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]

Thanks so much for that, CL. I don't know why I thought that Miller was in his dotage when Wright fought him. I shall blame advancing age and premature idiocy once again!

It strikes me that there were a number of featherweights who came into the argument in the 40s, before Pep arrived to clean them up -Terranova, Jeffra, Bartolo, Joyce, Wright, Lemos, Callura and Wilson. Each took turns drubbing the others and often had one particularly strong victim on his card. It's Wright's deficiency in this regard - he seemed to beat those whom he was supposed to and lose to those to whom he should, as well - that seems to me to tell most against him. Certainly a strong second tier man - to be compared with someone like Bobby Chacon from a later era, perhaps?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Thanks so much for that, CL. I don't know why I thought that Miller was in his dotage when Wright fought him. I shall blame advancing age and premature idiocy once again!

It strikes me that there were a number of featherweights who came into the argument in the 40s, before Pep arrived to clean them up -Terranova, Jeffra, Bartolo, Joyce, Wright, Lemos, Callura and Wilson. Each took turns drubbing the others and often had one particularly strong victim on his card. It's Wright's deficiency in this regard - he seemed to beat those whom he was supposed to and lose to those to whom he should, as well - that seems to me to tell most against him. Certainly a strong second tier man - to be compared with someone like Bobby Chacon from a later era, perhaps?

Hes a very interesting character but unfortunately most of the material I have on him comes from snippets mainly about other fighters or the featherweight era in general with few ever really focusing on him in depth. The impressions given of him would appear to be something of a John Conteh or Kirkland Laing type character who was blessed with wonderful talent but lacked the dedication at various points in his career to bring him to the very top for a consistent period and arguably capable of so much more. Thats not to say of course he would ever have bested Pep in the circumstances but it does appear to be the blame for his rather slow rise and inconsistency throughout his early and mid career.

Most material I have read seems to emphasise his colourful lifestyle outside the ring where he was known to spend extragavantly and occasionally would stay up all night drinking and smoking cigars before a fight the next day. Apparently he was a chaffeur for Mae West and it was through her backing and influence that he got his title shot in the first place at a time when fewer black fighters were being afforded the opportunity. Not sure how true it is but apparently it was Mae West herself that used her finance and status to get Wright his shot at the ageing Joey Archibald.

You really live and learn. Mae West! Extraordinary; somehow his remarkable lifestyle seems to commend Wright to me all the more as a person. Perhaps we should call him something of an over-achiever after all.

Clear Yes for Williams and Zarate.

Clear No for Zaragoza, Wright and Zale.

Williams and Zarate make it in for me too, with Zaragoza, Wright and Zale missing out.

A quick point on the questioning of the overall quality of the opposition Zarate fought, even though it was perhaps more good than great, his utter dominance surely outweighs this? I realise it was hardly a forceful argument from anyone as Zarate is sailing in but I thought I'd throw that in there anyway!

As to the others, Williams a top 5 lightweight is an easy yes, as are the others easy nos, despite CL coming close to charming the board again in regard to Wright!

I'm with the concensus this week.

Williams and Zarate YES

Zaragoza, Zale and Wright NO

Zarate in - Straight, accurate, powerful. Williams easy in.

Zaragoza no, Zale No, Wright -no

Last week's story is soon told. Carlos Zarate and Ike Williams were overwhelmingly elected to the 606 Hall of Fame, while Chalky Wright, Tony Zale and Daniel Zaragoza were equally decisively rejected. So we come to the last week of our look at the great modern fighters, and this week, the drill is a little different. For a start, there will be only four fighters up for consideration - a fifth just didn't receive sufficient backing. Secondly, I shall be away on holiday for a week from next Sunday. This means that I will be doing the round-up for this week's four candidates on Sunday morning, prior to my departure. We will then have a week's hiatus until my return from vacation on Sunday October 30th, at which point we shall re-commence battle with Week 1 of the old-timers, who will appear on the main thread in the usual way. All clear?

Splendid, so our final week of modern analysis begins with Fritzie Zivic, renowned among many as boxing's dirtiest ever fighter. He could box a bit too, mind you. Zivic was a member of the welterweight top 10 within five years of turning pro, beating men such as Eddie Booker and winning and losing against Charley Burley, before a victory over the awkward Sammy Angott gave him a shot at the world title held by the great Henry Armstrong. To universal surprise, Zivic took the title in a foul-filled bout and repeated the trick in the rematch, this time by TKO. The following year, Zivic lost his title to Freddie Cochrane, but he continued to camapaign in the highest class for more than five years, coming out on the short end of a series of fights with Robinson, LaMotta, Beau Jack and Bob Montgomery, but also scoring his share of important wins against Cochrane, Lew Jenkins, Izzy Jannazzo and Kid Azteca. No more title shots were forthcoming, however, and Zivic finally retired in 1949.

Donald Curry was earmarked for greatness from the moment that he was selected for the 1980 US Olympic boxing team that was destined to miss its appointment in Moscow. As a pro, Curry made his mark quickly, defeating former world title challenger Bruce Finch in just his twelfth fight for the NABF welterweight title. A good win over the respected Marlon Starling gave Curry a shot at the vacant WBA title, which he won by outscoring the tough Korean Jun-Suk Hwang. The next three years would see Curry in full flower, as he defeated men of the calibre of Starling (again) and Colin Jones, before his greatest night, a brutally efficient demolition of Milton McCrory to unify all belts at 147 lbs. Incredibly, Curry was less than a year from a fall from grace. In 1986, he lost his belts in a shocking upset against Lloyd Honeyghan, and less than a year later was knocked out in a try for Mike McCallum's WBA light-middleweight title. Curry would win a belt at 154 against Gianfranco Rosi, but quickly lost it to Rene Jacquot, and further KO losses in title tries against Michael Nunn and Terry Norris emphasised that Curry's time at the top was over.

Turning pro at just 18, Naseem Hamed's lightning reflexes and thunderous punching made him a force to be reckoned with at once. In just his 12th fight, he was winning the European bantamweight crown from the respected Vicenzo Belcastro. He moved up in weight as his frame matured, finally settling at featherweight, where at the age of 21, he became the youngest world belt holder in British boxing history with a masterful dissection of Steve Robinson. Hamed would make himself the number one at the weight over the next six years, beating the holders of all the major belts and overcoming foes as tough as Wilfredo Vazquez, Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Kevin Kelley and Vuyani Bungu. Nemesis eventually arrived in the shape of Marco Antonio Barrera, who outfought and outthought Hamed en route to taking the Yorkshireman's lineal 126lb title. After one more low-key win, Hamed was gone, never officially retiring, but never showing the slightest sign of a return to the stage that he had made his own for almost a decade.

Santos Laciar is mostly remembered in this country for providing Charlie Magri with the most notable scalp of his career. He shouldn't be, because Laciar's achievements at both flyweight and super-flyweight were considerable. Learning his trade in a tough school in Argentina, Laciar worked his way up through the flyweight ranks, dropping the occasional decision to fighters as rugged as Gustavo Ballas. He won the South American title at 112 lbs, and his narrow decision loss to Magri was only a blip on the road to the WBA title, which he won in South Africa from local hero Peter Mathebula. Laciar would immediately lose the crown by hotly contested decision to Luis Ibarra, but was soon knocking on the door again and a year later, regained the crown by 13th round TKO of Juan Herrera, again going into the champion's backyard to do so. This time, Laciar's reign was to endure; he would make nine successful defences over the next three years, travelling widely and beating other former or future champions such as Betulio Gonzalez, Prudencio Cardona and Hilario Zapata. Moving up in weight, Laciar drew in his first shot at Gilberto Roman's WBC super-flyweight title, before becoming a two-weight champion at the second attempt against the same fighter. He would lose the crown immediately to Sugar Baby Rojas, as well as a last title try against Roman, before finally retiring after a 14-year career, never having been stopped and with only ten losses in more than 100 fights.

I would vote for Hamed on the list the guy was quality. He had great power and reflexes and was brilliant to watch you never knew what would happen next. He lost to Barerra no hame in that I think he took him likely I also think Barerra was lucky not to be disqualified in that fight. Barrera should be in the hall of fame when he retires tbh i think he should retire now no point fighting on he is too old.

Pretty decisive clean sweep of no's from me this week. Can see arguments for Curry, Laciar and Hamed making the Canastota Hall but I think they fall some way short of an elite Hall.

How do, captain? Promises to be an interesting week of debate what with the slightly different slant on it.

Zivic is a clear 'no' to begin with. While he has become something of a cult phenomenon in boxing over the years, and scored his fair share of notable wins to boot, I think you also have to match that with the considerable defeats he accrued, too, not all of them against stellar opposition - no world champion in history lost more fights than him. I'd say if you asked a dozen boxing fans to give their instant reaction to hearing the name Fritzie Zivic, the majority would blurt out "disrtiest fighter of all time" rather than commenting on his abilities as a fighter, which more or less says it all to me. He can't be in.

As for Curry, well it's a much tougher one. He hinted at the true greatness we expect from our 606v2 Hall of Fame members. But did he quite get there? I'm not sure. As with any fighter who manages it in the days of three or more belts per division, I give him great credit for unifying the 147 lb weight class, and often looking superb in doing so. But how strong was the weight class at that time? Of course, Starling, Jones, McCrory and Stafford represented the best available at the time, but none of them are any great shakes in an all-time Welterweight sense. Even more concerning to me is the way in which Curry surrendered the crown, and while he blames it on weight making to this day, the fact that he wasn't dominant at the higher weights means that it's not a theory I can fully back. His 147 lb days aside, the best fighters he faced continued to have the wood on him, and I think he's slightly too much of a 'what if?' case for me to give him my backing. It's tight, but a no all the same from me.

While many would disagree, I feel that Hamed may actually have a stronger case for inclusion than Curry, though there'd be little in it. I find it odd that so many seem to apply the 'beat nobody, lost to the only decent fighter he faced' line to him; Robinson, Johnson, Vasquez, Bungu, Kelley, Ingle, McCullough, Medina etc represents a far better quality than many Canastota inductees spent their careers feasting on, and as ever the way in which he dealt with these threats should be taken in to account; often in style, rarely with any real crisis moments (Kelley aside) and with an arrogance and panache probably never seen in British boxing before. The defeat to Barrera is, of course, a black mark against him. However, even more of a black mark is the way in which Hamed meekly disappeared from any meaningful side of the sport afterwards, and while the end of his career left a large void in the lower weight classes both sides of the pond, I'm not sure I can forgive him for squandering the potential he no doubt still had. At twenty-eight, he could and perhaps should have bounced back, but instead his final two fights turned out to be the most disappointing ones of his career, and at a time when he should have been at his best. If he wanted to spend more time with his wife and kids, fair enough. But at the same time it simply makes it impossible - at least from where I'm standing - to give him the nod here. A narrow 'no' for my money.

Laciar is a fighter that a lot of people would do well to look in to as he seems to have fallen off the radar, and I salute you for your championing of him here, captain. I think he's another borderline case, and while his ticket in to Canastota should have been secured long ago, I'm not entirely convinced that such an honour translates over to our more exclusive club. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on him, but from the outset his Flyweight career doesn't necessarily impress me any more than that of Chitalada, with whom a unification bout would have been a big boost to Laciar's credentials. Adding a strap at 115 lb edges him ahead of a few of his Flyweight equals in a wider sense, of course, but I don't think he distinguished himself enough as a Super-Flyweight to reverse my initial thought, which was a no. Having watched as much as I can of him, I'm in no doubt that he was a cracking fighter, and of course his record is a highly impressive one. But Zapata aside I'm not sure I see any Hall of Fame wins on his ledger (which you may chalk down to me not being quite as clued up as I should be on the Flyweight division!), and my gut feeling is that he is an all-time very, very good, rather than a true all-time great. Another close no.

So it looks as if I'm assuming the role of Mr. Miserable, this week! All four get a thumbs down from me, though with Curry and Hamed it was a close run thing. Cheers captain.

Pretty busy at the moment captain, and can't add much to what Chris has already so very well explained.

However, I differ slightly in that Hamed, for me, beat a host of high quality fighters, completely dominated his division and despite that disappointing defeat to Barrera (which I think he was capable of revenging, had the mindset been right) and the subsequent wandering off into the sunset, I believe he did enough to warrant a place. As Chris says, it wasn't just the opposition he beat but also the style in which he did it. Add to that the sheer amount of interest that he brought to the 'little men' (I see Hamed as the man that reignited interest in the lower weight divisions) and I think he had an overall effect on the sport worthy of this HOF. Hamed is a yes, for me, and the others get a no, though Curry was a tough choice.

Zivic is a no for me, had better skills than he often gets credit for but as Chris as rightly said he is perhaps better known for his skills in the dark arts and in reality he probably did not deserve his title shot when it come, having been comprehensively beaten two out of three to Burley, with his only win being pretty controversial, suggests his level is a little below what we are looking for here.

Curry is a tough one, whilst others may put forward Hagler, is not stretching things too far to suggest he was regarded as the best fighter in the world for a few years, and whilst wins over the likes of Starling and McCrory are not awe inspiring they are pretty decent and should not be forgotten he often looked brilliant in achieving them, however again as Chris has said the loss to Honeyghan cannot be brushed under the carpet and his form in the higher weight classes was patchy at best. A close call but think I may have to give a no to Don (sorry Truss)

Which brings me to Naseem Hamed, as someone who campaigned fairly vehemently to have him included in this best of the rest section feel obliged to mount the case for the defence. As I argued with Tyson there are some guys for whom their effect on the sport in general cannot be overlooked, would not be over egging the pudding to suggest Naz revitalised the sport in this country and in the lower weight classes, whether you loved him or hated him when Naz fought you watched. Would also say that whilst it is often fashionable to dismiss his level of opposition the likes of Vazquez, Ingle, Soto and Johnson were very much the best the division had to offer and invariably they were dispatched in some style. Whilst his timid loss to Barrera and dull fight with Calvo cannot be easily dismissed would be doing Naz a disservice to suggest he was not in regression as a fighter by this point. Like most I have little time for the “prime” line of thinking but for me for his general impact on the sport and just how dominant he was at his best I am going to give a yes to Naseem.

Laciar is not a guy I am intimately familiar with beyond watching bits and bobs of his fights on youtube in preparation for this vote but based on this and his record I suspect he probably deserves to miss out but I will seek to learn a little more about him this week and whilst I’ll say no now I may revisit this as the counter arguments come in.

It's far from cut and dried for the most part this week, as I guess one would expect. The exception is Zivic; no praise is too high for having Armstrong's number, but the rest of his career is a story of losses against the very best that he faced, as well as the absence from his record of a few fighters who should be there. Always competitive in his prime, but that's miles away from sufficient here. An easy NO.

So to the other three, and there are some similarities between all of them. Roughly the same length of time (around three years) of being generally accepted as the best in their weight, each with their share of really good victims. To Curry first, then, and as Chris says, the wins over Starling, Jones and McCrory are the real eye-catchers, but I just don't feel that it's enough. He may have briefly been regarded as the best fighter in the world, but at most, this was for a period of a few months, and it's just not enough, certainly when set against the four years that followed September 1986. Weight problems might have accounted for the Honeyghan loss, but he was decisively parted from his senses by McCallum and there is no possible excuse for capitulating to Jacquot. Potentially, he was special, but overall, Curry must be a NO.

Perhaps Hamed's credentials are very slightly better than Curry's. After all, his list of distinguished victims is arguably deeper than Curry's, he also beat all the belt-holders of the day, and reigned as the best at his weight for very slightly longer than the Don. However, the ending of his career, both in the clarity of his defeat to Barrera, and in his unwillingness to do anything to rectify it, leaves far too many questions for comfort. He could have been the UK's greatest, of that I am sure, but it is largely his own fault that this did not happen. He is not short of the Hall by far, but it is enough. NO.

I tend to think that Laciar has possibly the best case of all of this week's candidates. The losses to Magri and Ibarra may be slightly puzzling, but that second reign at flyweight was a dominant one, featuring the defeat of some excellent fighters, notably Gonzalez and Zapata. A unification battle would have been nice, but was almost impossible, bearing in mind that up to Chitalada, something like nine successive WBC champions (including Magri) lost their title in their first defences. By the time Chitalada broke this cycle, Laciar was on his way up in weight, and his draw and victory over Roman at 115 read extremely well. Obviously, at super-fly, Laciar was reaching the end of his career, with the result that his record is not as impressive as his deeds at 112. One could almost compare Laciar with the great Canto, though, in his dominance over his immediate challengers, and one could also argue that his competition was superior to that of the Mexican. This is close, but I believe that Laciar is just about a top ten all-time flyweight. I think that his record is of elite quality, and consequently, I narrowly vote for his inclusion into our hall. Laciar is a YES.

Dear god, is a rum do when all I have to support me in championing Naseem is Waingro.

And me, mate. You're not alone.

Apologies Fists, missed that. Looks like I'll be creating a couple of aliases this week.

3-2 in favour of Hamed at the moment, I believe. Keep the faith.

Think Truss will do the right thing if I agree to change my vote for Curry.

Im not overly familiar with Laciar, which is to say my knowledge of him is lacking. But looking at his record he comes across as similar to someone like Miguel Cotto only with a patchier early career, who I would guess would not make the cut. Certainly Hamed would look to me to have a far stronger claim than Laciar on paper.

Even aside from the losses he had, his first win over Herrera was due to Herrera pulling out with a shoulder injury apparently, while ahead on the cards. And the return match was also fairly indecisve against a Herrera that seemed pretty much finished.

As I say, I am largely unfamiliar with him and have not seen him fight so my opinion is only really based on his record and opposition but it would seem to me that Hamed has a stronger claim in both title reign and opposition dispatched. Seems a bit harsh to fail Hamed on the grounds of his loss to MAB and subsequent retirement but make allowances for numerous losses suffered by Laciar when I am not convinced his career was any superior overall.

zivic is already buried, but i'll add my resounding nail to his coffin.

Then to two guys who were definitely hall of fame talent...

Curry really did look the complete fighter at welter, reality is, after the honeyghan defeat he flattered to deceive at times but never looked the same fighter. Was it the toll of a long amateur career making him jaded beyond his years as a pro, was it his alleged fondness for recreational drugs, or was he just found out a little? Who knows for sure, but his slide when he should have been prime keeps him a no for me.

Hamed a similar story, probably a slightly stronger case with a marginally better resume. No doubt to me that it was the change of trainer and attitude that became visible in gradually deteriorating performances prior to the barrera defeat. I'm in the camp that thinks he might well have won that fight a few years earlier. The defeat in itself doesn't exclude him.... but the fact that he never attempted to avenge it, for whatever reason, does.

Flyweight is a funny division in terms of dominating fighters and laciar's longevity and long reign is impressve. The captain makes a strong case as usual, but its hard to see a hall of fame fighter losing near his prime to charlie magri among others., .and i'm not totally convinced by the strength of the opposition I think laciar is certainly very close, but not quite there for me.

4 No's.

sorry jeff, still just waingro for company

I think that Laciar scores very highly on longevity, to start with, manos. Over 100 fights over 14 years, and only ten losses in total, so slightly harsh to call them "numerous" at any point! The second point that I would make in his defence, is that Laciar's best wins, over Zapata, Gonzalez and Roman, are a notch above the best of Hamed's career (perhaps Johnson, Kelley, Bungu?), for me. Laciar made the maximum of his ability, and his record is there for all to see, with no unanswered questions. Certainly, I would put him well ahead of Cotto.

Hamed's potential to be in a similar position was obvious, but as I say, the end of his career was an absurd mess. I can't quite row in with Jeff's contention that he was past his best when losing to Barrera. He wasn't as good as he had been, which is slightly different. However, this was more due to the fact that he and his family had convinced themselves that he needn't bother with his sublime boxing skills and could walk through any featherweight with sheer power than any age-related deterioration.

Captain should have phrased it a little better, am by no means arguing Naseem was past his best physically because at 27 he should have been hitting his pomp, was more arguing he was no longer doing the things in either the gym or the ring that made him the fighter he was. Like you have said appears to have fell in love with his own power. However as I have said on more than one occasion with Tyson, if you go into the ring having not done the work in the gym is your own dumb fault and is no excuse when you get the loss you deserve.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I think that Laciar scores very highly on longevity, to start with, manos. Over 100 fights over 14 years, and only ten losses in total, so slightly harsh to call them "numerous" at any point! The second point that I would make in his defence, is that Laciar's best wins, over Zapata, Gonzalez and Roman, are a notch above the best of Hamed's career (perhaps Johnson, Kelley, Bungu?), for me. Laciar made the maximum of his ability, and his record is there for all to see, with no unanswered questions. Certainly, I would put him well ahead of Cotto.

Hamed's potential to be in a similar position was obvious, but as I say, the end of his career was an absurd mess. I can't quite row in with Jeff's contention that he was past his best when losing to Barrera. He wasn't as good as he had been, which is slightly different. However, this was more due to the fact that he and his family had convinced themselves that he needn't bother with his sublime boxing skills and could walk through any featherweight with sheer power than any age-related deterioration.

I meant numerous losses in relation to Hamed. Probably poorer losses also. As someone said above I cant see Hamed losing to someone like Magri. I would accept Laciar has greater longetivity, but does he have any greater longetivity at the top level where it really matters? They are both similar in that regard for me.

I will end up voting no for Hamed probably but I would probably think more along the lines of rowley that while his career had more potential, I dont think I would go as far as calling it a mess. He beat virtually all the top featherweights for a good 5 year period and eventually came unstuck against a bonafide Hall of Famer for me. The end was disappointing but I dont think it should overshadow the 5/6 years before that where Hamed was essentially an undisputed champion but for boxing politics, vacating and stripped titles. He essentially won every title at various points.

Im probably not qualified enough to compare best wins as Im too unfamiliar with Laciars opposition so I dont honestly know how the likes of wins over Zapata, Herrera, Gonzales, Roman compare with Kelley, Johnson, Vasquez, McCullough, Soto but their respective lenths of reigns are similar and Hamed might take if for me in terms of dominance as all his wins were convincing wide UDs or stoppages whereas Laciars include several SDs or winning on cuts when behind (i know its a legitimate means but when it occurs in the 11th round you would think the ref might let the fight run its course).

Would seem the biggest thing seperating them for you is the fact Hameds career ended somewhat prematurely with an air of unfullfilled potential. I would agree with this but I would also be more inclined to focus on what the actual acheivements were rather than the what might have beens. Take Tyson for example, post his prison term he didnt really acheive a huge amount and if anything just lost to his main rivals. In terms of wasted potential he has to be right up there. Had he retired after his release from prison peope might actually view his record as better than it ended up. Likewise with Hamed he may have gone on to simply lose to MAB again and possibly the other big gunes like Morales, Pacquiao and JMM so I see his career post MAB as capable of going either way. We could just as easily have seen someone who fell a bit short against the really top guys as someone who would go on to acheive even more than he did as it stands now.

Food for thought indeed, manos. Let me just weigh it up for a little longer; it may be that I have been over-generous to Laciar. I don't wish to demean Hamed - that's far from my intention. There's no question that he was the best featherweight in the world for a good three years, and the bulk of his career was very far from messy. I do like Laciar's perseverance, though - it should be remembered that when he lost to Magri, the Briton was regarded as a sure-fire future champion. Although his career was subsequently relatively disppointing, Magri did win a strap and he was utterly dominant in Europe for years. That loss was not a disgrace to Laciar; might even have been a valuable learning experience.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Food for thought indeed, manos. Let me just weigh it up for a little longer; it may be that I have been over-generous to Laciar. I don't wish to demean Hamed - that's far from my intention. There's no question that he was the best featherweight in the world for a good three years, and the bulk of his career was very far from messy. I do like Laciar's perseverance, though - it should be remembered that when he lost to Magri, the Briton was regarded as a sure-fire future champion. Although his career was subsequently relatively disppointing, Magri did win a strap and he was utterly dominant in Europe for years. That loss was not a disgrace to Laciar; might even have been a valuable learning experience.

I would say you know more about Laciar than me so I wouldnt be inclined to review your position on any of my arguments, it just struck me on paper that he didnt appear to have as a big a claim as Hamed, depsite having a more fullfilled career.

I cant find room for either, although I think they should both be in the Canastota hall based on previous benchmarks. Im just not sure the opposition is there to see them in overall, although Im pretty vague on Laciars. None of the names on his list jump out as being elite and the fact he only squeaked by the better ones, coupled with a few losses makes me think he might not have been all that far ahead of the opposition. I tend to be a bit biased against the tiny men also due to a number of reasons.

Both guys seemed to have a reasonable amount of good wins, with solid reigns but just not convinced that overall it pushes them for a place in an elite Hall. Although as has been noted I tend to be on the fussier side. No doubt Colonial Lion or someone will present a lifes work of Laciar proving me wrong.

Fritzie Zivic is a fighter I find extremely interesting, and similarly to Jersey Joe his name is woven into the story of his division and all it's contenders. Although he has victories over a certified ATG in Armstrong, outside of that he has way too many defeats to all manner of foes and few really good wins. NO.

Donald Curry's a strange one for me. He seems to be known as a guy who had the potential but never fulfilled it. Personally I never saw that glimmer of greatness and although he looked good in his best victories - very good - the names were the best around in that era but not in any other. Add in the way he lost and who he lost to. They were decisive losses and not always to greats. NO.

I feel like I should defend Hamed purely because I'm from Sheffield, but i can't find the angle. He existed in an era of Marquez, Morales and Barrera and only one of those fights happened. I've heard over and over again that the fight was closer than they say, and that IF Hamed had come in at top shape he would've won. 2 Things:
1. IF.
2. Barrera was tentative in the firt half of the fight, he figured Hamed out and down the straight he beat him up. It's as decisive a victory as you can get. He outboxed him, outfought, outbullied him. The reasons for fights with other top Mexicans not happening may be numerous, but it shows that his best wins were a step down from the best of the era. NO.

Laciar is the one I find myself really close to saying yes to. He was so active and around for so long, with very few losses to his many wins. A multi weight champion and had some serious quality wins. But none of his wins really jump out at me, whereas a couple of his losses do. Great longevity and clearly a skilled and determined fighter but misses out. Closer to yes than the others though. NO.

Hardly as decisive as you can get, JBW, he won by about 5 rounds, but there are far more decisive ways of losing...

More in a sense of showing who the superior man is. The margin might not have been so great, but he proved he had far more resolve, ability and could match Hamed for pretty much everything that night. Whether he chose to be agressive or defensive, by the end he could beat Hamed both ways.

The last round was reminiscent of Morales v Manny I, when Morales threw away the last round fighting southpaw just to add insult to injury.

Lets not forget Barrera could have been disqualified though he smashed Hameds face into the ringpost imo he was lucky not to get disqualified for that we have seen fighters get disqualified before for less than that

Maybe, but it wouldn't change who the superior boxer was on the night. Personally I found the arrogace with which Barrera treated Hamed to be one of the best things about the fight.

Not sure Barrera had more ability than Hamed, in fact I'd suggest Hamed was much more naturally gifted. Barrera more than made up for that deficit in sheer grit, heart, and thinking.

That isn't to say Barrera was unskilled by the way, as he had a very rounded game.

Interesting concept regarding who of the two had more ability. The thing with Hamed was that he was a raw talent - freakishly good in a couple of areas (namely punching power and reflexes), and so never really showed us how good he was in other areas as he seldom needed them. On the other hand, there's a perfectly valid argument that Barrera was the greater talent, particularly in a technical sense; his counter-punching and back foot boxing were departments in which he was almost immeasurably better than 'The Prince.'

On a personal level, I tend to lean towards more rounded and complete fighters, so if I had to pick one I'd say that Barrera was the better talent and had more skill at his disposal. Wouldn't be all that fussed if someone argued the opposite, though. Either way, on the particular night in question, Barrera was the better man by a considerable margin - and his overall career just about bears that out, too.

Zivic is a straightforward ' no ' for me, and Curry, despite his mercurial talent, is only marginally more difficult. He is also a ' no.'

Hamed is much trickier.

Obvious parallels with Mike Tyson, here, and, just as I ultimately reckoned Tyson's considerable positives to outweigh the negatives, so do I feel that Hamed squeaks home by the narrowest of margins.

He certainly came second best to Barrera - no shame in that - but he didn't come second best to anybody else during his glorious pomp, and he swept aside some very good opponents with panache and aplomb. And the talent! My oh my. From the outrageous showboating against Robinson to the felling of opponents with punches thrown off the wrong foot, Hamed was a true original, and one of the most exciting - if also one of the most irritating - fighters of my lifetime. His extraordinary ability and his all - too - brief peak just about outweigh the unsavoury end to his career.

Hamed, then, is a ' yes.'

Laciar is a fighter I only recently studied in any detail. I was superficially acquainted with him, of course, and remembered the Magri fight and the bare bones of his achievements.

However, only when researching the flyweights for Imperial Ghosty's series of articles did I - almost by accident - find myself conducting some pretty deep research. His body of work, combined with a very impressive closing record, impressed me to the point where I found myself, unexpectedly, finding a place for him among my elite flyweights. captain carrantuohil's excellent analysis has only served to deepen my resolve that, albeit by a slim margin, Laciar merits a place.

So :

Hamed and Laciar - yes.

Zivic and Curry - no.

God bless you Windy.

Thought you might approve, jeff.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not sure Barrera had more ability than Hamed, in fact I'd suggest Hamed was much more naturally gifted. Barrera more than made up for that deficit in sheer grit, heart, and thinking.

That isn't to say Barrera was unskilled by the way, as he had a very rounded game.

I'd agree that Hamed was more naturally gifted, but I also agree with Chris that Barrera was the more skilled technician, and that is was I meant in saying Barrera had more ability. One of the best counter punchers of recent times as well as possessing the ability to fight on the front foot.

HumanWindmill wrote:Zivic is a straightforward ' no ' for me, and Curry, despite his mercurial talent, is only marginally more difficult. He is also a ' no.'

Hamed is much trickier.

Obvious parallels with Mike Tyson, here, and, just as I ultimately reckoned Tyson's considerable positives to outweigh the negatives, so do I feel that Hamed squeaks home by the narrowest of margins.

He certainly came second best to Barrera - no shame in that - but he didn't come second best to anybody else during his glorious pomp, and he swept aside some very good opponents with panache and aplomb. And the talent! My oh my. From the outrageous showboating against Robinson to the felling of opponents with punches thrown off the wrong foot, Hamed was a true original, and one of the most exciting - if also one of the most irritating - fighters of my lifetime. His extraordinary ability and his all - too - brief peak just about outweigh the unsavoury end to his career.

Hamed, then, is a ' yes.'

Laciar is a fighter I only recently studied in any detail. I was superficially acquainted with him, of course, and remembered the Magri fight and the bare bones of his achievements.

However, only when researching the flyweights for Imperial Ghosty's series of articles did I - almost by accident - find myself conducting some pretty deep research. His body of work, combined with a very impressive closing record, impressed me to the point where I found myself, unexpectedly, finding a place for him among my elite flyweights. captain carrantuohil's excellent analysis has only served to deepen my resolve that, albeit by a slim margin, Laciar merits a place.

So :

Hamed and Laciar - yes.

Zivic and Curry - no.

Concur with that. Hamed in - something like 12-13 former, current or future champs arrogantly brushed aside. I uspect he would have defeated Barrera by tight UD earlier in his career - and beaten the other two even at that stage just because of their willingness to trade. I think he would have struggled with Marquez. the latter of course doesnt factor into this decision, just wanted to defend him a little against those who called him a flat track bully. Remember Barrera only fought him because he had nowt to lose - before he lost to Jnr Jones - he and the others were avoiding Hamed like the plague. That aside - his opponents and the manner of his victories, his impact on british boxing and the lower weights especially - Hamed makes it in.

On a seperate note - I think Hamed's easy victories robbed him of vital experience that Barrera got from his tough fights and the outhustling played a considerable part in Barreras victory. Barrera stifled Hamed with a little rough stuff so that Hamed couldn't get his shots off often enough. Much like in football - when our players dive they dive in the box to get a penalty whereas the experience europeans dive all over the shop so they can get possesion and position - you cant do much without either. And urine off Windy (for the thoughts in your head about my beloved team).

Laciar is a tentative yes - mostly because I am still researching him - i've known the name for a while but nothing about the man himself so what i've seen so far its a yes - I would be grateful if anyone could pass on any links/names of books about him.

Zivic - No

Curry was sublime at times but not often enough - and the manner of his defeat to the ragamuffin man pushes him out quite comfortably - no

There's an interview with Laciar in Spanish on youtube (30 years on, that kind of thing), Shah, but irritatingly, very little in the way of articles about him that I can find. A few of his fights have also made their way onto youtube. Super little boxer.

Donald Curry........p4p number 1 and I'm not sure any of the others can lay claim to that title..Zivic a close second..

Got to pin you down there, Truss. Does that mean Curry and Zivic are in for you, but Hamed and Laciar are out?

I've seen those - the guy could really put his weight behind shots with minimal movement.

Ignore this post - I'm getting too tired to add the right one to the right article!

sorry captain......my mistake..

Had a further look at Laciar there but still cant find a place for him unfortunately. He comes across as a good champion but are wins over Zapata, Herrera, Gonzalez and a split series at super flyweight with Roman sufficient for elite all time great status? None of those guys are Hall of Famers. Was the division all that strong to begin with? How much do losses to Rojas, Ibarra and Magri effect him?

Falls short of elite level for me overall although he was undoubtadly a good champion.

On hamed and barrera. If hamed had fought the pre-jones barrera i think he wins by ko, against the more defensively minded later barrera he would always have struggled... but would have fared much better in his ingle days.

Barrera became a great technician, but he wasn't always... or at least didn't always fight in a manner that showed it.

imo, take hamed's raw ability and give him barrera's heart and dedication and we wouldn't be debating his hall of fame credentials.

Hamed would have had too much for Barrera if he was fully focused tbh I think he took him lightly he was a big favourite in the bookies and most people expected him to win easily I think this affected Hamed and he believed he would win easily coz everyone was saying he would. He let his focus drop and we all know what happened it was a great shame he did not fight on he had plenty left to offer I reckon he would have beaten guys like Morales and Marquez too but not sure about Pacquaio he is a freak!

Im sure Hamed has regrets about the fight and regrets about not coming back lets not forget many people did not support him and were glad Barrera won I think this is similar to Haye. Yes he lost to Klitschko who is a great fighter but I do not think he should retire ealy when he has so much to give it will be like Hamed he will have regrests about that fight and not putting it right.

I think I find myself having to say no to all four candidates this week.

Zivic boasts easily the best win column of the four in a career spanning 20 years where he fought virtually everyone there was to face. Vicotories over men like Angott, Armstrong, Burley, Jenkins, Booker, LaMotta plus a host of contenders show that this guy was no slouch and a match for anyone on his day. However one cannot ignore the general inconsistency of his career and the fact that for every top win there is probably a correponding loss or two. Add to that losses to lesser fighters and I think he falls short of an elite Hall.

Curry falls short by some distance I feel. An all too brief time at the top in which he secured some good wins but none which I would classify as elite. When added to defeats he suffered I dont think his case is particularly strong. A fine talent, some fine wins, but not enough for inclusion.

Hamed was similar in some ways. A series of good wins but no real elite level win. His loss to Barrera may/may not have been a benchmark indicator of where his true level lay behind the unorthdox talent, power and flair for excitement but it is difficult to ignore. His unceremonious exit from the sport also does little to quell the doubts that he had simply met his match and fallen short. His failure to return and prove himself against any of the big names at the time also counts against him so while I feel he proved he was the best featherweight in the world for a number of years I dont think he ever proved he was an all time great featherweight and the loss to Barrera as being the one really elite fighter he faced also puts a big asterix against him. One might say he proved he was great in his era but for me did not do enough to secure greatness in an all time sense.

Laciar was a good fighter without a doubt that had a good reign as champion but Im not sure he did enough either really cement himself as an all timer. Many of his biggest wins were controversial - Herrera, Gonzalez and Roman spring to mind and he also suffered his share of losses there to Ibarra, Magri and Rojas and later on to Roman in their rubber match. Its enough for inclusion to Canastota I think, but not really enough for the elite hall ultimately I think. I cant find a spot for him.

Think people are being a bit harsh on Naz tbh yes he lost to Barrera but lets not forget Barrera was one of the best and a quality fighter I did not think Naz did too badly. He did not get knocked out and Barrera was roughing him up lots. How can people vote for guys like Frazier to be in but not Naz? Frazier got knocked out by Ali and absolutely destroyed by Foreman Naz only lost 1 time!