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]

Benny Bass, Battling Battalino, Paul Berlenbach, James J. Braddock, Jack Britton

There is only Braddock on there who I would feel comfortable with making a judgement on straight away

Those are certainly going to require some research and deliberation. Britton will be a very difficult choice, I suspect, whereas my knowledge of Battalino, being entry level at best, will make that one even more difficult. Great fun.

Sorry to bother you with that, by the way. I'm afraid I had no idea that the captain had provided us with a short preview.

Not a problem Windy, believe me throughout this process the next weeks nominees have proven invaluable

I most certainly do believe you, mate. In many cases I should have benefitted from an extra week to ponder my choices.

Burley book arrived, by the way, and I should be able to begin reading it this evening. Can't wait.

HumanWindmill wrote:I most certainly do believe you, mate. In many cases I should have benefitted from an extra week to ponder my choices.

Burley book arrived, by the way, and I should be able to begin reading it this evening. Can't wait.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did Windy, the uncrowned champions book I put a link on the thread arrived for me yesterday, unfortunately missus has now put it away for Christmas, is virtually a form of torture knowing it is so near but so far

I'm sure I shall, jeff, thank you.

The uncrowned champions one has caught my imagination, also. Would be interested to read your review when you've read it.

A lot of interesting stuff as usual. I'm particularly drawn to the Barry discussions. Such are the difficulties with Jimmy Barry that he appears to be in danger of missing out altogether, which might be a shame. I shall leave my final decision on him as late as possible, but I would like him to get a second ballot, in the hope that we can somehow find something definitive in the meantime to help our deliberations. I shall therefore probably switch my vote if it assists in that process.

I wouldnt mind seeing Barry get another shot either but I fear the same questioned will always remain. Even back it those days, where he was obviously rated, it was hard for them to definatively say who was the best or to assess the competition in those fledgling divisions with no independant ranking systems or structure. Over 100 years later with even less to go on its going to be even tougher to get an accurate picture of the strength of his claim.

I voted Yes for Barry the guy was unbeatan but someone made the point he could be fighting bums this is a good point how can you tell? They fought more bums in those days so how do we know how good his opponents were noboday has seen them fight. I think if he was fighting quality he should be in but if he was fighting bums he should not be in?

Morning all. Rather snowed under at the moment, so it will be a fair bit later today before I have the new intro up. Apologies for the delay, as they say.

Not a problem Captain, need to do a bit of research on these few this week and the weekend has not given me time so a slight delay is more than welcome for me.

Two new members for the Hall of Fame this week - Lou Ambers and Abe Attell. Jimmy Barry, probably unluckily, has missed out, as have Baby Arizmendi and Max Baer.

This week, you may be like me and go diving for the reference books. There are one or two fighters to be considered who have not been treated that well by the passage of time. We start with Benny Bass, born in the Ukraine, but a naturalised son of Philadelphia, and one of boxing's fiercest hitters. Bass properly turned pro at the age of 16, and was enormously active, fighting, on average, around twice a month and really hitting his straps as a featherweight in 1926 and 1927. A series of wins over men such as Joe Glick gave him a shot at the vacant Pennsylvania "world" 126 lb title against Red Chapman. Victory by decision also gained him recognition by the NBA, but Bass was to lose the title in heroic circumstances to the great Tony Canzoneri, going down to a split decision defeat after breaking his collarbone in the third round. Bass continued to win, mostly dropping fights only on disqualifications, and by late 1929, he was challenging the long-reigning Tod Morgan for his junior lightweight title, as recognised by NYSAC. A smashing two-round KO made Bass a champion again, but his title went undefended for nearly two years, during which time Bass would lose to Canzoneri again, but beat men as good as Johnny Jadick. Finally, Bass put his 130 lb crown on the line, only to be outclassed by Kid Chocolate. He boxed on for another nine years, but Bass was never again to feature as a championship fighter, although he did score a notable win over future welterweight champ Freddie Cochrane.

The early part of Battling Battalino's career was an auspicious one. A run of twenty-six fights with only one loss from his pro debut was topped off by an excellent win over bantamweight legend Panama Al Brown. Battalino immediately landed a shot at the NBA featherweight title of Andre Routis and made the most of his chance, thrashing his opponent and winning an easy decision. Battalino then became massively inconsistent in non-title bouts, but when it counted, he scored notable title victories over Kid Chocolate and Freddie Miller. In a rematch with Miller, Battalino lost his title on the scales and then put in a total non-effort in the fight itself, subsiding to a KO (later changed to a no-contest) without a glove apparently being laid on him. Moving up in weight and yo-yoing for the rest of his career between lightweight and welterweight, Battalino was still capable of turning in fine performances, as when beating Cocoa Kid, but for the most part, he was beaten by names both great and small, including Barney Ross and Billy Petrolle. His salad days were long past when he lost his last fight in 1940.

Paul Berlenbach had no great pretensions to style, but he was undoubtedly one of the hardest hitters that the light-heavyweight division has ever seen. His first ten opponents all failed to last the distance, whereupon Berlenbach stepped up in class and was soundly beaten by Jack Delaney. Berlenbach then compiled an unbeaten run of 17, highlighted by a draw against the green Young Stribling and a tremendous stoppage of former light-heavy champ Battling Siki. This gave him a shot at Mike McTigue's world title, which he duly won by clear decision. Over the next thirteen months, Berlenbach would defend successfully against Stribling, Jimmy Slattery and Delaney, before losing his crown in a rubber match against Delaney. This spelled the beginning of the end for Berlenbach, who would lose against Delaney (again) McTigue and Mickey Walker before accepting the message and hanging 'em up.

The story of James J. Braddock, boxing's Cinderella Man, is one of the sport's most famous. Beginning life as a light-heavyweight, Braddock rapidly compiled a record of 44 wins in 48 fights to earn a chance at the world title held by the great Tommy Loughran. Not only did he lose a tight decision, but Braddock also badly fractured his hand in the process. Depression set in, and so did the losses. Braddock would lose 20 of his next 33 fights, worked as a longshoreman and had to accept government relief as the economic climate remained appalling. However, he persevered, KOing John Griffin and decisioning light-heavyweight great John Henry Lewis en route to a surprise shot at Max Baer's heavyweight title. Given no chance by anyone, Braddock took advantage of the champion's woeful under-preparedness to snatch an extraordinary decision, the biggest heavyweight shock until Tyson was toppled by Douglas. His reign was short, as he fell to Joe Louis in eight rounds, despite flooring the new kid on the block early on. The magic carpet ride had come to an end.

Jack Britton's name is inseparable from that of his welterweight rival, Britain's Ted "Kid" Lewis, whom he fought 20 times, trading the world 147 lb crown on several occasions in and around World War I. So prolific a fighter was Britton that it is impossible to do him justice here. His 350 pro fights is an astonishing record even for the times in which he fought. A three-time world welterweight champ, Britton finally established a narrow superiority over Lewis and also had a winning record over men such as Charley White and Benny Leonard. His elusive boxing skills and resilience were such that Britton was stopped only once in his extraordinary career - in his second fight.

Evening captain, certainly one of the harder quintets to sort out this week.

Bass doesn't make the cut for me, though he's one of the more impressive fighters to miss out. The late twenties and thirties were a real hotbed of talent for the Featherweight division and he's perhaps unlucky in that sense, but I just don't see a high enough level of dominance as champion for Bass to earn a place amongst the elite there, and while he seemed to up his game for the big fights, his incredibly patchy record in non-title affairs can't be ignored. A fine Super-Featherweight he was, too, but his role in the betting scam with Morgan (or implied role, should I say) set the division back in the eyes of the NYSAC for something like fifteen years. An impressive career but not an elite one. No.

Battalino is a fighter who I should probably know a little more about - anyone who was good enough to inspire a young Willie Pep to take up boxing must have been something special. He's another case of someone who usually got it right in the bigger fights but was incredibly erratic outside of them; I should probably give him the benefit of the doubt, but my gut feeling is that he doesn't quite have the consistency or longevity at the highest level to warrant inclusion here. I'm saying no, but would be willing to listen to a decent counter-argument.

Berlenbach is one of the more underrated Light-Heavyweight champions I reckon, a belief which was confirmed further when I tried to compile an all-time top twenty at 175 lb earlier this year. However, the best 175 lb man he faced in Delaney edged him, and while wins over the likes of Siki and McTigue are impressive, neither of the two were of the elite Light-Heavyweight class. I see Berlenbach as a fighter who contributed very well to a strong era without ever really distinguishing himself in it, which means that I simply can't give him a place in our Hall of Fame. Another no.

Braddock is perhaps the most straight-forward of the lot, and there's no way he makes it in here. I have nothing but respect for anyone who transforms themselves from a has-been ready for the scrap head to a world champion (the likes of Junior Jones and Frankie Randall being other top examples), but that doesn't change the fact that, for the majority of his career, Braddock was the nigh-on definition of a nearly man. In addition to this, I've always wondered whether there may have been something fishy about the Baer fight (unbeknown to Braddock, mind you), a suspicion that has been prodded at again having just finished reading 'Jacobs Beach' by Kevin Mitchell. A clear no for Braddock.

Britton is my idea of a proper Hall of Famer, in every sense of the word. In fact, I can only think of perhaps seven or eight men who I'd say have a better Welterweight resumé than him. We all know about his battles with Walker, which alone would make a compelling case for him, but to establish himself as the best Welterweight of his era Britton also had to fend off the likes (and title claims) of Glover, Shade etc, all capable performers themselves. Would also add that it took an outstanding champion in Mickey Walker to dethrone him, and that Britton was thrity-six at the time. All in all, I feel that Britton is good value for a spot.

So Britton makes it, for me. Bass, Battalino, Berlenbach and Braddock don't.

Can't really add more than Chris has done in his excellent post, and I'm in full agreement with his votes, Captain.

Britton makes it in, for me. A truly extraordinary fighter, going hell for leather on umpteen occasions with the likes of Lewis and managing to come off the better man. When you add to that the likes of Leonard and White you really are starting to talk about a true great of the game, and someone tailor made for any HoF.

No to the others, despite being very tempted to give Bass a berth he just misses out owing to a lack of complete domination during his tenure. What an exciting fighter, though.

Totally agree with FoF and Chris about this week's selection. Britton is the one that takes the eye - fabulous record over such a long period. Despite the curse of the no-decision, he appears to have held his own against the very best in the business for years. Finally losing his title to Mickey Walker at the age of 37 hardly seems a disgrace. YES.

For a variety of reasons, the other four don't make the cut for me. Bass was never clearly the best of his era at any weight and lacks the top-flight wins to compensate for this; Battalino and Braddock are far too inconsistent to deserve the nod, although they have excellent wins to their credit. Finally, Berlenbach seems to have enjoyed an absolute purple patch around 1925-26, where his list of victims is very impressive, but really doesn't have the longevity required for a yes vote. His decisive losing record against Delaney further counts heavily against him. Four rejections plus a nod for Britton, then.

I approached these with a deep feeling of unease and much trepidation. I knew next to nothing of Battalino, not nearly enough about Bass to enable to make an informed choice, and expected to be engulfed by the labyrinth of Britton's dreaded newspaper decisions. Happily, the venture proved to be a source of learning and not nearly so daunting as I had imagined.

Braddock, worthy and courageous though he was, was a ' no ' as soon as I saw the list.

Britton's official bouts, when I viewed them again through fresh eyes, were more than ample by themselves to render him an obvious 'yes.'

The others required study and deliberation and, hoping that I am not doing any of them an awful disservice, I felt they fell short of the mark.

Britton, then, the only ' yes ' for me.

Braddock whilst a heartwarming enough story obviously falls a good way short of what we are wanting here and so is a pretty clear no.

Am equally as happy to say yes to Britton who performed well enough against the likes of Lewis and Leonard to clearly deserve his berth.

The consensus on the others appears to be no and fear in the case of Bass it is one I am going to have to go along with, whilst he does seem to have been well regarded in his day when I look at his record when I come across names I am well acquainted with Bass normally as an L next to his, whether this says more about my knowledge than Bass' abilities is open to debate but he is a no.

Whilst again by no means an expert on him Paul Berlenbach is a guy I am slightly more familiar with and am a little more certain of my no, for me splitting his fights with McTigue suggests his level and whilst he mixed in decent company there are no rewal guys he can seem to claim the wood over so for me he is another no.

Battling Battalino is really difficult, when you read his record you see some pretty impressive wins on there against solid opponents such as LaBarba, Miller and Graham which would suggest he sails in, but as Chris has already said he then spoils this with guys who to be honest I have never heard of, his inconsistency is staggering. However will perhaps buck the trend of no's he is enjoying and give him a yes, more out of the hope it may stimulate more debate from those who know more about him than me and in recognition of the better names on his win column.

Summary
Britton - Yes
Bass - No
Braddock - No
Battalino - Yes
Berlenbach - No

Braddock seems an easy NO.

Britton a similarly simple YES.

Bass, top talent though he may have been doesn't have great names or consistency. I wouldn't disagree massively with his inclusion but enough there for me. NO.

Berlenbach a concensus following NO.

Battalino, here's the fella that interests me. Such an underrated and largely unheard of champion. His highs were so great, along with a large number of lows. He certainly did his talent no favours. To me, the big names are enough. Brown, Chocolate, Miller and Coaco Kid. He arguably has the best wins of any of this weeks possible entrants, although I can see why Britton out does him here. Battalino certainly did it right against the best he faced. It's a YES for Battling Battalino from me.

Burns next week, can actually comment with something approaching knowledge rather than the blind fumbling it has been this week.

I think I am safe with the majority in ruling out Braddock and including Britton as two straightforward decisions. The others are a little trickier though.

Benny Bass is a tough one as he has quite a long career before really getting up to the higher levels. When he does he he holds impressive wins over the like of Babe Herman, Red Chapman, Dick Finnegan, Chick Suggs, Joe Glick and Johnny Farr who were all top featherweights at the time when title opportunities in the weight class were few and far between and fragmented due to the split titles which were reunified in the Bass v Canzoneri fight which Bass lost by a narrow margin. But up to that point Bass had been remarkeably consistent over the competition. He would then go on to continue scoring big wins over the likes of Jadick, Taylor, Massey, Mack, Leto, Shea, Eddie Cool as well as many other highly rated contenders for many years. So all things considered I think Bass to be worthy of place.

Battling Battalino was an incredibly talented fighter. I take on board the point that his record is somewhat inconsistent, but during his peak years in the early 1930s there was barely a top featherweight or even solid contender that he did not beat. Panama Al Brown, Freddie Miller, Cocoa Kid, Kid Chocolate, Fidel la Barba are all quality wins. He also boasts wins over top challengers such as Eddie Shea, Bushy Graham, Bud Taylor, Johnny Datto and Earl Mastro. I would be reluctant to rule out someone who boasts such a ledger. It would seem that where his claim is hurt is primarily in the area of dominance and consistency. While I would certainly acknowledge this, I would also argue that the sheer quality he was fighting with remarkeable regularity lends itself to a certain level of inconsistency and over just a few years Battalino fought about 40 bouts with opponents generally considered the top guys in the division in their day. So while I accept the points on dominance and inconsistency I feel its too hard to dominate that level of opposition consistently and for me the important point is that at one stage or another he basically beat them all until moving on up. So with that in mind I would vote yes to his inclusion.

Paul Berlenbach is a trickier one. I certainly agree he is a very underrated light heavyweight champion. He boasts many fine wins, especially during his title reign which included wins over quality fighters like Stribling, Delaney, Slattery, McTigue and Siki. Had he retired then I think his place would be assured. However his post title career peters out somewhat and casts a shadow over what was a highly impressive title reign. If one could prove age or wear and tear as behind the loss in form then he may have a defence but that is not clearly the case and I think one has to accept that he ended up splitting fights with McTigue and coming off second best with Delaney which I think is enough to outweight an excellent title reign and fine win column.

Benny Bass - yes
Battling Battalino - yes
Paul Berlenbach - no
Jim Braddock - no
Jack Britton - yes

Glad to see a vote for Bass, Colonial.

He was someone whose inclusion I considered deeply myself, and he just missed out when push came to shove. Highly exciting, by all accounts, and some good wins mixed with respectable losses against other greats of his time.

Dont have a great deal to add on these so will keep it simple:

Bass - yes. Doesnt seem to have a distinguished title reign but beat an enormous amount of top ranked fighters over quite a long time and several weights. A close yes.

Battalino - no. As others say, too inconsistent and too short at the top.

Berlenbach - no. Not a strong enough resume for elite HoF.

Braddock - no. Same reasons as everyone else.

Britton - yes. Similar reasons to everyone else.

Britton- An easy yes, well known in this country thanks to his rivalry with Ted 'Kid' Lewis

Braddock- One of the worst heavyweight champions and one of if not the easiest no of all

Bass- Yes, win columm is enough

Berlenbach- Good but not great

Battalino- Now i'll go very much against the grain here and vote yes, he was inconsistent but when on form he was a truly great fighter by all accounts.

Singer, La Barba, Kid Chocolate, Cocoa Kid, Miller, Brown and Feldman is an incredibly strong list of victims, all great fighters in their own right, with the old timers the volume of fights has to be taken into account when you assess there many losses for me.

I wish to change my vote on Bass to a YES if you don't mind me doing so, Captain.

Hello again. Sorry to have disappeared from view without warning, but it has been for the best of reasons, namely that I just haven't had the time to do this the justice that it deserves for the last fortnight. Let's round up the five who have been up for judgement all this time first: No votes at all for Berlenbach or Braddock, a landslide thumbs up for Jack Britton, who joins the Hall by acclamation. Both Benny Bass and Battling Battalino polarised opinion; both came desperately close to landing a second poll next year, but in the final analysis, both scored just over 44% and must therefore disappear from our reckoning. We are unyielding arbiters!

On to this week's quintet. Lou Brouillard is perhaps an unjustly neglected name of yesteryear. One of Canada's greatest fighting sons, Brouillard moved to New England to further his career, and had amassed a record of just five losses in nearly eighty fights by the time he took on Young Jack Thompson for the world welterweight title in 1931. Brouillard took the title, lost it Jackie Fields in his first defence, and then enjoyed his finest hour, a non-title decision victory over the great Jimmy McLarnin. A year later, Brouillard would give weight and a beating to an ageing Mickey Walker and then annex the New York state version of the world middleweight title against Ben Jeby. However, he was now beginning to lose almost as often as he won, and Brouillard would again yield his world crown in his first defence, this time to Vince Dundee. Brouillard could still beat world-class opposition, as he twice proved against Bob Olin and then against Al McCoy and Young Corbett III, but the latter end of his career petered out in a string of losses, although he was only ever stopped once in more than 140 fights.

Freakish physical stature and freakish ability went hand in hand for Panama Al Brown. Somehow able to squeeze his frame of almost six foot into the bantamweight division, Brown campaigned in his native Panama and the US, and actually began life as a flyweight, but two years after arriving in New York in the early 1920s, he was already highly ranked at bantam. In 1926, he went to Paris, won a bout there, and spent much of the rest of his top-rank professional life based in Europe. Victories over men such as Eugene Criqui propelled Brown towards a shot at the world title and in 1929, he would beat Gregorio Vidal in New York to become the first Hispanic world boxing champion in history. Although he almost immediately dropped a non-title decision to Battling Battalino, Brown hung on to his title for six years, defending nine times, before losing the crown to Baltazar Sangchili. Brown would gain his revenge, but only after Sangchili had lost the crown in his turn to Sixto Escobar, and there would be no more title shots for one of Panama's finest.

This is quite the week for Canadians and we next turn to Tommy Burns. The shortest heavyweight champion in history, Burns started boxing out of Michigan around the turn of the 20th century, winning most of his early fights before stepping up in class and being outpointed by Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. Not long afterwards, Burns would also lose a 20 round decision to Jack "Twin" Sullivan, after which Sullivan billed himself as the world's middleweight champion. Despite the loss, Burns immediately landed a shot at the world heavyweight title, then held somewhat contentiously by Marvin Hart. To universal surprise, the 5 foot 7 Burns, who was expected by most experts to be flattened, boxed his way to victory. Over the next two years, Burns would make 11 defences of his title, knocking out Fireman Jim Flynn, drawing with and then outpointing his old foe O'Brien and cutting a swathe through the best opposition on offer in Europe. Eventually, however, the claims of leading contender Jack Johnson could no longer be ignored and Burns suffered a severe beating in losing his title to the much bigger man on Boxing Day 1908. Burns boxed on in desultory fashion, having six more fights over the next twelve years before finally quitting as late as 1920.

It is possible to argue that Tony Canzoneri achieved more at a younger age than any other boxer. Fighting at a torrid pace of around twice a month for the first three years of his career, Canzoneri drew with and lost to Bud Taylor for the NBA bantamweight title at the age of 18. By the time he gained revenge on Taylor later the same year, Canzoneri was already a champion, having beaten Johnny Dundee for the world featherweight crown. In 1928, Canzoneri successfully defended against Benny Bass, but then lost the title to Andre Routis. The following year, Canzoneri gained revenge over Routis, but lost a decision to Sammy Mandell in his first shot at the world lightweight title. Despite losing non-title decisions to Jack Berg and Billy Petrolle in 1930, however, Canzoneri was a champ by year's end, flattening Al Singer for the 135 lb world title in less than a minute. 1931 was to be truly his year - Canzoneri annihilated Berg in 3 to relieve the Briton of his world light-welterweight crown and keep his lightweight belt, and then defended both titles successfully against Berg and Kid Chocolate. In 1932, Canzoneri lost his light-welter title to the clever Johnny Jadick, but reigned on at lightweight, beating his old nemesis Petrolle. Only the advent of the magnificent Barney Ross would part Canzoneri from his titles, and that after Tony had regained his junior welter crown from Battling Shaw. Still Canzoneri was not finished - a run of great victories over men such as Baby Arizmendi and Kid Chocolate (again) set him up for a winning tilt at his old lightweight crown against Lou Ambers. Canzoneri celebrated by defeating Jimmy McLarnin and his old enemy Jadick in non-title fights before losing the crown back to Ambers and dropping the rubber match decision in 1937. Canzoneri was still just 28 years old, but his top-line career was over, although he would box on for another two years.

Was Georges Carpentier the most versatile fighter in history? He was certainly the only one known to have fought professionally in every division from flyweight to heavyweight. Beginning his career at age 14, Carpentier was welterweight champion of Europe by 17, middleweight champion of the continent at 18 and light-heavyweight ruler at 19. He was still short of his 20th birthday when he KO'd Bombardier Billy Wells to become the top heavyweight in Europe and only just past that landmark when he became the "white heavyweight champion of the world" by beating Gunboat Smith. World War I, in which Carpentier won France's highest military honours, intervened, following which Carpentier opted to challenge Battling Levinsky for his world light-heavyweight crown in 1920. A winner by 4th round KO, the Frenchman challenged Jack Dempsey for the world heavyweight title the following year, creating an interest that spawned the first million-dollar gate in boxing history. However, Carpentier was badly beaten and in 1922, lost his light-heavyweight crown somewhat controversially to Battling Siki. A TKO loss to the great Gene Tunney in 1924 put an end to Carpentier's career at the top level.

I'll start by giving my verdicts upon which i'll elabortate further tomorrow

Brouillard- No
Brown- Yes
Burns- No
Canzoneri- Yes
Carpentier- No

I see Canzoneri being as clear a yes as you could hope for, pure class with the wins to back it up while Carpentier and Burns are fairly comfortable no's. Brouillard and Brown are the two whom I see as fairly interesting, my knowledge of them isn't that great so persuassion either way isn't out of the question.

No time to give much reasoning now as I have an early start tomorrow, but just briefly:

Brouillard - No.
Brown - Yes, easy one to my mind.
Burns - No.
Canzoneri - Yes, the easiest of the bunch.
Carpentier - I can see him getting a few no votes but for me I am looking beyond just his (very decent) boxing record. When you consider that he took part in the first million dollar gate, his war honours and ability to fight again at the highest level afterward and his achievements at such a young age he scrapes in based on his overall impact on the sport. Yes.

Carpentier lost far too many decisive fights to come into consideration for me, going back to Papke through to Tunney and Loughran, he tended to lose to the better fighters. Do wins over Levinsky and Lewis do enough to compensate for that? Not a chance for me.

Welcome back, captain. I'd say this week's choices are fairly straight forward - but then again, I've thought that a few times before without it turning out that way.

Brouillard's feat of winning both the Welterweight and Middleweight titles in the days of only one champion per division (well, most of the time anyway) wasn't repeated by all that many and gives him a solid base to start from, however never really establishing himself as a dominant champion at either time of asking means that he falls by the wayside here.

Al Brown is a fighter and a figure who fascinates me. Openly homosexual at a time when such a thing wasn't even whispered in the world of professional sport, a physical freak of nature for a man of the 118 lb weight class and, having read the Roberto Duran biography 'Hands of Stone' from cover to cover a couple of times, all too often a forgotten man in his home country, somehow. It's a shame, because his record makes him just about a top five Bantamweight in history for my money. The names he beat as champion don't necessarily stand out as great ones, but like Jofre three decades after him I feel Brown deserves great credit for his consistency, particularly as he was ancient for a Bantamweight by the time he was dethroned, and also because he regularly took on and beat many top-ranked Featherweights of the day. I may be in the minority - I hope I'm not - but Brown is a yes for me.

I've often commented that Burns is one of the more underrated Heavyweight champions, given that his eleven consecutive successful defences of the Heavyweight title is a record only bettered by Louis and Holmes. That said, each time I make that point I also have to stress that Burns still doesn't belong amongst the elite, and it's with that in mind that I give him an emphatic thumbs down here. You'd have to imagine that Johnson would have done exactly the same to him at any stage of their careers, and given that all the evidence points to the win and draw which Burns secured against O'Brien being cases of fixing, I think we can safely say that he belongs in the 'good' class, rather than the 'great' one.

Canzoneri is the easiest selection this week by a country mile. If he isn't Hall of Fame worthy, then who is? One of boxing's great whiz kids, I make him a top ten man in an all-time sense at Lightweight, and I can't hold him falling slightly short in his series against Ambers and Ross against him too much, given the insane strength in depth between 135 lb and 147 lb in his time. Anyone who can come out of series against McLarnin, Kid Chocolate, Jack 'Kid' Berg, Billy Petrolle, Johnny Jaddick and Al Singer either in the black or level is elite, in my mind. Would have no hesitation in putting Canzoneri within my top thirty-odd fighters across all weights, pound for pound. A huge yes.

Was saying just the other day how I feel that Carpentier is one of the more overrated fighters in history, which probably gives a good indication of which way my vote will go here. Down to ignorance perhaps, though I hope not. Collecting so many European titles while essentially still just a boy is highly impressive, but I don't see the names on his record to warrant legendary status. Even within the division in which he achieved his greatest fame, Light-Heavyweight, I can't bring myself to take him out of the very good category and call him great. I accept that he was perhaps half hoodwinked in to losing the title, but whatever the circumstances, time and again he fell short against the very, very best he faced. No cigar, and not even the 'close' element to console him in my eyes. A definite no.

So for me, Brown and Canzoneri both sail in. No such luck for Brouillard, Burns or Carpentier.

Captain and Chris

Any chance of getting a comment on my article from earlier this week, didn't get the response I had hoped, seems a single line of no analysis is all it takes to get 50+ responses nowadays.

Will have a look at it, Ghosty, thanks for the heads up. Switched jobs not long ago so haven't been able to get online as much as I'd like in the last few weeks - probably why I missed it.

I think Carpentiers, Brouillard and Burns are easy no's. Pretty much agree with what Chris says on them.

Panama Al Brown seems to be getting generously overrated for me on this one. Not sure why he should sail in. At absolute best he might be borderline but I have him missing out by a pretty fair distance.

He seemed to either never fight or else lose to the majority of the top guys he faced with very few big wins comparitively speaking. His title reign was over a fairly weak division and even then seemed to be more or less in dipute alot of the time. Considering Battalino (who beat him) and Kid Chocolate (better record for me) both have missed out already it seems strange that Brown waltzes in.

His rivals that beat him: Abe Goldstein, Battling Battalino, Newsboy Brown, Speedy Dado. He went 1-1 with Pete Sanstol and lost a series to Sangchili.

On top of that, he never fought any of the following who were all operating around his time: Kid Chocolate, Fidel La Barba, Bushy Graham, Bud Taylor, Archie Bell, Harry Jeffra, Sixto Escobar. This seriously weakens his claim in my view as most of these guys were a cut above what he was generally facing.

His big wins are over Kid Francis, Pete Sanstol, Eugene Huat and Gregorio Vidal but I wouldnt rate these as overly great and they are offset by failure to beat many of the better names he fought and the failure to fight better opposition in general. His win ratio at the top level isnt overly impressive either against his high ranked opponents.

His title reign began in dubious enough fashion when he beat Vidal with many considering the the winner of the La Barba v Chocolate bout the more legitimate champion. The division in the 1930s was also fairly weak, as was his general choice of opposition especially while in Europe.

All things considered I think Panama Al Brown is not too disimilar to Carpentiers and for me falls well short of elite level. He is lacking in top level wins, quality of opposition, and an average record against the top contenders he faced of the day (whilst also failing to meet a good many others).

Brouillard - no
Brown - no
Burns - no
Canzoneri - yes
Carpentiers - no

Quick postscript to Manos's last thread is that Kid Chocolate hasn't quite been assessed yet - his turn comes next week.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Quick postscript to Manos's last thread is that Kid Chocolate hasn't quite been assessed yet - his turn comes next week.

Really? Apologies in that case, I stand corrected. I thought he had been given a turn under the moderns.

Perhaps a little tough on Brown, Manos, to whose list of quality wins should certainly be added the names of Criqui, Pladner (twice, both by early KO) and Baldock. I do take your point that he dropped disappointing decisions at times, but we need to remember that men like Miller and Battalino were naturally bigger foes. There is a bit of the Manuel Ortiz about Brown, it seems to me - head and shoulders above a weakish division for some years. Nevertheless, there also seems to me to be just about enough merit in the winning column, added to a long and busy reign as champion, to give Brown a place in our Hall. YES.

Canzoneri scarcely requires further discussion. An all-time great. YES

Have to wonder whether the verdict on Carpentier might be different if World War I hadn't got in the way, but as things stand, it's hard to argue with the judgement so far. He must be a NO.

The irony about Brouillard is that when he was sporting that flashy 72-5 record, or whatever it was, he'd hardly beaten anyone of note at all. When he started mixing it at the highest level, he lost a good few, but also showed he belonged in that company with some really fine wins. Overall, one would have to say that the weight of evidence is against him. Never definitively the best at any weight, two titles lost at the first defence and inconsistency at the highest level mean that he can't have my vote. NO.

Burns may be an underrated heavyweight, but he's still miles away from an elite fighter, in my opinion. As some will know, I've never been the hugest fan of the heavies, and the chaos that Burns wrought on Europe's finest while he was champ only shows how feeble our big men were at the time. I give him credit for the wins over Flynn and Hart and try to ignore the terrible stench hanging over the O'Brien fights, but there's just no way I could ever bring myself to vote him into a Hall of Fame. NO

As others have said Canzoneri is a clear yes and as he appears to be sailing in the reasons why do not seem to warrant listing.

Brouillard similarly seems a clear no, as others have said he just lacks the stand out wins which mark the elite from the very good and as it is elite we are seeking here his no seems fairly clear cut.

There have been some compelling arguments for and against Brown and I can see some validity in both however think on the longevity front and in doing most of his good work at a pipe and slippers age and across two divisions I think I am falling into the yes camp

Carpentier just has too much of a habit of losing to the elite fighters, no shame in losing to the likes of Dempsey and Tunney, but wins over the likes of Beckett are never going to be enough to see you inducted, so he has to be a no.

Would dearly love to say yes to Burns and I feel does get soemthing of a bad rap, particularly on the O'Brien fight, as particularly on the rematch I think he was relatively blameless in any underhand shenanegans and there is much to admire in him as a fighter, he was busy and did not draw the colour line which is no small matter in his day and age, but in any good conscience could I have previously said no to Liston and then say yes to Burns, of course not so he is a no unfortunately.

Summary
Canzoneri - Yes
Carpentier - No
Burns -- No
Brown - Yes
Brouillard - No

Brouillard
Seems like a talented over achiever from what I've read. Managed to become champ and mix with top fighters, but never quite rise to prove himself as anything truly elite. No for me.

Brown
Absolute YES. Winning so much and so often against top fighters and winning world bantamweight title fights into his thirties AND beating some quality featherweights. Most of his losses seem to have been against featherweights too. I'm sure he's in or around the top five of most people's bantamweight rankings.

Burns
Burns I see as being very underrated. He started out as a middleweight, yet managed to become heavyweight champion, and actively defend his title frequently. Maybe I'm just hypnotised by his chilling KO of Squires but I see a fighter of some serious ability. 11 succesful defenses, tied series with O'brien and was only relieved of his title by a man often ranked as a top five ATG heavyweight. Didn't draw the colour line either. I'm tempted to buck the trend and say yes, but I'm still sore about Liston not getting in. NO.


Canzoneri
Yes. Easy.

Carpentier
Borderline, but doesn't make it. I don't hold the Dempsey defeat against him at all, as few of his size could beat Dempsey at his best. Infact, few could beat Dempsey at his best. Being on the losing end against Tunney, Loughran, Sikki, Papke do show he was a step down from the top level. Massively talented and brave as anyone, but not elite.

I think Canzoneri and Brown are a definate yes. Burns, though underrated, is a no. Had he been in era with more diverse weight classes I think he would have been viewed as alot more talented then he is generally considered.

The two troubling me this week are Carpentier and Brouillard. Both ere terrific fighters.

With Carpentier, reading some of the comments I find it hard to disagree with them. But I do feel he is maybe getting less recognition than he deserves. The way his career panned out and the circumstances with the war and maybe some of he fights he took has tended to sell him a little short as a fighter I feel. Realistically he should never have been matched with Dempsey. It was someone who could probably have been a career welterweight or middleweight in with a ferocious all time great heavyweight. When one considers the slack given to fighters like Duran for results and performances outside their more natural weight classes I cant help but feel fighters like Carpentiers and even Tommy Burns dont seem to benefit from as generous a viewpoint. Im inclined to think Carpentiers ability to even be competitive up at weights he could easily have avoided was an indicator of his talent. Then if we also consider the effects of the war there is another good reason there as to why he could have been even greater. Sadly his record itself as have been noted by others probably just isnt strong enough to see him included although winning the European title at scarcely more than 16 years old and winning versions of it in every weight class from welterweight to heavyweight before the age of 20 is in itself a remarkeable acheivement. Again, I feel that hes a fighter that in another era would hav been great in his own weight class and was hugely talented and considering many of his heroic performances against often much bigger men and his invovement in the war has there ever been a braver fighter? A reluctant no, but felt compelled to to try and offer some sort of defence for him.

Have to say I think Brouillard is getting something of a raw deal here aswell with none votes so far. I feel compelled to mount a defence for him aswell.

A good starting place would be his win column I think. Victories over the likes of Mickey Walker and Jimmy McLarnin are genuine evidence of elite quality. He holds win over a huge number of the top contenders of the day across weights ranging from welterweight up to light heavyweight. Baby Joe Gans, Young Jack Thompson, Johnny Indrisano, Adolf Heuser who would go on to be a big player on the German heavyweight scene, Tony Shucco, Bob Olin, Young Corbett III, Al Gainer and Al McCoy and many others who escape me.

He managed to win world titles in two seperate weight divisions at a time when that was no mean feat. That he didnt dominate either division I dont think is too bad a crime considering how competitive the scene was in those days. As others before me have mentioned, he did of ourse have his losses and his career did fade away towards the end. But a point which I seem to come back often in these fine debates is that I think losses and a certain level of inconsistncy has to be expected when you are fighting the kind of opposition that Brouillard and many of these past era fighters were across various weights with such regularity. Nowadays it seems if a fighter jumps a few pounds and undeperforms its excused rather easily but back then this happened regularly. Dominating divisions for extended periods of time in these eras was incredibly difficult.

Hes something of a forgetten fighter, is Brouillard, perhaps in part due to not holding the title for a long time. But he has a very impressive list of competion that he beat and I find it easy to forgive a certain amount of losses and inconsistency that I think is par for the course in those days. I see many people have voted for Panama Al Browns inclusion which I absolutely agree with but on balance I would say Brouillard has the better wins overall, if somewhat more losses to show for it. So Brouillard is a yes for me and although it looks like it may not matter at this stage I did want to give him a defence and at least one vote.

So overall:


Brouillard: Yes
Brown: Yes
Burns: No
Canzoneri: Yes
Carpentier: No

Compelling arguments, especially for Brouillard. They're not falling on deaf ears.

Although I am an infrequent poster on the Hall blog - because I don't feel my breadth of knowledge is always sufficient - if I may be permitted - my tuppence worth on the Carpentier inclusion.

Firstly - people often point out that he frequently lost his big fights.

Whilst this is true - lest we forget - he was a true weight-jumping fighter. Were Manny Pacquiao to step up and fight Martinez - would we hold that fight against his legacy? I certainly wouldn't - because for someone who once campaigned at flyweight to campaign against a LMW is practically unheard of - and could well be a step too far. So the Dempsey fight shouldn't be held against him in my opinion.

Nor should it be forgotten that he has some decent names on his roster. Gunboat Smith, Bombadier Wells both knew their way around a ring. His loss to Jeanette was a referee's decision - disputed by many who saw it.

Sure he lost a few big fights towards the tail of his career - but lest we forget - this was the tail of his career when fighting stateside. Its not as though he could hop on a jet plane and fly across the atlantic when he was at his peak - probably around the 1917 mark (ironically, when he couldn't box due to war) - but crucially - when he was in good form, immediately before and after the war.

Losses to Siki, Tunney and Loughran all came as an old man past his best and at least 15 pounds heavier than he should have been.

We should also remember that critics of the time thought Georges should never be campaigning higher than WW.

His resume probably isn't good enough to make something as prestigious as the 606v2 Hall.

However - opinions of the time rated him very highly indeed - and I base a lot on these opinions. Consensus still describes him as the greatest Euro fighter ever to lace up a pair - which makes him definitely worthy of serious consideration.

As for Panama Al Brown - definite yes for me - for all reasons given above.

Some very good arguments there Colonial Lion, I admit I was probably a bit hasty to write off Brouillard is a fighter I dont actually know a great deal about but will take a second look at him now.

The Carpentiers defence you mounted raises a kind of point that I think tends to crop up quite frequently when discussing the old timers. As someone who feels Dempseys reputation and ranking is pretty high in comparison to his actual record, Carpentiers holds especial relevance. It would seem Carpentiers is given something for a pass for his loss to Dempsey and is seen more as a rather heroic attempt to fight out of his depth weightwise rather than a genuine even keel heavyweight title fight (I know Carpentiers injured his hand in it also). I have no issue with that. But on the other hand I have often seen the Carpentiers win used of evidence of Dempseys greatness and ranked as one of his finest wins. So which is it? If its essentially a mismatch than surely the credit Dempsey should recieive is limited?

With old time contests you correctly point out weight disparagies were more frequent than they are now and thus many losses for fighters can be forgiven. Again this is fine, but what happens is I then see the same fight used as a quality win for the other fighter. There seems to be an element of wanting the best of it both ways with these older fighters. This kind of thing doesnt seem to happen as much as we get nearer the current era as nformation is generally more complete. Indeed the reverse often happens where wins are ignored or discredited on the basis of fighters fighting outside their natural weight. The credit Hagler receives for beating Duran is almost non existant. Some even use it as a negative event. Same goes for Hearns. Hopkins is frequently accused of only beating smaller men and so on. Ultimately I get the impression that the relative lack of information about many of the older era fighters tends to favour them in general in terms of how their wins are viewed as there is much less information about the weights of a fighter, how shopworn they may have been and this means they are much less scrutinised. For instance I would bet that if Hagler v Duran had happened in 1920 Hagler would receive far more credit for the win than he does now.

Obviously its impossible to go through every one of these old era fighters fights and scrutinize exactly how good it is so there is an element of having to take wins more at face value but its one area where I feel the tendancy is to try and have the best of things both ways and with Carpentiers for example, if many losses of his are to be excused on the grounds of weight, then correspondingly they should be marked down as wins for his opponent. But this often isnt the case.

Just felt that I'd like to reiterate my thanks to you all for taking the time and trouble to contribute to this thread. Colonial Lion's latest post here is an excellent example of someone adding to the common stock of knowledge and really making us think about opinions that we might have held without thought in the past.

We are in the process of building up a really credible Hall of Fame; the thought is beginning to occur to me that when we have finished the process, turning it into some sort of book may be the next step.

Having revisted Brouillard I will admit its closer than I initially thought. Ive struggled to a huge amount on him in truth but he does have an extensive list of wins and a very high level of competition between the years 1930-38.

There are a couple of issues for me. First is when to judge him primarily and when to excuse him for being more or less finished. His career collapses pretty dramatically after the age of 26y which is still quite young. Is there a specific reason for this? (The war maybe?) Do we discount any losses from that point? Difficult for me to say without knowing more.

The other point is consistency. I take on board your point Colonial and I agree that there needs to be a greater allowance for inconsistency when fighting a high level of opposition frequently. The problem is what is an acceptable level for the purposes of an elite HoF? People will probably have their own ideas.

At a fairly cursory look if we are to essentially ignore Brouillards career and defeats post 1937 when he appears to fade away from the top level that would give him his top level years between 1931-37. As Colonial says, he fights a significant number of top rated contenders across several weights in that period (as many as 35 or 40) including two elite wins over McLarnin and Walker. However his overall record against the ranked competition is probably only about 65% win ratio. Is that sufficient?

Id be interested to see what others think because it is an issue that occurs frequently in these earlier eras. More big wins over ranked contenders but generally tempered by higher inconsistency and lack of dominance.

Brouillard, on reflection, I think falls near enough the borderline so it really comes down to the standads one sets for the higher Hall.

Captain on the back of Manos' and Lions as always compelling arguments about Brouillard will do some more research on him and hopefully arrive at a more informed decision later in the week, as it does appear he warrants more investigation.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Just felt that I'd like to reiterate my thanks to you all for taking the time and trouble to contribute to this thread. Colonial Lion's latest post here is an excellent example of someone adding to the common stock of knowledge and really making us think about opinions that we might have held without thought in the past.

We are in the process of building up a really credible Hall of Fame; the thought is beginning to occur to me that when we have finished the process, turning it into some sort of book may be the next step.

I like the sound of that, I'd happily read it! Has been a sublime thread.

Now then, let me Google some potential publishers

Some very interesting ones here, I must say.

Let's start with the easiest of the group. Tony Canzoneri is surely the very kind of fighter for whom the HOF was created. An absolute certainty.

YES.

I read manos' customarily thorough analysis of Panama Al Brown with enormous interest, and it is a compliment to him that he prompted me to dwell a little longer on the subject of Brown's inclusion than I normally would have. Ultimately, though, I remained of the opinion that Brown's credentials and the esteem in which his overall ability was held by contemporaries are sufficient for his inclusion.

YES.

The question of Tommy Burns' candidacy didn't occupy me much longer than did that of Canzoneri.

NO.

And so to the tricky ones.

Carpentier may just have suffered because of his versatility in climbing through the weights. Little doubt that he acquitted himself well against larger opposition but there is also little doubt that while men such as Wells and Beckett, for example, were worthy fighters and pretty good scalps for a lightheavy, they weren't truly world class. We must, then, look a little closer to home to find his world class opposition and in doing so it seems he falls some way short of HOF credentials. The Levinsky win fits the bill but, apart from that, the best scalp he has is probably Ted Kid Lewis who was himself moving up in weight to challenge Carpentier. Heroic failures against Dempsey and Tunney come nowhere near to redressing the balance, in my opinion, and there is also the sneaking suspicion that Miske, Gibbons, Greb and Tunney might well have been able to turn Carpentier over while he held the lightheavyweight crown.

They didn't come much gamer than ' The Orchid Man ' and there weren't too many sharper, sweeter or more accurate right hands than his, either. He even had the audacity to lead with his right against Dempsey for a couple of rounds, catching him flush more often even than Tunney would a few years later. All in all, though, it's not quite enough.

NO.

Brouillard is the toughest call of all, for me, and I've changed my mind two or three times - and may yet change it again - before giving him the benefit of the doubt.

It is the fate of some fighters to simply be unappreciated, regardless of their ability. Jeffries is one to whom history hasn't been kind. Billy Miske and Billy Graham might be others. I believe that Brouillard is one such.

I went back two ' generations ' of opponents in weighing up Brouillard and came to the conclusion that there's reasonable depth of quality there. Some solid names, for example, on the records of Al Gainer and Young Jack Thompson and some sparkling ones on the resumé of Young Corbett III. In addition, Brouillard beat an all time great in McLarnin and, while the Mickey Walker whom he beat was on the downside of a wonderful career, it was still no easy task to turn over the ' Toy Bulldog. '

We can, of course, tick a few negative boxes for Brouillard's alarming decline toward the end of his career, during which he shipped nearly twenty losses of his last thirty or so fights. However, we wouldn't deny Ezzard Charles or Evander Holyfield a place among the pantheon for similar declines, and I'm not convinced we should do so in the case of Brouillard.

The excellent website, CyberBoxingZone, begins its mini bio of Brouillard thus :

Brouillard was short, sturdy and "as strong as a horse" - with a walloping punch to go along; Tough, durable and willing, Lou tore into his man to fight it out and usually emerged as the winner; He was a "handful" to cope with.

I set a great deal of store by the writings of the CBZ staff, most of whom are members of the IBRO, and their opinions, coupled to my own research, persuade me that, if only in the hope that he might make a second ballot, Brouillard gets the nod from me.

In summary, then :

Canzoneri - YES

Brown - YES

Brouillard - YES

Burns - NO

Carpentier - NO

Not much at all I can add, Captain.

Canzoneri - without doubt YES.
Brown - YES.
Brouillard - Windy and Colonial have persuaded me to change my mind - YES.
Burns - No.
Carpentier - No.

Im pretty much the only dissenting voice on Brown here, so perhaps I am being overly critical. Although most seemed to him have him an easy incluson when I didnt see it that way.

My dispute comes over mainly who he didnt fight, as opposed to who he did. He beat some good, if not really elite guys but there are a whole host of men it seemed he should have been fighting while he vanished off to Europe in large spells fighting lower level opposition out there.

Kid Chocolate, Fidel La Barba, Bushy Graham, Bud Taylor, Archie Bell, Harry Jeffra, Sixto Escobar, Abe Goldstein, Battling Battalino, Newsboy Brown, Speedy Dado. These are all fighters that he either never faced or else lost to at some point that were all top ranked contenders during his era. One of the biggest reasons being that he seemed to go off to Europe in large spells and fight out there. He might have been giving away weight to some of the above guys to be fair, but in those days this was pretty common and in my view not really an excuse for avoiding a top name. It does seem to be a significant amount of challengers not faced or beaten.

I would also question exactly how dominant his reign was. It seems to pretty disputed for much of it as well as quite patchy in parts with non title losses to rivals like Newsboy Brown and Speedy Dado occuring in the midst of it who were ranked challengers at the time.

Personally I though Battalino (who beat Panama Al) who missed out last time would have at least as good if not better claim but I can see why people are voting brown in. Just not sure he sails in quite that easily.[u]

Manos, your points regarding Brown are valid and certainly haven't fallen on deaf ears mate. I'm sticking with my initial belief that he deserves his ticket in to our Hall of Fame, but on the back of your above points and some niggling doubts in my mind, I am certainly revisiting my rankings of the Bantamweights and seeing whether or not my claim that Brown is perhaps top five worthy was a little generous.

I have thought very carefully about Brouillard, prompted by Colonial Lion and Windy, and will try to set my logic out here.

It seems reasonable to omit his career after his defeat to Teddy Yarosz; Brouillard was manifestly on the slide after this, despite being a fortnight short of his 26th birthday. I'm therefore setting aside the losses suffered against men such as Tiger Jack Fox, Lesnevich, Christoforidis and Abrams. Similarly, I am not setting too much store by a number of the early wins that he racked up in Canada and around various provincial halls in New England. The period that fairness requires us to adjudicate on is that of his pomp, or roughly between 1931 and 1937.

On the plus side, Brouillard is campaigning against the cream of two divisions during this time. His successes are hugely impressive - I would single out McLarnin, Walker, the two Young Jack Thompson victories, Olin (twice), Heuser, McCoy and Young Corbett III. He also wins titles (one undisputed) at both weights. With the depth on offer at the time, I freely acknowledge that even a really good fighter will suffer his share of losses against the cream of the crop. Brouillard is no exception, dropping decisions to Fields, Dundee, McCoy, Thil (twice), Apostoli and Yarosz.

So far, the ledger would be in his favour, but it his propensity to lose fights against men of the second and third rank during this peak period that makes me really question Brouillard's right to a spot in the Hall of Fame. A win and a loss against Gainer is OK, but a 1-2 log against Indrisano, plus losses to men such as Shucco, Callahan, Jimmy Smith and Littman while in the prime of his career are not what one would hope for from a fighter out of the absolutely top drawer.

Had Brouillard's peak years extended for longer, or either of his title reigns been more complete, I could have been persuaded to give him the nod. However, there are just too many losses against men whom I would have expected him to beat to overcome these relative black marks. Colonial Lion in particular has articulated a highly credible case for Brouillard, but I am not quite convinced. My decision must remain a NO, albeit more narrowly than before.