WBA title just before they fought, Zarate knew that the fight was for bragging rights among the world's bantamweights and more importantly, among the Mexican fraternity. Zamora had won all his fights by KO, but on the night, was no match for Zarate, who triumphed in brutal style after four rounds of mayhem. A further five successful defences by KO led Zarate to try his luck at the WBC super-bantamweight title held by the great Wilfredo Gomez. A great bigger man beat a great smaller one, as Zarate tasted defeat for the first time, in five rounds. One more successful defence of his bantamweight title was left to Zarate before he lost his crown to Lupe Pintor in what is commonly cited as one of the worst decisions ever scored in a professional fight. Disgusted, Zarate retired immediately, only to launch a comeback at super-bantamweight some seven years later. Clearly past his best, Zarate still won a dozen straight fights before losing by technical decision to Jeff Fenech in a challenge for the Australian's WBC title. An immediate challenge for the same title, vacant after Fenech moved up in weight, was to be Zarate's last hurrah, as he was stopped in 10 by fellow Mexican Daniel Zaragoza.

prettyboykev wrote:John I never voted him either I think we may have been the only ones. I sort of dug my own grave when I said no to Aaron Pryor. I'm starting to think I set the bar to high.

you mean about 5 foot 6 kev ?

prettyboykev wrote:John I never voted him either I think we may have been the only ones. I sort of dug my own grave when I said no to Aaron Pryor. I'm starting to think I set the bar to high.

you mean about 5 foot 6 kev ?

milkyboy wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:John I never voted him either I think we may have been the only ones. I sort of dug my own grave when I said no to Aaron Pryor. I'm starting to think I set the bar to high.

you mean about 5 foot 6 kev ?

Haha good one mate.

I'm going to say no to all but Zarate this week, captain.

For me, they just had too many losses against opponents in whom they had no business doing so, and that seals their fate as far as I am concered.

Zarate however is a different matter entirely, completely dominating his division and in emphatic fashion, too. He also held an absolutely incredible KO record, showing that he didn't just scrape by his opponents - he finished them in style.

zale, wright zaragoza clear NO's for me

zarate YES,

for the second week running it could be a williams who's contentious. Any guy who can give weight to kid gavilan and push him that hard can clearly fight. Fists has a point though, there are plenty of losses on there. CL will no doubt make a compelling case about the quality of the win column. Most of the defeats were early or late and there was a clear period where he was the dominant man at lightweight. Given that dominance and the quality of the opposition, he's a YES for me.

Evening captain.

It seems as if I'll be in the minority here, but I have Williams pegged as an absolute must for our Hall. I can honestly only think of three men who I'd definitely have ahead of him in the hunt for all-time Lightweight supremacy; Duran, Benny Leonard and Whitaker, with Joe Gans debatable. To me, anyone who commands such a high place in the pantheon of greats from one of the original weight classes defines what 'elite' is, and deserves to be honoured accordingly. I'll take the point that there are a couple of surprising and disappointing losses on his record - however, top wins (crucially when it mattered most, as the captain alluded to) were far more plentiful, and to me there will always be a stench of uncertainty with regards to the legitimacy of some of those losses, given William's known ties to the Mob and link with Palermo. Williams gets a strong yes from me.

Wright is similarly an easy one to decide on, however it's a huge no this time. Of course, we all know that the era he competed in was an incredibly strong one for the Featherweight class - but it's precisely those kind of eras a fighter needs to thrive in to earn a place in a Hall of Fame as exclusive as this one. A straightforward thumbs down.

Zale is a little more tricky, and much of me feels that his career was never given a fair crack of the whip given how WWII robbed us of what would probably have been his best years. The immortal trilogy with Graziano was, of course, his crowning glory; however, I have to match that with the fact that I'd never even dream of giving Graziano a place here, and as such I think Zale is a little too light on great wins (and long-term dominance, for that matter) for any serious consideration here. Another no.

Zaragoza falls comfortably by the wayside, too. I'm always quick to praise fighters who keep at it when others would be deterred, but Super-Bantamweight was hardly brimming with quality throughout Zaragoza's peak years. Zarate (who was certainly removed from his glorious peak) aside, the best names he faced proved too good for him the majority of the time, and I'm not sure he even achieved real greantess in his own time, never mind all-time. Another big no.

But to finish, we have a huge yes case in Zarate. Simply impossible to rank him outside the top five all-time at 118 lb, for my money, and while we're all aware of his absolutely incredible knockout record, let's remind ourselves of his four defeats - one was a bitterly disputed verdict which cost him his title against a man who was a brilliant Bantamweight in his own right (and for what it's worth, I think Zarate edged Pintor by two or three points in that one), and the others were in bids for the 122 lb title, all against fighters amongst the very best at that weight and one of them right at the tail end of his career, and after a retirement, to boot. He was the model of consistency and, at Bantamweight, just about as close as anyone has come to perfection since Jofre. A big, big yes to finish.

So it's Williams and Zarate who make it, for me. No such luck for Wright, Zale and Zaragoza.

Absolutely no doubt for me that Williams deserves our nod. Arguably a top 5 lightweight and clearly the man at the weight for six years, in an era that featured men as good as Angott, Jack and Montgomery. Good enough to beat good and great welterweights, and it's only really the Mob connections that make me think twice about disputing Ike's credentials. The good easily outweighs the bad, in Ike's case, and for me, he is a YES.

Wright and Zaragoza both belong in a "Why are they in Canastota?" category, along with folk like Johansson and McGuigan. Wright simply never beat anyone from the very first rank of featherweights, although he lost to plenty. Big hitter, but an easy NO. Same applies to Zaragoza (an ancient Zarate doesn't count), who gains marks for longevity, but for little else. Just not enough quality on the winning side of the ledger to be close to a place. NO.

Zale can't be in either. The war may have robbed him of four years, but I'm far from convinced that he would have spent the time giving various fighters of colour the chance at world championship glory that they deserved. The absence of any members of the BMR from his record is an inerasable black mark, in my opinion, and nothing that he did atones for it. Abrams a good win, so too Hostak, but the famous trilogy took place in the twilight of Zale's career against a limited fighter whom he had no business losing to at all. The record is light on quality names and even then, is spattered with losses, so it's another easy NO.

Zarate, as everyone has already said, is an easy YES. One of Mexico's unsung heroes, perhaps, he was absolutely dominant at bantamweight in a way that the much more popular Olivares could only dream of. Only "beaten" at the weight by Pintor, and there, I think Chris far understates matters when he gives the verdict to Zarate by two or three rounds. Zarate won it by a street, in my view; for me, it remains the worst professional verdict ever handed down, alongside Ramirez-Whitaker I. Great fighter, frightening hitter, has to be in.

Im surprised to see many voting against Ike Williams inclusion. For me hes an absolute certainty and one of the finest ever lightweights. I rank only Gans, Leonard and Duran above him in one of the finest of all the divisions. I didnt expect to be making a case for him I must admit but his record, especially during his peak years as champion in the mid to late 1940s is incredibly strong boasting wins over Kid Gavilan, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Montgomery, Freddie Dawson, Enrique Bolanos, Jesse Flores and Johnny Bratton amongst others and ruled a remarkeably competitive lightweight division for the best part of 5 years. He beat virtually every quality lightweight that there was between 1945-1950. A genuinely elite fighter with a thunderous right hand and cast iron yes from me.

Chalky Wright was a fine fighter but in my opinion he suffered from the grave misfortune of having his peak years coincide with a certain Willie Pep. I think he gets a little underrated a certainly for a number of years in the early 1940s he put together a very strong showing but just couldnt find a way past Pep and ended up playing second fiddle to him. However in the early to mid 1940s he did manage to notch up many impressive vicotries over nearly all the top contenders in his division and for me was a clear number two in the 1940s until the arrival of Sandy Saddler around the time Wright was fading off. To add a little perspective he did manage wins over very good contenders like Archibald, Bolanos, Terranova, Bartolo, Joyce, Jeffra, Constantino, Lemos and many others who I would consider to be the bulk of the top featherweights of Wrights era outside of Pep. Given Peps status as easily one of the best fighters of all time I am not sure I can hold his one sided series against Wright too heavily in the same way as one could forgive Moores one sided series against Charles or indeed Pep himself against Saddler. I must admit my initial feeling to Wright was a no as my primary association of him was of coming up short against Pep and the notorious indiscipline of his lifestyle but I do feel that may be selling at least three or four years of excellence a bit short as outside Pep I think Wright was a clear number two for half a decade which may contest the idea he failed to really flourish. Were Pep a lesser fighter it may make the decision more straightforward but I find myself on the borderline with him. There are admittadly a few poor losses in there but overall I think its a strong record during his peak years and the question for me is given that I can forgive him his losses against Pep, did he do enough outside that to warrant a place? I had to revisit some other material as I didnt trust my memory and I have to admit I was surprised at how strong his record was allowing for the Pep series. I considered him alongside the likes of Frazier but perhaps where he falls down is that he lacks that genuinely elite level win and his claim is made on the basis of beating a large number of good but perhaps not great fighters during his peak. So with a great reluctance I will say no but it was certainly worth the revisit and my initial reaction was a disservice to Wright I feel and he misses out only by a small margin.

Im much more confidant in saying no to Tony Zale. Much to admire about the fighter but his reign has far too many holes for my liking. As people have probably guessed by now I am a firm supporter of the murderers row fighters which Zale never met. In his defence, he lost as many as four of his best years to the war but his record outside of that is far too shallow and largely built on a thrilling series with Graziano. He falls well short for me and had it not been for the war and the isolation of far too many top fighters of the day he would almost certainly not have been long reigning as a champion.

Zaragoza is another that falls well short of the elite standard for me. Failed to even establish himself in his own era really with several very poor losses and few meaningful wins. Certainly not elite.

I think Zarate is worthy of a place. One of the most devastating hitters in the business pound for pound. However I do think he was a quality fighter that existed in a fairly weak division and somewhat like Tysons first incarnation, for all his devastation he doesnt really have what I consider an elite level win. The Gomez fight has always troubled me as for some reason both fighters were struggling to make the weight for it and Zarate appeared to have overcooked himself for the fight despite the higher limit so its always remained something of an uncertainty. The Pintor fight was a woefully unsatisfying verdict that Zarate deserved by at least three rounds. But all things considered Ive always found Zarates actual title reign to be reasonably dominant but largely over a weak field and lacking real quality wins rather like the likes of the similarly devastating Galaxy.

So in summary:

Williams - yes
Wright - no
Zale - no
Zaragoza - no
Zarate - yes

Got to say I am very much with Chris and Colonial on Williams, as this process moves on I am very much trying to look at fighters at there best, particularly for the old timers because seems a given when a fighter fights 15 or more times a year there will be the odd poor loss in there and as others have said at his best Williams has enough on the ledger to forgive a poor losses and wins over the likes of Montgomery, Jack and Angott are enough for me to say yes.

Am a big Zale fan but struggle to include him as truly elite so is a reluctant but definte yes, as is Zaragosa who falls a way short. As always the Lion makes a compelling argument to doubt my no for Wright but as I said with Buchanan all that time ago some fighters are truly unlucky to run into the true greats and feel as I said no to Ken on these grounds must do likewise for Wright.

As others have said Zarate is one of the finest the bantam division has seen and whilst I take questions about his era on board he did pretty much all you could ask with what he had around him and for me he is a yes.

No boat rocking from me

Williams YES
Zaragosa NO
Zale - NO
Wright NO
Zarate YES

rowley wrote:
Williams YES
Zaragosa NO
Zale - NO
Wright NO
Zarate YES

That's me too.

Looking forward to next week when I have to make the case for Naz, suspect I may be fighting something of a rearguard action but will give it a go

I'll try and help you out where I can, Jeff.

Colonial, as always you make a fine job of virtually constructing a watertight argument for the inclusion of a particular fighter, but I believe that with Wright, it really is a bridge too far.

Let's leave Pep out of the argument - as you say, there's no arguing with genius. Let's even leave aside a drubbing at the hands of Henry Armstrong, which is perfectly understandable in 1938. Wright is taken to school by Newsboy Brown as a 20-year old, is handily beaten a year later by a Freddie Miller contesting his final bout, and over the next three years is KOd and outpointed by Babe Arizmendi, while easily disposing of lesser names. By 1940, notwithstanding a fine performance in defeat against Cocoa Kid, he still hasn't really troubled an opponent with elite pretensions. His route to the NYSC title doesn't take in men like Sarron; instead it's wins over men of the second tier, such as Bartolo (a highly contentious decision, what's more) and Terranova which allow him the shot at Archibald (again, not one of the outstanding featherweight champions of the era).

The period 1941-43 sees Wright at his best, I guess, beating Costantino twice, Terranova and Lemos, but surely these are gate-keepers at best (just noted that Terranova and Lemos briefly held portions of the world title, but the point still stands to a degree)? He only takes on Pep for the first time in 1942, by which time, his prime is almost gone. By the period 43-45, Wright is winning and losing against Joyce and Bolanos, so he's still a contender, but no more than that. He is beaten by Pep again and again and by 1946, the slide has begun in earnest.

I can't see Wright's peak as anything but too short, nor his best victims as anything other than too light in elite quality to see how he even approaches a Hall of Fame, I have to say. If we look at a man such as Benny Briscoe, whose peak years unfortunately coincided with men such as Monzon, Valdez and Hagler, I think we can make a fair comparison. Clearly world-class, with good victims on his record, a long career and an honourable one. A day's march from the creme de la creme, though.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Colonial, as always you make a fine job of virtually constructing a watertight argument for the inclusion of a particular fighter, but I believe that with Wright, it really is a bridge too far.

He did say no to Wright.

Thanks, Scott, I can read. I was slightly questioning the closeness of the no, that's all. Feel free to nit-pick at anything else I've written.

I was just clearing it up, there's no need for the attitude.

You have a habit of interjecting with one-sentence gunshots aimed at "clearing things up", that can be quite annoying when one has gone to the trouble of writing something of some length. A similar case in point was your suggestion that we use Thomas Hearns as the fifth fighter next week, without bothering to check that we had already covered him in some depth.

It's not meant to be "attitude" as such, but you do sometimes provoke the question "Where were you when the paper was blank?"

Your post was out of order, not mine. Your post gave the impression that you thought he voted him in. I've never took 'gunshots' at you, no idea why you reacted like that. You're really having a go at me for not reading every post in a 600 post thread?

My use of the word "virtually" indicates that I did no such thing. Your failure to spot it indicates that so far from wading through six hundred posts, you didn't take the trouble to read a single post properly. My post was therefore not "out of order" in any way. Nor was yours; it was just annoying.

Williams is a nailed on certainty, for me, and pretty much for the reasons offered by Chris. I'd quibble about the lightweight pecking order ( I'd have Gans ahead of Williams, ) but that is a matter of opinion and irrelevant to this discussion. The important point is that few would omit him from their top six or so lightweights, and to accomplish that in so rich a division simply screams class.

Zarate is an equally emphatic ' yes ' for me.

I've said, countless times, that Carmen Basilio is one of my all time favourites. Tony Zale reminds me of Basilio in many ways, but there are differences. Having had an arduous climb to the top, Zale never quite cemented his supremacy and, unlike Basilio, who had competed against genuine all time greats such as Gavilan, Fullmer and Robinson, Zale probably should have. No disrespect to Graziano, who was a tough night's work for most, but I can't help but think that a genuinely elite fighter might have despatched him with more authority. Couple this to the brevity of his stay atop the division - albeit that WWII conspired to rob him - and he falls short, in my opinion.

Zale, then, is a ' no.'

Nothing will persuade me that Zaragosa belongs among the elite, and while Colonial Lion's customarily thorough analysis made me stop and think longer than I might otherwise have done, I'm equally confident in saying ' no ' to Wright.

In summary, then :

Williams and Zarate - Yes.

Zaragosa, Zale and Wright - No.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Colonial, as always you make a fine job of virtually constructing a watertight argument for the inclusion of a particular fighter, but I believe that with Wright, it really is a bridge too far.

Let's leave Pep out of the argument - as you say, there's no arguing with genius. Let's even leave aside a drubbing at the hands of Henry Armstrong, which is perfectly understandable in 1938. Wright is taken to school by Newsboy Brown as a 20-year old, is handily beaten a year later by a Freddie Miller contesting his final bout, and over the next three years is KOd and outpointed by Babe Arizmendi, while easily disposing of lesser names. By 1940, notwithstanding a fine performance in defeat against Cocoa Kid, he still hasn't really troubled an opponent with elite pretensions. His route to the NYSC title doesn't take in men like Sarron; instead it's wins over men of the second tier, such as Bartolo (a highly contentious decision, what's more) and Terranova which allow him the shot at Archibald (again, not one of the outstanding featherweight champions of the era).

The period 1941-43 sees Wright at his best, I guess, beating Costantino twice, Terranova and Lemos, but surely these are gate-keepers at best (just noted that Terranova and Lemos briefly held portions of the world title, but the point still stands to a degree)? He only takes on Pep for the first time in 1942, by which time, his prime is almost gone. By the period 43-45, Wright is winning and losing against Joyce and Bolanos, so he's still a contender, but no more than that. He is beaten by Pep again and again and by 1946, the slide has begun in earnest.

I can't see Wright's peak as anything but too short, nor his best victims as anything other than too light in elite quality to see how he even approaches a Hall of Fame, I have to say. If we look at a man such as Benny Briscoe, whose peak years unfortunately coincided with men such as Monzon, Valdez and Hagler, I think we can make a fair comparison. Clearly world-class, with good victims on his record, a long career and an honourable one. A day's march from the creme de la creme, though.

I think it depends on what approach you take with Wright. Certainly I would not consider him an elite fighter by any means prior to the 1940s. But much like Tiger, for example, I still think hes a late bloomer and also takes time to really knuckle down. His discipline and commitment were often called into question and for large periods he was little more than unrealised potential (the odd glimpses against the likes of Leto and Cocoa Kid where he performed credibly despite being much the smaller man) but I do think thats it really only as one moves into the 1940s that Wrights career really takes off.

I would say Freddie Miller still had plenty left in the tank when he met a then very young Wright. He would go on to defend his world title for another few years after Wright so was still very much part of the scene. Wrights career really only got going in terms of being a world contender around the 1940 mark which was a few years too late really to meet somebody like Sarron who only held the title briefly. I would have to consider 1940-45 as really the period of Wright at his best. Before and after I think there is little argument that he is not really a serious player in the division due to be very inconsistent.

But the period in which he begins to do his best work is dominated by Pep and the featherweight division is really a closed shop during those years which sees Pep as near unbeatable until the arrival of Saddler in the late end of the 1940s, by which point Wright is all but gone. However Pep aside, Wright does make a good job of being the best of the rest for a few years in whats a strong division and I would consider opponents such as Terranova, Bartola and Joyce as genuinely top level opponents. Would need to double check but if I remember correctly Terranova may have beaten Saddler and Joyce was something of a bogeyman for the aforementioned Ike Williams. With regards the title shots I would say in Wrights defence that he worked his way back into contention several times but his consistent failure to beat Pep meant that opportunities soon dried up and he had to be content to play second fiddle. As I said above though, for several years I think he established himself as the number 2 man in the division which considering he had a peak Pep to contend with is still a good acheivement.

Ultimately though I am in agreement with you in terms of the counter argument. As I said above, what makes the difference is that he lacks any real elite wins during his best years but compiled a list of very good wins. Men like Lemos, Constantino, Jeffra, Teranova, Bartolo provide a solid foundation but not enough to justify elite status. And when you combine that with only 4/5 top level years out of a near 20 year career and large periods of inconsistency then Im inclined to vote a no. However he was a fighter tht I needed to revisit as when I first saw him I was a little dismissive, remembering him primarily for losing to Pep and being notoriously wasteful with his talent. But after a second look I was surprised to see that he wasnt as far off as I initially thought. Unfortunately a combiantion of Pep and his own lack of application meant he probably never got to realise the best part of his potential.