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]

Waingro wrote: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!

Think you'd do well to consider, Waingro, that both Ali and Foreman were considerably better Heavyweights than Barrera was a Featherweight, and that the win which Frazier secured over Ali in their first bout is far superior, as a single entity, than anything on Hamed's record. Outside of that, I'd agree that both Frazier and Hamed's reigns are similar in the sense that they dealt with a fair amound of 'very good' opposition while losing to the absolute cream which they faced, but the part Frazier played in perhaps the most famous boxing rivalry of them all, as well as the fact that, in time, his defeats have probably been put in to perspective as being less harmful than Hamed's, mean that he's much more of an automatic selection than Naz is.

Knocked out Frazier, really?

Its a semi valid point Waingro but really the difference for me is that Frazier has that elite level win over Ali which makes a big difference. You also have to consider that his losses were to arguably the best heavyweight ever and one that is a top 5 candidate, which puts them ahead of Barreras stature. Do think he gets a bit of an easy ride for the Foreman drubbings though. Some posters might say no true great gets blasted out and rolled like a drunk in that manner.....

manos de piedra wrote:Its a semi valid point Waingro but really the difference for me is that Frazier has that elite level win over Ali which makes a big difference. You also have to consider that his losses were to arguably the best heavyweight ever and one that is a top 5 candidate, which puts them ahead of Barreras stature. Do think he gets a bit of an easy ride for the Foreman drubbings though. Some posters might say no true great gets blasted out and rolled like a drunk in that manner.....

who'd say a thing like that manos

If Tyson makes it in surely Naz does as well? The only difference between the two was the weight class in which they operated and the resulting fame from that. Both easily destroyed mediocre to good opponents and fell short against a great fighter (on the night in Tyson's case) largely because of their own lack of dedication. Tyson's two wins over Ruddock post Douglas give him a little edge over Naz but purely in terms of record surely theres not much to seperate them?

ShahenshahG wrote:If Tyson makes it in surely Naz does as well? The only difference between the two was the weight class in which they operated and the resulting fame from that. Both easily destroyed mediocre to good opponents and fell short against a great fighter (on the night in Tyson's case) largely because of their own lack of dedication. Tyson's two wins over Ruddock post Douglas give him a little edge over Naz but purely in terms of record surely theres not much to seperate them?

Good point mate I agree, lets not forget Naz only lost once in his career Tyson lost far more and got destroyed by Lewis.

milkyboy wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its a semi valid point Waingro but really the difference for me is that Frazier has that elite level win over Ali which makes a big difference. You also have to consider that his losses were to arguably the best heavyweight ever and one that is a top 5 candidate, which puts them ahead of Barreras stature. Do think he gets a bit of an easy ride for the Foreman drubbings though. Some posters might say no true great gets blasted out and rolled like a drunk in that manner.....

who'd say a thing like that manos

No doubt some sort of [select derogatory term here]

Very quick update before I leave for a week. No new members of the Hall - Hamed closest, but falling short of 2nd ballot status. We're done with the moderns. Let's reconvene a week from today to begin our dissection of the pre-war greats.

Bye for now.

Enjoy your holiday, captain.

Enjoy your holiday captain, we'll recommence this stupid pointless exercise in futility when you return. (and no I have not taken Naz' exclusion at all well)

Dos Va Donya, for a week.

Very, very disappointed with the Naz omission. How Tyson makes it in but Naz doesn't is bizarre, given that they're almost in exactly the same circumstances, just 100lbs apart.

Have a good holiday, Captain. I look forward to our next round of voting.

Fists of Fury wrote:Very, very disappointed with the Naz omission. How Tyson makes it in but Naz doesn't is bizarre, given that they're almost in exactly the same circumstances, just 100lbs apart.

Have a good holiday, Captain. I look forward to our next round of voting.

Tyson came back from his first loss to win a title. Plus I don't see why being the second most famous boxer ever shouldn't count for something.

He did Scott, but if we are going to credit him for that then we can't ignore the succession of abysmal losses he suffered, also.

Disagree as I've said regarding Duran in the past but that argument normally just goes round in circles.

I can see the argument regarding Tyson/Naz but as Ive said on another thread I think rules are relaxed slightly when it comes to the heavyweights. Tysons worldwide fame and impact on the sport is undoubtadly a big factor in his inclusion I would say.

I also think Hameds loss to MAB leaves something of an unanswered question as to whether or not he was just short at that top level. Tysons losses (outside Douglas) are easier to understand given his layoff and mental state.

That's true regarding his layoff and mental state, but we do have to remember that Tyson never won a fight 'at the highest level' either really, given who his victories were against and the timing of those.

Naz has a much stronger resume than Tyson, in my opinion, but at the same time I fully agree that not returning after the loss (the pointless Calvo bout aside) does mark Naz down a lot.

Fists of Fury wrote:That's true regarding his layoff and mental state, but we do have to remember that Tyson never won a fight 'at the highest level' either really, given who his victories were against and the timing of those.

Naz has a much stronger resume than Tyson, in my opinion, but at the same time I fully agree that not returning after the loss (the pointless Calvo bout aside) does mark Naz down a lot.

Yeah I think its interesting with Hamed as by not returning he kind of occupies an ambiguos kind of state of not really knowing exactly what level he was at. Theres more questions than answers. If he had come back fully fit and had managed to reverse his loss to MAB or for instance score a win over Morlaes, JMM or Pacquaio over the next few years of his career then I dont think there would be the same debate and we would be saying he was worthy of a place for sure. But equally he could have come back and lost to any of those guys in which case we would be talking about him as a definate no and probably a guy who, like Hatton, maybe just didnt have it at the very top level aginst the elite guys like Morales/Barrera/Pacquiao. As it is now all we have to go off is a fairly decisive loss to Barrera albeit with possibility that he wasnt at his best. It makes it difficult to say. Purely going off is record and not factoring in the ifs/buts I think as it stands he just misses out. He was the best featherweight for several years but it wasnt a massively strong division.

Tyson is an equally strange case and in a strange way his loss to Douglas is much easier to forgive because Douglas was clearly a fighter below him. Its easier to assume he just wasnt fully prepared or mentally right and make an allowance on that basis - as with Lewis vs Rahman for example.

Had Tyson lost to someone like Holyfield instead of Douglas before he was incarcerated, then it migt be seen as a much different scenario. As it is though Tyson blasted a hole through the heavyweight division at a very young age and beat virtually all the top guys in it bar Douglas and Holyfield before he was jailed.

Fists of Fury wrote:Very, very disappointed with the Naz omission. How Tyson makes it in but Naz doesn't is bizarre, given that they're almost in exactly the same circumstances, just 100lbs apart.

Have a good holiday, Captain. I look forward to our next round of voting.

I agree mate Hamed should be in there he was a quality fighter one of the best to watch. Tbh I think he is alot better than lots of the guys in this Hall him and Tyson should both be in there imo.

Democracy in action dear boy, nobody is a bigger Naz fan than I but he did not secure the votes required so we have to accept his exclusion with a modicum of good grace.

rowley wrote:Democracy in action dear boy, nobody is a bigger Naz fan than I but he did not secure the votes required so we have to accept his exclusion with a modicum of good grace.

Fair enough mate I respect other peoples opinion but just think he is better than lots of guys in there seems people are very harsh on imo losing to Barrera who was quality there are guys in there who have lost to much worse fighters than that.

Just a modicum though, Jeff!

Fists of Fury wrote:Just a modicum though, Jeff!

As much as I could muster mate, will admit it was not much though.

Sorry to drop in guys- but is there anyway to know which fighters have been added to our hall of fame through the ballot mechanism? Maybe an update on the original thread could be useful.

In addition, was curious to know if Barney Ross, Lennox Lewis and Salvador Sanchez made it into the hall of fame- as all three fighters made it into the 606v2 greatest of all time list.

Here you are ATG: https://www.606v2.com/t6969-606-v2-hall-of-fame-inductees

Ross I believe hasn't had a chance yet as an old timer.

Scottrf wrote:Here you are ATG: https://www.606v2.com/t6969-606-v2-hall-of-fame-inductees

Ross I believe hasn't had a chance yet as an old timer.

Cheers mate.

Great thread, probably one of the best i've ever seen. Keep up the great work 606v2.

Lennox Lewis got voted in I dont think anyone voted against him Sanchez also got voted in dont see Ross in there so maybe he did not get voted in

Scottrf wrote:Here you are ATG: https://www.606v2.com/t6969-606-v2-hall-of-fame-inductees

Ross I believe hasn't had a chance yet as an old timer.

Lol just saw this now sorry, ross has not been done yet but Lewis and Sanchez were voted in.

Hello again. We're back for Part 2 of this noble task, and I hope that the fact that the fighters we will be analysing were all plying their trade before the War (well before, in some cases) will not deter you all from offering your informed opinions about them.

The old-timers section begins with Lou Ambers, who began his career in a hurry, racking up a number of good wins on the way to a shot at the vacant world lightweight title against Tony Canzoneri while still aged only 21. Ambers dropped a unanimous decision, but was undeterred, beating Fritzie Zivic in his next fight and winning 13 straight en route to a return bout with Canzoneri. Here, Ambers decisively turned the tables, winning a unanimous verdict of his own. Although he would drop non-title decisions against folk such as Jimmy McLarnin, Ambers would retain his crown in a rubber match against Canzoneri and keep the title for two years until losing a close and controversial fight against the history-making Henry Armstrong. A return was inevitable, and proved just as controversial as their first fight, with Ambers regaining his crown, largely through the referee's decision to penalise Armstrong no fewer than five points for fouls. It was Ambers' last hurrah - he was KO'd by the dangerous Lew Jenkins less than a year later, lost the return equally conclusively and promptly retired.

Alberto "Baby" Arizmendi was probably Mexico's first bona fide boxing star. A largely successful first five years of his career were given added impetus with a win over Fidel LaBarba in 1932. Arizmendi immediately became a contender for the world featherweight title and gained recognition from the California State Commission by winning the rubber match of a tough trilogy against Newsboy Brown. He would lose the crown to Freddie Miller, and although he bested Miller in a non-title return was never able to get him into the ring with a title on the line again. Arizmendi's way round this was to take on all-comers at 126, losing a non-title fight to Tony Canzoneri, but beating Mike Belloise for the NYSAC version of the featherweight crown. This was the start of a real purple patch for Arizmendi, who promptly beat Henry Armstrong twice in a row and KO'd Chalky Wright. For the next four years, Arizmendi would campaign in the highest class, losing three times to Armstrong, including for the world welterweight crown, and drawing with and losing to both Sammy Angott and Lou Ambers.

Some people from the early part of the 20th century believed until their dying day that Abe Attell was the greatest fighter of all time at any weight. He was certainly one of the most dominant, winning against the great George Dixon while still only 17, taking the title at 19, losing it, regaining it and making a division record 18 defences, including the scalps of men such as Johnny Kilbane and Battling Nelson, a record that was only finally eclipsed by Eusebio Pedroza. Controversy and Attell were never far apart - he was known for his close relationships with a number of noted gangsters, as well as his penchant for taking every advantage in preparation for his title fights. British fighters, such as Owen Moran, Freddie Welsh and Jim Driscoll had their successes against Attell, but the "Liitle Hebrew" clung grimly to his crown until 1912, when his six-year reign was finally terminated by Johnny Kilbane.

Max Baer was often as renowned for his love of wisecracks and the good life as his witheringly powerful punching. Turning pro in 1929, Baer started well, before hitting a roadblock, dropping decisions to Ernie Schaaf, Tommy Loughran and Paolo Uzcudun, among others, as well as tragically KOing Frankie Campbell, who died of his injuries. By 1932, however, Baer had righted the ship, beating King Levinsky twice and Tom Heeney. The following year, Baer brutally stopped Max Schmeling, setting up a tilt at Primo Carnera's world title in 1934. One of the most one-side title fights of all time saw Carnera floored eleven times before the referee confirmed Baer as the new champ. With that, Baer began to party in earnest, and immediately lost his title to the supposed no-hoper Jim Braddock, before being pulverised by the up and coming Joe Louis. Although Baer would score notable wins over men such as Tommy Farr (to whom he also lost), Ben Foord and Tony Galento, the Louis defeat marked the end of Baer's career in the very highest echelon; he retired in 1941, having KO'd more than 50 opponents.

Jimmy Barry has the distinction of being one of nine world boxing champions to have retired without ever having tasted defeat. Slight in build, but ferocious in nature, Barry won the 100lb and 105 lb championships of America in the 1890s via KO, claiming the bantamweight championship of the world at the same time as his second victory. Barry would keep the title until his retirement, although he was fiercely challenged on several occasions by Casper Leon, against whom Barry boxed a series of draws. His fight against Walter Croot in London removed all British doubt about Barry's right to the bantam crown, but also finished tragically, with Croot dying of his injuries after being KO'd in 20. No less an authority than Joe Choynski regarded Barry as the greatest fighter that he had ever seen; the little man retired with 70 victories, more than half of them inside the distance.

Off we go again.

Good to see you back, Captain, trust you had a good break?

I'll be giving my votes during the boredom of working hours tomorrow.

Very restorative, thanks Fists. Look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts during the course of the week. It's not a bad line-up of old-timers to begin with.

Warm welcome back, captain.

As per usual, the list of candidates produces a mix of easy and difficult choices, this week, so I'll begin with the easy ones :

Jimmy Barry - Yes

Max Baer - No

Attel is infuriatingly difficult, for me. Routinely named by historians among the best feathers of all time and, as the captain points out, extremely well thought of in the US when he was plying his trade. Newspaper accounts of the day are effusive in their praise of him, and it all seems so straightforward to say yes, right off the bat.

Except.

There is little doubt that Driscoll handed him something of a boxing lesson, only to be cheated out of the spoils by the dreaded ' no decision ' and equally no doubt that there are plenty of other draws and NDs sprinkled throughout his record. Factor in a relative lack of depth of quality wins and his proven ties to the Jewish mob, and I'd reckon that more than a couple of asterixes must be appended to his name.

Purely by virtue of doffing my cap to those who saw him at the time, I'll say a very tentative ' yes,' but I'm already hoping that I'll find an excuse to change my mind before the votes are counted.

Arizmendi is a ' yes ' for me, also, but I'm not ashamed to say that it was only after a thorough reading through of his record that I found myself so disposed. There's a great deal of quality in his win column.

Ambers is very difficult, for me.

Every time the theme ' under rated champions ' rears its head, Ambers is one of the first fighters of whom I think. Certainly, the quality of his wins is beyond doubt but, infuriatingly, they seem to be balanced pretty much in equal measure by his losses at the highest level. Also, as the captain has pointed out, the win over Armstrong was pretty fortuitous and, without that, I believe I could readily say ' no.'

As it is, I'm still saying ' no ' but with a little less conviction.

So :

Barry - Yes

Attel - Yes**

Arizmendi - Yes

Baer - No

Ambers - No.

Ayup captain, hope you enjoyed your break. Have to say I'm looking forward to the old-timers half of the Hall of Fame exercise, as so many cases will require us to use different standards to try and bridge the gaps and make fair judgements.

Ambers would be an automatic 'yes' to me. His record at Lightweight screams Hall of Fame from all angles, with the exception of Jenkins having the wood on him, which seems curious to me even now. Still, having campaigned in easily the best ever era for the Lightweights, Ambers more than proved his mettle - the right side of series results against Canzoneri and Arizmendi, a split with Armstrong (controversial though their two bouts were) and wins at some time against most of the other top 135 lb men of the thirties - McLarnin aside - is enough to book him a ticket to 606v2 immortality in my opinion. I'd have Ambers inside my top ten Lightweights of all time, and as I would with anyone who commands such a high place in one of the original weight classes, I feel this is proof enough for his inclusion.

Given that he was a part of the aforementioned golden age of Lightweights, Arizmendi is maybe unlucky to miss out in my estimations, but he still misses out all the same. There seems to be a pattern with Arizmendi; he regularly scored wins against the 'very goods' but, aside from those two wins against a green Armstrong (with whom he eventually went 2-3 in any case), he fell just short against the 'greats' - four combined cracks at Canzoneri and Ambers but no wins against them says all I need to know, really. Very fine fighter, one of the better rejectees, but he is that all the same. Close but no cigar.

Attell, I think, is the big can of worms this week. At first glance, his record is everything you'd expect a Hall of Famer's to be; wins over many famed names, a long reign as world champion and a highly respectable win-loss ratio. But how many of his eighteen defences were observed under full championship conditions? How many times during his reign (we know of at least three) was he the lesser fighter on the night but able to hold on to his crown due to 'No Decisions'? Knowing his links with Mob bosses and his dealings with them in fixing the Super Bowl in his retirement, how much 'help' did he possibly receive?

While I find Attell a little underserving of the credit he sometimes gets (I have to shake my head when I see him listed as a Featherweight to rival Pep or Saddler, for instance) I feel we might be doing him a disservice by haning on too desperately to the speculation instead of concentrating on fact. At the end of the day, two wins over George Dixon - a superb fighter himself - at the age of seventeen is not to be sniffed at, and while Attell was perhaps fortunate to hold on to his crown for as long as he did, we shouldn't forget that he was not the only champion of the early twentieth century to stack every advantage in his favour or benefit from the hoary old 'No Decision' rule. Far from it, in fact. Losing the title to a fighter of Kilbane's quality is nothing to be ashamed of, and given that few others - even with similar 'advantages' to the ones that Attell had in his favour - have managed to keep a crown for so long, I feel he needs to be in. A yes from me.

Baer misses by a long way; a man who probably should have been an outstanding Heavyweight champion, but instead conspired to make himself a mere footnote in the history of the 'richest prize in sport.' Superb personality, for every high there's an embarrassing low and given that he didn't even establish himself as the best Heavyweight in the gap between Tunney and Louis - a supposedly poor era for boxing's premier division - his inclusion here just wouldn't make any sense. A clear no.

If we believe the testimony of Tracey Callis and his revisionist history, then Barry was perhaps the greatest Flyweight of all time, so he clearly must have been some fighter. That said, I find it hard to evaluate him given that the Flyweight division didn't exist during his career. Also, am I right in thinking that his claim to the Bantamweight title was disputed and challenged for more or less his whole tenure? I see the names on his record and am familiar with Leon and Harris, but not that many more of them. Given that he never fought Palmer, Dixon or McGovern (to my knowledge) it makes it almost impossible to judge how good he really was, and I feel that giving him the benefit of the doubt would be unfair to those who I've cast a stricter eye on. It may be down to a lack of knowledge in the eyes of some, but I'm saying no to Barry.

So for me, Ambers and Attell make it in. Arizmendi, Baer and Barry are not so lucky. Cheers.

Ambers, for me, is one of the real ones. His plus record against Canzoneri alone makes him pretty damned good; the win against Zivic straight after his loss to Canzoneri underlines how good he was, I feel. Had the call over Arizmendi as well, and then we have the two Armstrong fights. Was certainly lucky to win their second fight, but might have been a touch unlucky that his feverish late rally was deemed to fall short in their first encounter, so it's swings and roundabouts. I'm not going to criticise him for failing to beat a murderous hitter at the tail-end of his career; one could carp about Ambers' longevity, perhaps, just about, but not about the quality of the CV, I would say. He's a YES for me.

Arizmendi is a tough one; some really good wins, set aside some losses that are wholly understandable, bearing in mind the quality of his opposition. We should remember that a number of his losses came against bona fide lightweights, very often great ones, so he merits serious consideration. Judged by the strictest standards, I suppose it's fair to observe that his record seems to belong in the "very good" category, rather than the "truly great". He never really established himself as the premier feather of his era, although Freddie Miller certainly didn't help him in this quest by his refusal to face Arizmendi for a third time. Nevertheless, and extremely narrowly, I make Arizmendi a NO.

Attell is indeed a can of worms. I have to declare an interest - I loathe him as a bloke, am not that sold on him for his constant gerrymandering of fight conditions, and believe that his role in fixing the World Series of baseball underlines what a shyster he was. It wasn't just Driscoll who dominated him and got nothing by way of return. Moran had to travel to Attell's home patch and got sawn off with the award of a draw after a 25 round fight when the Brit got stronger as the fight progressed. A rematch was immediately ordered, and this time, Attell fixed things so that the second bout would be over 23 rounds instead. Wouldn't you know it, but Moran again has to travel, again does most of the quality work and is again awarded a draw! Yes, I suppose we have to credit Attell for his obvious ability, his longevity and his ringcraft, but God, it sticks in the throat to do so. I've never quite seen what there was in Attell to elicit such huge acclaim from contemporary fighters and boxing historians, but I can't really ignore it, I guess. With one hand clutching my nose, I declare Attell a YES, and will be delighted if someone else can immediately convince me that I'm wrong.

Baer is the only easy decision for me this week. A NO by any standards, albeit that this is entirely his own fault and that he possessed easily enough ability to have become a legend of the sport.

I find Jimmy Barry impossible to evaluate; he was clearly a pretty remarkable fighter, but Chris is right that his claim to the bantamweight crown was contested in a number of quarters for his entire career. The statistical record is great here, but what of his opposition? I am somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that Barry never totally established superiority over Casper Leon, possibly his premier opponent, and I don't quite see the names on the ledger to justify the rave reviews that he received. I am really on the fence here; I therefore will tentatively say NO to Barry, with the proviso that I can easily be persuaded to reverse this by someone with better knowledge than me of the context in which Barry fought and won so many victories.

I think I am with the majority in saying no to Baer and for the same reasons as other have given.

The others appear to be splitting opinion so I will give my own take.

Ambers I think is a must. The Armstrong fights are often very contested as wins and not without reason. However its generally worth considering that Armstrong was a roughhouse fighter who often bent the rues to breaking point and while he was penalised heavily in his bouts with Ambers, one could argue that it was not entirely unustified and the referee was simply applying the rules of the game strictly which is always a contentious issue in boxing. Outside of these debateable wins I think Amber has more than enough quality to warrant inclusion at any rate. Wins over champions like Canzoneri, Arizmendi, Zivic and top contenders like Frankie Klick, Tony Herrera, Sammy Fuller, Davey Day and Pedro Montanez amongst other is plenty to convince me he is worthy of a place.

Baby Arizmendi is not as straightforward. He was a quality fighter who just seemed to never really find a consistency and seemed to take fights he had no busines taking all too frequently. He should never have been campaigning up at welterweight which he did, and ventured up to lightweight too frequently in my view aswell when he would have been better served staying at featheweight which by all accounts he could still make well into his career. He holds some outstanding wins over Armstrong in some very memorable fights where he managed to dominate Armstrong despite a badly injured arm. Other wins over the likes of Freddie Miller, Chalkey Wright, Fidel La Barba and wins over respected contenders like Davey Day, Speedy Dado, Mike Belloise and Eddie Shea before the age of 25 shows just how good he was at a very early age. After that he is plagued by a lack of opportunities and I think campaigning overstretched and beyond his means often resulted in increasing inconsistency in his career. I think a lack of consisntency and longetivity threatens his claim, but ultimately I think he deserves a place when you consider the quality of his win column, success in is natural weight and and what he acheived at such a young age.

Abe Attell apears to be given something of a grudging nod in at the moment which I find myself agreeing with. I just cant see how he can be kept out as for all the possible shadyness and gamesmanship levelled at him I think its difficult to argue against his talents as a fighter which was held in the highest esteem. Ive tried to get to the bottom of Attells career but very little is conclusive one way or another in regard to his shady dealings although if you take the no smoke without fire approach then there are certainly grounds for suspicion. One point I would make in regard to the "No Decision" policy is that while its true it often resulted in the beaten fighter retaining his title, the nature of the rule often impacted on how a fighter fought. The security offered by the No Decision rule meant that champions tended to utilise it and this impacted on their approach to a fight as quite often they were approaching it not to lose rather than win. Similar in football when a team knows a draw will be enough it tends to lead to them not attacking or taking risks. So with this in mind it was really a failing in the rule that often accounted for this kind of issue which didnt neccessarily paint a fair reflection of the defending fighters ability. The incentive simply wasnt there to go all out to win and take risks. Overall given his record, the contemporary opinions, the talent theres just no way I can leave him out.

With Jimmy Barry Im afraid I cant offer a huge amount to any of the question marks raised by others. Hes a fighter thats terribly hard to evaluate and was someting of a hybrid bareknuckle boxer as was not unusual with many of the fighters of that era. I think it is worth recognising that at a time when the division was perhaps unformed and unstructured, he was recognised as rather dominant in it by many of the day. It also should be recognised that after the tragic death of his opponent Walter Croot, Barry was effectively unable to knock out another fighter which accounts for him drawing the majority of his remaining bouts as a fighter. But while I agree that its difficult to evaluate Barry and get a measure of his opposition, opinions of the day rated him as outstanding including the likes of Nonpareil Dempsey and Joe Choynski so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ambers - yes
Arizmendi - yes
Attel - yes
Baer - no
Barry - yes

I must have fallen asleep, last night, with the ghost of Lou Ambers resting heavily on my subconscious, since I awoke this morning thinking about him.

Having spent an hour or so deliberating, watching a clip or two of the man in action and revisiting his record, I am pretty sure that I made an error in voting ' no ' for him, yesterday. I was none too comfortable with it at the time and, as I mentioned in my initial comment, I always regard him as being one of the under appreciated champions. I am now all but certain that I made a mistake.

I'm perfectly happy with my other choices but, with my sincere apologies to the captain for my being such a damned nuisance, I should like to change my vote for Ambers.

Therefore :

Baer - No

Ambers - Yes

Attel - Yes**

Arizmendi - Yes

Barry - Yes.

Ambers: A close Yes for me. A lttle bit light on the top level win ratio which is roughly 50/50 but generally high level of competition fought and beat overall including many of the contenders of the day so I think he deserves the nod.

Arizmendi: No, not for me. Lack of longetivity and consistency. Far too many losses too his better opponents and not a high enough win/loss ration against the top guys.

Attell: Interesting one. I think Colonial Lion makes an interesting point about how the No Decision rule potentialy affected the psyche of a fighter who knew they simply had to not lose as opposed to win. The likes of Freddie Welsh were also known of availing of this in many of his bouts if I remember rightly. So its difficult to say. As for the mob links, the baseball scandal seems pretty hard to refute his mob links, but there doesnt seem to be direct evidence linking him to individual fixed fights. So again, its hard to know although it seems almost certain he did partake in him. Im not really too sure what to do with him as I dont like the idea of having a fighter in there who had such in ring stigmas over him I might say no.

Max Baer: No, same as everyone else.

Jimmy Barry: Im with Chris and the captain on this I think. Insufficient evidence to warrant his inclusion and a division that seemed barely regulated. May be harsh but I think the honus should be on proving inclusion beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to disproving existing inclusions and in that regard I just cant see enough evidence to include Barry.

Ambers: Yes
Arizmendi: No
Attell: No??
Baer: No
Barry: No

Not sure most of those guys should be in the Hall of Fame tbh they have far too many losses apart from Barry so I will vote yes for him and no for the others.

If you are involved in fixing I think you should be automatically disqualified how can you tell if the fights were fair or not?

I quite understand the reservations concerning Barry.

Few activities delight me more than foraging around old newspaper articles to extract snippets of information concerning the boxing legends of old, and then cross referring them to try to get some kind of credible picture.

The problem is that, when Barry was plying his trade, sports journalism was pretty much in its infancy, and although there are bits and pieces to be found in some newspapers of the day - The ' Brooklyn Daily Eagle,' for example - it isn't really sufficient to make an independent judgement. I guess some of the Chicago newspapers of the day might yield a little more fruit, and the ' Police Gazette ' also but, all in all, we're a bit thin on newspaper stuff, though there is probably a substantial amount of solid information in boxing publications from the first quarter of the twentieth century, ( there certainly is for men such as Sullivan, Tommy Ryan, etc., ) and, quite probably, the earlier ' Ring ' magazines.

We do, however, have some pretty good and reliable material among fight insiders who saw him, first hand. Choynski, for example, regarded Barry as the best fighter he ever saw and there are other accounts from hardened insiders which must be regarded as being as credible as it gets as far as secondary source info is concerned.

The following two articles might be of interest, and particularly the Callis one. ( Tracy Callis, incidentally, is an elector for the Canastota Hall of Fame.)

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/article-jimmybarry.htm

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_Barry.htm

Ultimately, we can only offer an opinion based on how much faith we place in views such as these and, since Attel is the beneficiary of the benefit of any doubt here, I have no hesitation in granting Barry the same courtesy and voting him in.

I would very much agree with Human Windmill in relation to Barry. Theres seems little doubt he was a great fighter the only question would be is he great enough for this Hall of Fame and in that regard I am with Human Windmills line of reasoning.

I like the articles on Barry there, certainly sheds alot more light on a fighter I knew little about. However I still dont know if its enough for me to include him. To include him seems to be placing an awful lot of weight on just a a couple of opinions. Granted those men were obviously better placed than we are to know how good Barry was but the likes of Choynski and Dempsey also missed out on alot of boxing history that we today can look back on. I also think its interesting that Barry himself is quoted as saying how much the fight game improved in just a few decades and how more scientific it continued to become which is something Ive always felt likely to have happened.

I also think that some of the issues raised by Chris and the captain in regards to Barrys claim as the best bantam or the level of opposition he was beating remain still largely unclear.

I suppose it depends on what angle you approach it. Some might place the emphasis on disproving hes worthy of a place while some might put the emphasis on proving hes worthy. In the latter regard I just think theres not an evidence for me to induct him but given Im basically only citing lack of sufficient evidence as a reason then I would be happy to have my vote on him simply discounted.

A good bunch to kick of the old timers, like most have agreed Baer is a pretty clear no so does not require too much further consideration.

Ambers is everything I think a hall of famer should be, very good wins over Canzoneri and close showings against one of the top four or five fighters ever in Armstrong mean he perhaps does not sail in but for me deserves his berth.

Arizmendi is a close call but is a no for me, fought some cracking opposition but just does not look like a guy who managed to really stand out in such opposition, watched one of his fights with Armstrong not long back and just strikes me as a tough nights work for anyone but just short of the elite.

My views on Attell pretty much mirror the captains, as a baseball fan I find him pretty repugnant and his clear mob ties do cast something of a cloud over his in ring career but I have simply read too much from too many people who know far more of the era than me telling me Attell was the real deal to ignore so I simply have to say yes to him.

Barry appears to be splitting opinion and I am grateful to Windy for providing excellent links about the man but alas I still feel I am going to say no to him, as others have said does appear he did not establish himself as the man at his weight and as we have previously castigated others for failing to do this consistency means I have to say no to Barry

In summary

Baer NO
Barry NO
Attell YES
Arizmendi NO
Ambers YES

I have been searching through material to see if I can add anything to the excellent links provided by Human Windmill on Jimmy Barry, but unfortunately other than a couple of newpaper reports of fights I have come up short.

However I do think that certain allowances should perhaps be made in Barrys case for the entirely unstructured and scarcely regulated lower divisions in those days making it very difficult to recognise champions at weights when new weights with varying limits and recognised by a host of different parties were springing up with very little formalisation. It would seem to me in that Barrys era that there simply was no real means to establish yourself as the best at one of these lower weights with any real authority. What is interesting, and to Barrys credit, is that he was held to to be the man by popular choice of the day even if there were others who could dispute it.

Barry was effectively finished as a fighter by all accounts after the Croot death and could never bring himself to knock out a man after. And this was a man that was famed for his knockouts up to that point. By my calculations this would leave Barry as virtually retired by the time the likes of McGovern or Young Corbett II were worthy of consideration. They would have been just 16 or 17 year old upcoming boxers at the time when Barry defeated Walter Croot. Barry himself was just a flyweight really with no division whilst the others like Dixon were closer to featherweights so again its hard to classify whether or not these men were ever really divisional rivals at all in their careers and timing would suggest there was no real window for them to fight as equals. Especially with no structured rankings or divisions to participate in. It would seem there was little formula in place to bring these fighters together.

I can only say that I understand the question marks others may have but with the above conditions in mind I feel more comfortable in trusting the opinions of the day which held Barry in the greatest esteem as a fighter and recognised by most holding the crown of the little men, which he never lost in the ring it must be said. I think perhaps the obligations regarding rivals and divisions could be relaxed in the case of Barry as the conditions of the time may not really have allowed for it. And certainly if you consider that Barry was no more than a flyweight then the lack of a flyweight division or even proper bantamweight divisons to prove himself in denies him this opportunity that later generations had. Im reluctant to disqualify Barry who I think was a great fighter simply because there was a lack of formal structure for the little men in those days. I have no doubts that had he a flyweight division to participate in, or even a proper bantamweight one with a universally recoginised champion then there would be no disputing his claim.

Its a convincing argument Colonial, and I take your points. Especially the one about allowing some latitude for the lack of divisional structure. But say we do make this allowance and absolve him from facing the likes of McGovern, Dixon etc who you mention and we excuse him for not cementing his status as the man - where does it leave us?

The lack of divisional structure is a two way sword the way I see it. It may provide valid excuse for not being able to establish yourself as the man or missing out the odd name but what does it tell us about the competition he faced? As you mention yourself, theres no real structure in place to bring the best together so how can we be sure he was fighting top guys or what level of opponents he fought? With so many rival titles occuring and so many fledgeling divisions emerging is it unreasonable to suggest various parties were just sanctioning "world" titles fights at various weights haphazardly with no real garauntee of top quality? Its an obvious point, but its easy to look great against mediocre opposition, and theres no real proof that his the vast majority of his opponents were top class.

I think on the evidence we do have, I am happy to say he is a quality fighter. But the new Hall is supposed to be a somewhat elitist concept. Im still not sure theres enough tangible evidence regarding him and is opposition to be certain he warrants inclusion. I accept totally that it could be just be a case of a fighter getting the shaft due to lack of historical evidence but I think where there are too many question marks I would tend to lean on the no side. And while I am pretty confident of Barrys ability up to a point Im not sure his record goes that extra mile that this more elite Hall of Fame should require.

It is a good point about Jimmy Barry yes the guy was unbeaten but how do we know who he fought??

If he was fighting quality guys then he should be in the hall of fame but if he is fighting bums then he should not be lets not forget Ottke is unbeaten but the guy was a fraud would he be in the hall of fame? I dont think he would. Lets also remember that Marciano and Calzaghe were unbeaten and those guys were quality so how can we tell about Jimmy Barry this is the question. It is hard to tell with old fighters back then they fought alot more bums.

Maybe there shoud be a seperate hall of fame for old time boxers tbh not many people will know much about guys a hundred years ago things were different then

It has been done separately, Waingro, but ultimately they'll all be in the same hall.

Waingro wrote:Maybe there shoud be a seperate hall of fame for old time boxers tbh not many people will know much about guys a hundred years ago things were different then

Somebody who genuinely loves boxing might consider an alternative, Waingro, such as being suitably interested to go and learn something about these fighters instead of offering opinions without the slightest idea of what he is talking about.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:Maybe there shoud be a seperate hall of fame for old time boxers tbh not many people will know much about guys a hundred years ago things were different then

Somebody who genuinely loves boxing might consider an alternative, Waingro, such as being suitably interested to go and learn something about these fighters instead of offering opinions without the slightest idea of what he is talking about.

Would have agreed with you Windy until I saw next weeks selection, suspect I might need to spend a little time this weekend on CBZ, boxrec and youtube, although personally I find that to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of this whole process.

Loathe as I am to steal the captain's thunder, my curiosity is roused, jeff. Who is up for next week?