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]

88Chris05 wrote: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 did the same when I reviewed him and came to the conclusion that he probably does have a decent shot to be in the top 5 bantams. But that its more a reflection on the division than on Brown. The division isnt one of the stronger ones and many of the fighters in it have graced other divisions aswell.

It took a while for the division to be established and since the introduction of the new weights its been pretty much crippled seeing as there are 3 divisions either side of it a modern bantam could probably compete in. So ultimately you are left with a division few fighters have left a lasting legacy in it or spent a huge amount of time in. Brown almost gets into the top 5 by default. One of the reasons I dont really like placing a huge amount of emphasis on a fighter establishing themselve as a top 5/10 etc in any but a few weight classes.

It was a similar case with Sugar Ray Robinson. You think how can his patchy MW record be good enough for a top 5 MW spot but when you look in detail, despite so many top fighters gracing the MW division not that many have actually left a lasting legacy in it so Robinson actually has a pretty decent shout to be top 5 which probably overrates his MW ability and record overall.

Certainly agree Manos that Bantamweight, historically speaking, has certainly lagged behind some of the other divisions in terms of depth and truly outstanding champions produced. I disagree, as it goes, that Middleweight is of a similar quality, but that's beside the point I suppose.

But my general gut feeling is that when someone has played a big enough part in the history of one of the original eight weight classes that they have a realistic claim to be top five of all-time within it, I find it hard not to class them amongst the elite. Could well be a flaw in the way I evaluate fighters from a bygone era, I guess. Hopefully my aforementioned revisit of the Bantamweights and the men around them will iron out any flaws I've developed in that sense.

88Chris05 wrote:Certainly agree Manos that Bantamweight, historically speaking, has certainly lagged behind some of the other divisions in terms of depth and truly outstanding champions produced. I disagree, as it goes, that Middleweight is of a similar quality, but that's beside the point I suppose.

But my general gut feeling is that when someone has played a big enough part in the history of one of the original eight weight classes that they have a realistic claim to be top five of all-time within it, I find it hard not to class them amongst the elite. Could well be a flaw in the way I evaluate fighters from a bygone era, I guess. Hopefully my aforementioned revisit of the Bantamweights and the men around them will iron out any flaws I've developed in that sense.

I think Middlweight has housed a huge amount of quality in its time. But my point is that comparitively few have left a real legacy there. For a division that so many top fighters have graced it seems strange that Robinsons MW career should be deemed to have a considerable shot t a top 5 spot - but that the case. Guys like Langford, Fitzsimmons, Walker and so on were spread over so many weights they dont have a strong divisional claim, guys like Leonard or Jones didnt stay long enough, many of the Murderers Row were quality but lacked the opportunity to leave a lasting mark.

With the divisional lists I think it would be ok to emphasise them a lot if the original 8 classes had remained. But nowadays you are seldom going to see fighters (MW and below at least) spending entire careers at one weight class as weight hopping has become commonplace and the talent amongst the divisions is spread out. Think about the modern 4 of Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Pacquiao - how many weight classes did their fights spill over? Were they all confined to one or two weights they might have decent claims in those classes but they end up being spread too thin. Hence the original old timers like Al Brown who is probably a top 5 man are never going ot have their places properly contested.

Likewise you have anomolies like Hatton being considered a top ten 140 man when in reality he isnt. Its pretty hollow to have him placed above Pacquiao, De la Hoya, Whitaker etc who graced LWW when its obvious they are better but simply didnt contest the weight class often enough.

Brown - Yes
Canzoneri - Yes
Brouillard - I'd go with a yes for now - would like to compare him to our hof holistically.
Burns - No
Carpentier - No

This week has again seen some fascinating debate, a lot of it revolving around Lou Brouillard. Initially somewhat forlorn in the voting stakes, he was revived by a stirring defence from Colonial Lion, and came within hailing distance of a second ballot. However, he ultimately falls short of the required figure, securing just over 36% of the vote, and is therefore discarded. A clearer no was registered for Tommy Burns and Georges Carpentier, who follow him out into the cold. In contrast, both Panama Al Brown and Tony Canzoneri eased their way into a deserved Hall of Fame berth, Canzoneri by unanimous acclamation.

This week's candidates require a word of warning - as the late Kenneth Williams and Frankie Howerd might have said: "Mind your Corbetts!" There are three of them to be judged this time round.

However, we start with Kid Chocolate. A prodigious, though hard to verify, amateur career in Cuba was the precursor to his turning professional at the age of 17, before moving to the US the following year. From 1928-1930, Chocolate campaigned at an increasingly high level, beating men such as Fidel LaBarba, Al Singer and Gregorio Vidal and maintaining an unbeaten record for more than 50 fights. To great surprise, he was then decisioned by Britain's Jack Kid Berg and also lost a re-match with LaBarba before his first world title contest, a shot at Battling Battalino's's featherweight crown which he lost on points. In 1931, though, redemption came for the Kid with a masterly seventh round stoppage of Benny Bass for the latter's NBA world super featherweight title. In the same year, Chocolate defended the crown with a one-round blow out of Joey Scalfaro, before ending 1931 with a razor-thin decision defeat to Tony Canzoneri in one of the greatest lightweight title fights of all time. The following year, Chocolate would drop another decision to Berg, but would defend his super-featherweight crown three times, once in a rubber match against LaBarba, while picking up the NYSAC featherweight crown by beating Lew Feldman. 1933 was a disastrous year, though - Chocolate was brutally KO'd by Canzoneri and also lost his super-feather crown inside the distance to Frankie Klick. It was to be the end of his championship career. Chocolate contracted syphilis in 1934, mounted a comeback and only lost three of his last fifty bouts up to the end of 1938, but he would never get the chance to box for a belt again.

The son of Polish immigrants to the US, Joe Choynski was one of the great early lights of light-heavyweight and heavyweight boxing. A boxing master who also packed a heavy wallop, Choynski never weighed much above the light-heavyweight limit, but fought most of his notable contests against renowned heavyweights. Early in his professional career, in 1889, he took on Jim Corbett in a famous bout held on a barge and only succumbed in the 27th round. Two years later, he would twice lose by KO in shots at the Australian heavyweight title held by Joe Goddard, but Choynski was only just warming up. Over the next two years, he would score notable wins over Tommy Ryan and George Godfrey before taking a hammering from Bob Fitzsimmons. Choynski again rebounded, losing a controversial decision to Tom Sharkey, beating Joe McAuliffe, getting stopped by Peter Maher, but then showing his great quality by fighting a 20-round draw against James Jeffries, giving away more than 60 lbs. A controversial draw with Sharkey, revenge over Goddard and two losses to Kid McCoy, the second a hugely controversial bout, sandwiched a good win over Maher, but Choynski then promptly lost successive bouts to Joe Walcott and Sharkey inside the distance. However, Choynski's greatest triumph was still to come. In 1901, he knocked out Jack Johnson in 3 rounds; both were jailed immediately after the fight and it is rumoured that Choynski promptly taught Johnson the tricks that he had used to overcome the future great. The last three years of his career were an anti-climax, however, and were brought to a virtual close with a one-round KO loss at the hands of Kid Carter.

"Gentleman" James Corbett was arguably the originator of a more scientific approach to the gloved era of boxing. Beginning his professional boxing career in 1886, Corbett scored notable wins over foes such as Joe Choynski and Jake Kilrain before really making his move into the big time. At a point when heavyweight champion John L Sullivan was drawing the colour line, Corbett took on "black champion" Peter Jackson in an epic 61-round fight, which was finally declared a no-contest. Public opinion now clamoured for Sullivan to put his title on the line against Corbett and a year later, people's wishes were granted. Boxing brilliantly, Corbett inflicted severe punishment on the champion, winning by 21st round KO. An inactive champion, Corbett defended just once in 5 years, easily defeating Charley Mitchell, before taking on Bob Fitzsimmons in 1897. Well on top by Round 14, Corbett lost concentration and was poleaxed by the famous solar plexus punch, failing to beat the count. A DQ loss against Tom Sharkey was Corbett's only fight before challenging the new heavyweight champ, James Jeffries, for the world title. Boxing superbly again, Corbett built up a big lead before Jeffries' incredible stamina and strength came in to play and Corbett was KO'd in 23. Three years later came the return match, and this time, Jeffries' victory was more conclusive, coming after ten rounds. Corbett never fought again.

Taking his boxing name as a tribute to Gentleman Jim, Young Corbett II started his professional career in the American Mid-West and built up a healthy unbeaten record before losing a battle for "the bantamweight championship of the West" to Billy Rotchford. After swapping KOs with Jack Dempsey (no, not that one) for the Colorado state featherweight crown, Corbett rose through the ranks, losing the odd fight, but generally flattening opponents with the power of his punching. In 1901, he decisioned George Dixon for the "Western featherweight title" and in his next fight, knocked out the great Terry McGovern to annex the world crown. Three successful defences followed, including a second over McGovern, but by 1903, Corbett was unable to make the featherweight limit, so was billed as the 130 lb champion, while Abe Attell claimed recognition at 122 lbs. His loss to Jimmy Britt ended any doubt about Corbett's title claims, and he subsequently lost successive fights by KO to Battling Nelson and slowly faded from the top echelons of the sport, finally retiring in 1910.

Young Corbett III, in contast with his predecessors of the name, was actually an Italian by birth. As tough as old boots, Raffaele Giordano moved with his family to the US, adopted his nom de guerre and began his pro career at the age of 14. Two early KO losses failed to deter him, and over the next few years, he racked up win after win from his Californian base. In 1928 came his most significant win, a decision over future world welterweight champ Young Jack Thompson, with whom Corbett had drawn a year earlier. Over the next two years, Corbett would win and lose decisions against Sergeant Sammy Baker, take a decision over future world champion Jackie Fields and beat Thompson again. After beating future world middleweight champ Ceferino Garcia in late 1932, Corbett was finally ready for a world title shot of his own, which he won at 147 by beating Jackie Fields again. His reign would last just three months and was brought to a close with a crushing first-round loss against Jimmy McLarnin. Although he would never be champion again, Corbett was far from finished, beating foes as distinguished as Mickey Walker, Gus Lesnevich, Billy Conn (to whom he lost the return) and Fred Apostoli and earning a shot at Apostoli's NYSAC world middleweight crown in 1938. However, Corbett was stopped in eight and retired after four more inconsequential victories.

Going to go for Carpentier...He was a larger than life character who's name is still pretty well known now....

He was a distinguished light heavy champ who took part in Boxing's first million dollar fight...

He is a figure head of the sport in a way......(Not just always about records)

Probably go for Brown over Canzoneri....

Brown and Carpentier...


Certainly on next weeks list James Corbett is for me a must...The father of modern day boxing and a huge iconic figure..

Some very, very tough decisions to make this week, captain, and probably none harder (for me, at least) than the man who is first up, Kid Chocolate.

When someone as great as Ray Robinson is saying that he built his style on Chocolate's, it's a pretty big testament to the Cuban's abilities. No doubt that Chocolate mixed it with many of his era's best, but his results against them weren't always of Hall of Fame standard, as the stats below show.

Versus Bushy Graham; 1-0
Versus Fidel La Barba; 2-1
Versus Al Singer; 1-0
Versus Jack 'Kid' Berg; 0-2
Versus Battling Battalino; 0-1
Versus Benny Bass; 1-0
Versus Lew Feldman; 4-0
Versus Tony Canzoneri; 0-2
Versus Frankie Klick; 0-1

At a cursory glance, then, it seems that Chocolate basically beat the 'very goods' who he was roundly expected to beat, but performed moderately against the very cream of his generation (in this instance, La Barba, Berg and Canzoneri being the pick of the names above).

However, the difficult element with Chocolate is that he possibly lost more controversial decisions in significant fights than any other man of his era. Certainly, the first Canzoneri affair and the return bout with La Barba (both of which I revisited in anticipation of the quintet under consideration this week) are two losses that the 'Cuban Bon Bon' picked up in which he certainly had a great claim to be the rightful winner, and had he got the nod on those occasions his record suddenly has a much more convincing egde to it.

But how much should 606v2 Hall of Fame entries hinge on speculation, maybes and what ifs? Chocolate's best division was probably Super-Featherweight, a weight class which was hardly recognized either side of the pond for much of his reign there, and at the lower weight he'd grown out of the limit before establishing himself as a truly dominant champion. Given his style, flamboyance and link to so many great names, I have a feeling most will disagree with me but I'm saying no to Chocolate, though he's certainly one of the better fighters who haven't made the cut for me.

Choynski is a little more straightforward. Like Chocolate, much of his legacy is built on peripheral matters, namely being such an influence on Jack Johnson. I'm not saying that Choynski's in-the-ring exploits weren't impressive, of course. Jim Hall was highly rated during his time, as was Peter Maher, but outside of that Choynski's meetings with the best around - Fitzsimmons, McCoy, Corbett etc - usually didn't end all too well, and Johnson in fairness was little more than a newcomer to the sport when Choynski beat him. Also, I find it hard to class any Light-Heavyweight who gets flattened by a Welterweight reportedly around 30 lb lighter than themselves as an elite fighter, even if the Welterweight in question was one as outstanding as 'Barbados' Joe Walcott. Choynski is a clear no for me.

Jim Corbett, once more, is a fighter whose in-the-ring exploits don't necessarily translate as Hall of Fame ones, but who needs to be evaluated in a slightly different way to most others given his status as a pioneer in the sport, and as a key figure in the crossing over from the London Prize Ring Rules to the Marquees of Queensberry which we know and love today. On the whole, I believe he misses out. Sullivan, by most accounts, was an overweight shadow of the swashbuckling wrecking machine he'd been a few years prior when Corbett beat him in 1892, and I have no real desire to honour a champion as incredibly inactive as Corbett, even if the times he boxed in make his paltry number of defences a little more inevitable. Certainly played his part in developing the sport, but ultimately lost too many of the fights which would define his career. Another no.

Will admit that Young Corbett II's claims are a little stronger than I initially thought. Dixon may have been shopworn by 1901 but was still campaigning at the very highest level, and on paper a pair of wins over McGovern seems to cement what a force Corbett II was. However, the problems come in to play when we consider that there was much confusion as to whether or not Corbett could really call himself the best Feathweight in the world during most of his 'reign', given his puzzling refusal to meet Attell, and I also can't shake the niggling stench which surrounds those two wins over McGovern, harsh as that may sound. Simply too much doubt surrounding him to make him a Hall of Famer, I feel, so he misses out.

And finally, Young Corbett III. Again, I was surprised at how many significant wins he scored in his career, which emphasises what an asset this thread has been to 606v2 boxing. However, much like Billy Graham years later, Corbet III seems to have had that nasty habit of being able to beat the greats when it mattered least, but losing to them when it mattered most. Ultimately, I see a very, very good Welterweight and later Middleweight in Corbett III, but not a great one in either case. Given how he never really established himself as the man to beat at either weight for more than a very short time, I can't find room for him. Another no.

So there you have it - five thumbs down from me. I await the backlash! Sorry to have rambled on, too.

Initially, I had thought that I was bound to be saying yes to Kid Chocolate, Chris. Like you, I then dug some more and came up with the stats that you have kindly laid out in your comments. A six-year prime was not exceptional for the time, and although he packed an amazing amount into it, I don't think that Chocolate has the required record against men of the first rank, on the whole. I have to vote him a NO.

Choynski is a more emphatic NO. Great credit for the fights against Corbett, Jeffries and Johnson, and some kudos for beating Maher and an old Godfrey, but consistency wasn't the name of his game. Sharkey certainly had his number, while the reverse against Walcott is a huge black mark against him. Can't feature here, I don't think.

I must respectfully disagree about Jim Corbett, Chris. His performances against Jackson, Sullivan and Jeffries are the stuff of legend, he basically changed the many turbulent rivers of boxing into a single smooth sea and if he was horribly inactive as champion, there weren't, with the exception of Fitz, too many credible challengers clamouring to be heard during his five-year reign. He was damned careless to lose to Ruby Robert, but Fitz wasn't a patsy. Corbett is part of the fabric of the sport and must be in this Hall, I think. YES.

Young Corbett II was obviously one of the great featherweight hitters, but we are really asking for three performances, against the ageing Dixon and twice against the occasionally corruptible McGovern, to be sufficient for Hall of Fame purposes. In light of the fact that he never did fight Attell, and was twice soundly whipped by a brawler not that much heavier than himself while still in his prime, I'm not sure that his CV is quite good enough. I see no extenuating circumstances and must regard this Corbett as a NO.

I can't help but refer back to Lou Brouillard when assessing the claims of Young Corbett III. Eventually, the Canadian just fell short for me, despite his list of victims. He and Corbett fought, of course, with Brouillard winning a decision, and both enjoyed mastery over Young Jack Thompson as well. Both were also short-reigning welterweight champions, and both had great wins over the fading Mickey Walker. However, although Brouillard did briefly hold a middleweight title and Corbett did not, I would contend that Corbett's opposition and list of victims above 147 are much superior to Lou's. Garcia, Apostoli, Lesnevich and that magnificent victory over Conn, to set beside the Walker win, are really impressive names. When I add that to a slightly longer peak, plus the fact that during his prime, Corbett lost much less readily to the good Grade B fighters of the day than Brouillard, I find that his case is stronger than the Canadian's. Brouillard just fell short of Hall of Fame entry - for me, Corbett just gets over the line. Young Corbett III is a YES.

Well captain, of my five 'no' votes I suspected the two which would be the most unpopular were for Chocolate and 'Gentleman' Jim Corbett, so I fully understand you disagreeing with me on the latter.

I suppose we all have our own ideas on what kind of ratio between purely in-the-ring exploits and other factors should exist when it comes to deciding how great a fighter was. The problem I have with Corbett is that he seems to get more credit for losing certain fights than many other rejected candidates have got for winning them. If we forget about his status as a pioneer, where could he realistically rank in the pantheon of Heavyweight greats? At best I'd see him scrabling for a spot on the cusp of a the top twenty, and I doubt any other similarly-ranked fighter who campaigned at one weight throughout their careers would be given anything more than a passing consideration in this exercise under normal circumstances.

Of course, Gentleman Jim's contributions to boxing as an art form mean that these aren't normal circumstances, but while I agree he was ahead of many contemporaries, I see him as part of a group who helped to usher in the new era, rather than being solely responsible. Like Chocolate, though, he's one of the better names to be rejected in my own mind, and as such I don't really have any problem with you - or anyone else - disagreeing with me.

Have to say, I think running through the old-timers will be even more of an eye opener than separating the wheat from the chaff amongst the modern greats, which says a lot!

A very difficult quintet to consider this week and feel I should have had the foresight to delve a little deep a bit earlier.

Starting with Kid Chocolate, his opposition was of the highest possible standard but as Chris' stats show his record against them was a patchy one but it's important to consider the spread of weight classes these men competed in. On the whole it would appear that the Kid beat those smaller than himself such as LaBarba but lost to those bigger than him Canzoneri and Berg while his record was fairly even against those of a similar size such as Bass, Battalino and Singer. On reflection for being the forerunner for cuban excellence combined with a fairly outstanding record he has to be a YES.

Choynski is a fighter I have much admiration for, regularly fighting with great honour against bigger fighters and acquitting himself very admirably but the losses overshadow the wins. His influence on Jack Johnson makes things slightly more complicated but as much as I hate it, it has to be a NO.

Little more needs to be said of Gentlemen Jim, the original scientific boxer, his record looks poor but his influence on the sport is such that he is an easy YES.

Now to the two most difficult fighters of whom my knowledge isn't comparable to that of Chris or the Captain.

As we have done with most before him Young Corbett can't get in by virtue of wins over the undoubted brilliance of Dixon or McGovern, the rest of his career is not that of an elite hall of famer, so it's a NO.

Young Corbett III is a fighter whom should be lauded more than he is, a win column that stands up to most of his era. Anyone who can boast a win column that includes fighters the standard of Walker, Conn, Apostoli, Lesnevich, Thompson, Baker, Fields and Garcia must have been pretty damm good. He may have lacked prolonged eras of dominance but when your contemporaries are of such a high standard this can't be too heavily used again him so YES.

Will get what I see as the easy ones out of the way first, Choynski is one of those guys who does not appear to have been an easy nights work for anyone and wins over the likes of Maher are certainly solid, would also be tempted to give him some leeway on dumping decisions to the likes of Jeffries because my admiration of him is well known but as others have said his loss to Walcott is less forgivable and so he has to be a no.

Corbett II is also a guy I find myself saying no to, as others have said there is a huge asterix against the McGovern fights which it would probably have needed an Attell win to remove, tough no but he is a no.

I am massively indebted to Chris for doing the leg work on Kid Chocolate and reading his record he would seem a no but as Ghosty has mentioned the weight must be considered, remember someone posted similar for Burley and his stats did not look all that impressive but most of the guys he lost to were natural light heavies of some distinction and I fear something similar is the case here, so I am leaning very much to Ghosty's argument and saying yes to Kid as I definitely feel the worst he deserves is a second consideration.

Corbett III is another tricky one and always the voters have made compelling arguments on both sides but despite a relative lack of longevity I do feel his list of victims is strong enough to find me saying yes.

Corbett is truly tricky, if we just go on record he seems an obvious no, terribly inactive as a pro, and whilst he pushed Jackson all the way he did not pick up the win and dumped his title to a middleweight, albeit a terrific one, couple that with winning his title against a shell of a fighter and he appears an easy a no as anyone. However some fighters contribution to the game is so great some leeway has to be allowed and whilst it may seem inconsistent I simply cannot imagine a HOF without Gentleman Jim in it and so I am going to have to say yes to him.

Like the captain, I find that Young Corbett III is closely intertwined with Lou Brouillard and I mentioned, in assessing Brouillard last week, that I was very impressed by the stellar names on Corbett's resumé, which were significant in persuading me to vote for Brouillard. Given that I did plump for Brouillard, I could hardly deny a place to Corbett.

YES.

James J. is an absolute certainty for me.

YES.

I'd love to say ' yes ' to Choynski, whom I have always believed to have been disadvantaged by not being able to compete in what would have been his most suitable weight class, the lightheavyweight division not having been born until too late in the day for Joe. However, there is a little voice whispering incessantly that, even if he had enjoyed the opportunity to display his abilities at lightheavy, he would ( in all probability, ) have still found himself rubbing shoulders with Mr. Fitzsimmons. Granted, the presence of one nailed on top twenty all time great should not preclude another great fighter from receiving his due but, coupled to the low points in his career, the idea that he likely would not have been ' the man, ' even at his best weight, probably constitutes the defining factor, for me.

Big Choynski enthusiast, and I'd love to be persuaded otherwise ( cue Colonial Lion, ) but, for now at least, I must say a very reluctant ' no. '

I run the risk, here, of being accused of simply replicating the views of captain and Chris, but I would completely endorse their views on Kid Chocolate. I had expected to cast an easy ' yes,' but find myself, instead, saying ' no ' and for precisely the reasons which Chris offers.

Also a no - and a relatively straightforward one - to Young Corbett II.

In summary, then :

James J. Corbett - YES

Young Corbett III - YES

Kid Chocolate - NO

Joe Choynski - NO

Young Corbett II - NO

Sorry Captain not much time to comment now but my initial thoughts are:

James J Corbett - Yes
Young Corbett III - Yes
Kid Chocolate - Yes

Young Corbett II - No
Joe Choynski - No

not to sure where my last post went?? i'll try again

the biggest part for me in deciding james j corbett vote is the

"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)."

this bit alone means that james j corbett is a yes for me, certainly enough influence on the sport for me

not much else to put on the others but my votes

kid chocolate- yes
corbett II- no
Cortbett III- no
choynski -no

Good to see i've managed to sway one person Rowley, does seem to be a trend with the fighters who have been near misses like Angott that they unlike say Duran get less of a reprieve for losing to bigger men.

Not a problem Ghosty, just feel he is definitely a guy who deserves to make a second consideration although him making it still seems up in the air thus far.

Its a pretty tricky list this week. So far it seems that Young Corbett II and Choynski are out and I dont think I will buck that trend. The other 3 are all very marginal though.

James J would be a fairly easy no in almost all aspects other than the status he holds. I cant help wondering if he isnt overcredited sometimes with his influence on a sport that was changing and evolving anyway. Much of his novel style and influence seems to based around beating a pretty shopworn John L and its noticeable that he went on to basically lose to everyone relevant after. But it seems pointless to deny his reputation as a figure in the sport whether it may be overstated or not, so wht it comes down to I guess is how far one is willing to relax the standards to account for this? Unlike say Tyson for instance, who some would say is in more on reputation than accomplishment, I dont think Corbett can boast as strong a record or as good a title reign or list of acheivements so I would say to allow him in would take a fairly liberal relaxation of the standards of the Hall. I suppose ultimately with John L already in there, and the place Corbett holds in the history of the sport, I would be inclined to give a reluctant yes although couldnt really fault anyone arguing otherwise.

The next are the kind of guys that I think you can easily make an argment for that makes perfect sense, but ultimately it come down to just what standard one believes the benchmark of the Hall should be, as opposed to any dispute over the quality of the candidate. I think these guys are close but the question I tend to ask myself when I see a borderline case is "is this the kind of candidate the elite Hall is designed to filter out?". Somebody who is obviously a great boxer but for whatever reason just falls short of scaling the very highest echelon.

Kid Chocolate I think ultimately falls just short for me for similar reasons as Chris gives. Even if one discounts the very credible losses to Canzoneri and Berg as being little more than forrays into a higher weight class, I am just not convinced the rest of his record is sufficient for the elite Hall. He has the beating of guys like Feldman, Singer, Graham and Shea who were good opposition of the day but the kind that an elite Hall candidate should be beating. Bass is also a very good win and we have a hard fought 2-1 series win over La Barba and a loss to Battalino and Klick. Its close, but for ust lacks something. He established fairly consistent dominance over the contenders of the day but against the top level he guys the feeling I get is he was a bit patchy and he also didnt fight them enough comparative to the number of bouts he had I think. Im inclined to agree with Chris that its very fine margins that see him miss out but that these are the margins that can make all the difference.

I think if you were including induction purely on wins alone then Corbett III may make the cut. Most arguments for him thus far seem to be arguing for inclusion based on win column and victims which is impressive but on further reflection it does seem that many of these wins were tinted on some level and either came over an opponent who was on the slide or relatively novice. Cefarino Garcia was in no way a top class fighter whn Corbett III beat him. He was unranked and very inconsistent. So that isnt really a top level win for me. Likewise Mickey Walker was almost retired and if boxrec is correct, was forced to drop down from heavyweight/light heavyweight campaigns and shed 20lbs in a couple of months which isnt really ideal. Conn and Lesnevich hadnt really got into their best days yet and were still largely upcoming fighters when Corbett faced them. Add to that losses to contempories like Brouillard and McLarnin, lack of any real title reigns or ability to establish himself as even the clear second or third best fighter in his division and I think he too falls short for me of the highet echelon. The feeling I get is he is more a very good contender rather than elite. So despite a good list of victims Corbett III misses out for me.

Also as something of an irrelevant side point I am surprised the oringinal Young Corbett is not in the existing Hall as he seemed to be one of the standout light heavies in a very competitve light heavyweight era.

Chocolate - no
Choynski - no
Corbett - yes
Corbett II - no
Corbett III - no

Truss, when you get a moment, would you mind offering your thoughts on the other four candidates for this week, particularly Kid Chocolate and Young Corbett III, who are the ones polarising most opinions? Thanks very much.

Manos, I seem to agree about your recollections of Young Corbett, but can't find the details on his career. Did he actually box under that name? When we come to the final week of old-timers deliberations, I would want to include him for consideration, much as we did with Hamed and Curry in the last week of the moderns.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Manos, I seem to agree about your recollections of Young Corbett, but can't find the details on his career. Did he actually box under that name? When we come to the final week of old-timers deliberations, I would want to include him for consideration, much as we did with Hamed and Curry in the last week of the moderns.

Apologies I was actually thinking of Young Stribling, from the 1920s light heavyweight scene! To much Corbetts on the brain in the last while having gone through their records.

Here's Choynski getting KOd by Fitzsimmons - maybe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARaHIz4q_NM

Choynski is a hard one. He has an elite win - that famous KO of Jack Johnson. However - besides that great win - the rest of his resume is a bit similar to ODLH - he falls short too often in his great fights.

He does have elite level power - both Johnson and Corbett reckoned that Choynski was the hardest puncher they'd ever faced - although I take that with a pinch of salt - but for sure Choynski could deliver a mean wallop.

Too many losses for me - and the tutoring of Johnson doesn't quite make up for it. A regretful no.

Corbett - Yes from me. Fantastic skills, changed boxing and some decent wins over reasonable opponents. Manos has made hay pointing out that Corbett's resume isn't that good - which is perhaps fair - however, given the influence Corbett had upon the sport - he has to be in.

Kid Chocolate - a Yes for me.

Many thanks to Chris for providing some interesting stats on Chocolate's resume. Certainly - he wasn't that effective at 135 - although the people who beat him were great fighters in themselves. The Battalino loss counts against him - but there's enough quality on his resume to make up for it - Bass, LaBarba. That combined with his status as Cuba's first ever world champion is enough for me.

Same here, Manos. Between the word Young and the word Corbett, my brain has seized up. Young Stribling will be up for analysis about four months hence.

oxring wrote:Here's Choynski getting KOd by Fitzsimmons - maybe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARaHIz4q_NM

Ha!

Definitely not Fitz, unless he had some serious surgery prior to filming. There is some excellent footage of Choynski sparring with Jeffries ( while Jeffries was preparing for Johnson, ) kicking around somewhere out there.

Oxring, what of the two Young Corbetts?! Are they in or out for you?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Oxring, what of the two Young Corbetts?! Are they in or out for you?

I only know a little bit about both - and I think it would be unjust of me to put forward an ill-informed opinion, especially for a hall as tough to get into as this one. I'm going to happily watch the more knowledgeable post - and - hopefully learn something.

I feel that the main section of the board might be an easier place if some posters (funnily enough, no-one on here) would occasionally follow this tactic.

A fascinating bunch of candidates this week and something of a rogues gallery of underrated fighters.

I think Kid Chocolate was a terrific fighter that was held in the highest esteem in his day and imitated by many - even the greatest of all Robinson would acknowledge his influence on his own style. Heroic losing efforts in the lightweight class above his own traditional one against men as good as Canzoneri and Berg make it tough to hold against him and are evidence of his class. When combined with his generally outstanding record in his own division including wins over Bass, La Barba, Vidal, Shea, Feldman, Nebo, Singer, Graham, Fernandez and others I think its fair to say he was remarkeably consistent in the featherweight and fledgeling super featherweight division and I find myself giving him a comfortable yes vote.

Choynski is a fighter I see as similar to Carpentiers in as much as his actual record does not really do him fair justice as a fighter. Fantastic fighter, but in an era where the abscence of weight classes meant he was too often forced to fight whilst giving away sizeable advantages. Conceding as much as 50 or 60 pounds to Jim Jefferies but battling to a draw and displaying a masterclass in ring generalship is in itself a fantastic acheivement. I would be confident that if Choynski had his pick of wight classes to compete in as they have now he would easily have been a champion of considerable prowess. However as with Carpentiers I am forced to concede that record, if it must play such a big part, would dictate Choynski lacks the paper ticket to the Hall although it is with the greatest reluctance I leave out such a considerably talented fighter who had such a lasting impact on his era and the future ones - as Jack Johnson would testify.

I would find it hard indeed to contemplate a Hall without Gentelman Jim, something of a founding father of the sport we know today. Wins over the likes of McCaffrey, Kilrain, Choyski and of course the legendary John L Sullivan should not be underestimated and his influence on the sport ranks behind only a handful of fighters. An immensely talented fighter with an imperious style that took full advantage of the changing landscape of boxing. So James J Corbett is a clear yes in my book.

Young Corbett II is a very curious case and perhaps one of wasted talent more than anything else as he was well known for a dislike of training and an ever present battle with his weight. He became well known for his wind ups and propensity to insult and trash talk his opponents. It was perhaps this that lead to one of the most explosive featherweight bouts of all time with Terry McGovern in what was then a huge upset. His early career gives a clear indication of his talented and capabilities. By the age of 21 or 22 he was the best featherweight in the world racking up wins over Terry McGovern, a George Dixon who had seen better days but also wins over tough contenders like Joe Bernstein, Oscar Gardinar, Jimmy Briggs and Young Erne. At this point, and especially after his thrilling and savage bout with McGovern the hallmarks for a real HoF fighter are in place. But his career ended up trailing off quite badly as he became unmotivated, lack of training, weight battles and generally began to sqander his money by all accouts resulting in him being washed up by his mid twenties. During his few short peak years it would seem he touched upon genuine greatness and was an elite fighter but sadly the sharp downturn in his career, brief peak and waste of talent would see him miss out.

I consider Young Corbett III a great fighter without a matching title reign. Part of a very competitve welterweiht and middleweight scene that included the like of Fields, Brouillard, McLarnin, Vince Dundee, Tommy Freeman, Baby Joe Gans, Young Jack Thompson, Fred Apostoli and many others. Corbett III managed to score a long list of very impressive wins and rack up an incredibly strong and impressive win column. Despite only holding the title for the briefest of periods I think his ledger of wins over the stong competition of the day is sufficient evidence of his calibre as a fighter and is worthy of a place in our Hall. I think there is also an arguent to say he was very underrepresented in title fights given the extnsive nature of his wins and his longetivity as a top contender of the day.

So to conculde:

Kid Chocolate: Yes
Joe Choynski: No
James J Corbett: Yes
Young Corbett II: No
Young Corbett III: Yes

The impression I got from Corbett III was that his record flattered him a bit. There dosnt seem to a huge amount of contempary opinion out there that indicates he was elite that I could find. Alot of wins came over guys that were on the way up or down. Conn and Lesnevitch had yet to really break into the top contendership and were a few years from their title reigns. Conn avenged his loss also as did Apostoli. Garcia was a novice who was losing as many as he won at the time. Walker as I said was almost retired and coming down 20 lbs. I think might account for his lack of title shots as he wasnt generally fighting these bigger names at their best when they were top ranked. He has a good win over Fields for the title but was then knocked out in a round by McLarnin never to win a title again and only ever challenge for one once more. All in all I got the feeling of a good contender rather than elite Hall of Famer.

I've tried using that logic in the past with regards to Jones' win over Hopkins which is regarded as one of his best, would seem unjust on Corbett III to mark him down for essentially the same thing.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I've tried using that logic in the past with regards to Jones' win over Hopkins which is regarded as one of his best, would seem unjust on Corbett III to mark him down for essentially the same thing.

I dont think so, because Corbetts III win colum is about all thats getting him into the Hall. He had next to no title reign, lost 2 of 3 world title fights, didnt establish himself as the the second or even third best in any division with any real authority or length of time and so on.

Jones was a world champion for most of his career across 4 weights, seen as the man in two of them and a pretty long reigning champion at light heavyweight. I think he has a far stronger claim across the board.

Corbett III fought alot of guys but not always at pivotal times and with mixed success at the top level against the top guys. Falls short for me.

I think, going back to the original elitist stipulations for entry into the HOF, that the only one I can confidently say yes to is James J. Even then, his entry is largely on a symbolic basis and because of what he means to boxing rather than necessarily based on the excelllence of his career.

I'm going to go with sentiment and say yes to Kid Chocolate. I can see the arguments against his inclusion but I think there are enough wins against very good opposition to go along with a sterling amateur career to merit inclusion.

There is a temptation to go with others on Young Corbett III but I do feel he is the kind of fighter who is on the very cusp of inclusion and might just be one of those guys who finds himself unlikely to miss out. So he is a no from me.

It's a straighforward no for Choynski and Young Corbett II.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I've tried using that logic in the past with regards to Jones' win over Hopkins which is regarded as one of his best, would seem unjust on Corbett III to mark him down for essentially the same thing.

I dont think so, because Corbetts III win colum is about all thats getting him into the Hall. He had next to no title reign, lost 2 of 3 world title fights, didnt establish himself as the the second or even third best in any division with any real authority or length of time and so on.

Jones was a world champion for most of his career across 4 weights, seen as the man in two of them and a pretty long reigning champion at light heavyweight. I think he has a far stronger claim across the board.

Corbett III fought alot of guys but not always at pivotal times and with mixed success at the top level against the top guys. Falls short for me.

I think what we have to keep in mind is that back in Young Corbett III time titles were very difficult to come by and even harder to hold. Im relectant to to dismiss a fighter of the quality of Young Corbett III to quickly as a result of a lack of titles or extended reign. When you look at the quality he faced and beat over his career I think it gives a good indication that we are dealing with a hugely talented fighter mixing it with very strong opposition. Nowadays there is a multitude of titles readily available and numerous weight classes to choose from so there could be little doubt that in todays kind of environment Young Corbett III would be a world champion in one of several divisions!

Colonial Lion wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I've tried using that logic in the past with regards to Jones' win over Hopkins which is regarded as one of his best, would seem unjust on Corbett III to mark him down for essentially the same thing.

I dont think so, because Corbetts III win colum is about all thats getting him into the Hall. He had next to no title reign, lost 2 of 3 world title fights, didnt establish himself as the the second or even third best in any division with any real authority or length of time and so on.

Jones was a world champion for most of his career across 4 weights, seen as the man in two of them and a pretty long reigning champion at light heavyweight. I think he has a far stronger claim across the board.

Corbett III fought alot of guys but not always at pivotal times and with mixed success at the top level against the top guys. Falls short for me.

I think what we have to keep in mind is that back in Young Corbett III time titles were very difficult to come by and even harder to hold. Im relectant to to dismiss a fighter of the quality of Young Corbett III to quickly as a result of a lack of titles or extended reign. When you look at the quality he faced and beat over his career I think it gives a good indication that we are dealing with a hugely talented fighter mixing it with very strong opposition. Nowadays there is a multitude of titles readily available and numerous weight classes to choose from so there could be little doubt that in todays kind of environment Young Corbett III would be a world champion in one of several divisions!

I appreciate where you are coming from and the point you are making on this. But I would have disagree on a number of things.

Firstly, I think its a matter of approach with many of these fighters. As I see it, we are not really discussing whether the fighter was good or not as that much is generally a given. For me the Hall is about acheivement and seperating the really good from the great.

Im relectant to set too much store in this idea of if Corbett III was around now..... Why is it all that relevant? This is but one of many era's. Why should winning a title in this era potentially make any difference to Corbetts III claim? The first question I ask is did the fighter establish greatness in his own era? Only after that do I then ask how does this translate into other eras? All a fighter can do is establish greatness in their own era. After that its left to others to decide how this compares to other eras. Its not like because titles are easier to come by nowadays that we are putting the likes of Clinton Woods and Johnny Nelson up for HoF review. Fighters now might fight it easier to pick up straps but they still have to establish themselves as HoF material the same as any other era by proving it in the ring where it matters. I dont think it should be held against them just because titles have become devalued. Corbett III would find it easier to pick up an alphabet title but thats not going to garauntee him HoF entry by any stretch. Would he be able to beat Mayweather or Pacquiao at WW? Would he beat Martinez at MW?

I think we can agree Corbett III was a very good fighter but with the elite HoF in mind was he a great fighter? And did he establish this? Im not convinced he did. First, looking at his own era, he never really established himself as the best in any division. Won the title off Fields which was a good win, but was promptly knocked out in a round by McLarnin and only ever challenged unsuccessfully for the Middleweight title on one other occasion losing to Apostoli. At no point other than his very brief time at welter weight champion was he considered the best in any division. He was a top rated welter for a number of years but while he beat many other contenders of the day I dont think that in itself is tantamount to greatness and is the minimum would should expect from an elite HoF candidate.

Of his upper tier opponents he has good wins over Fields but losses to Brouillard and McLarnin. Hes 1-1 with an upcoming Billy Conn, 1-1 with Apostoli and has a win over an upcoming Lesnevitch (who I dont rate all that highly personally). He also has a win over Walker who as I mentioned above was not rated at the time and coming down a fair bit of weight at the end of his career. And over the course of his career Corbett never really left any lasting mark in either the WW or MW division where he competed. And I also think, depite titles being harder to win in those days, his failure to really establish any kind of title reign counts against him.

Then looking at him in the context of him in an overall sense in every era - did he ever really establish himself as a top 10 or even top 15 man in either or his divisions in a historic sense? I would say he might appear in the lower reaches of the top 15 mark in either division. That in itself would suggest to me not really elite, but more very good.

So with an elite HoF in ming Corbett III would fall short of the standards I would adhere to, although perhaps for others he warrants inclusion. I just feel he fits the very good category and didnt convincingly establish himself as much more than that over his career. I dont really think hypothesizing that he might have had a longer reign in another era is a solid enough foundation to include him going off the career he had. Its not like the title holders of the day were the elites of all time. I see it more just as a strong competitive era rather than one dominated by an elite fighter or two and Corbett III never really pushed himself out in front.

Most of the good arguments have already been made and this has been a good batch of candidates, lots of contrasting opinions.

Chocolate seems to be polarising opinion the most, along with Young Corbett III. I see a fighter of immense style and ability, who should earn some points as a pioneer for inspiring Robinson's style alone. A great all arounder and his record is excellent too. I feel I should go back to Chris' (I think it was Chris anyway, seems so long ago...) list of his results against his best opposition:
Versus Jack 'Kid' Berg; 0-2
Versus Battling Battalino; 0-1
Versus Tony Canzoneri; 0-2

These are the three that interest me.

This is from Cox's corner:
"His loss against Battling Battalino for the World Featherweight Title was extremely unpopular. James P. Dawson of the New York Times wrote, “In the vast throng which witnessed a truly exciting, bitterly fought encounter were a considerable number who disagreed with the decision. Chocolate floored the champion in the 1st round and had Battalino on the verge of a knockout. He carried nine of the 15 rounds in the opinion of this writer.” "

Batallino, a guy who, when on form, could beat some of the very best of them (and only missed out on induction into our own HoF based on consistency rather than any lack of ability) could not decisively beat Chocolate. Infact general feeling seemed to be with Chocolate.

Also from Cox's corner:
"When he lost a decision against Tony Canzoneri for Tony’s World Lightweight Title the decision was booed unabatedly for a full ten minutes. “Through most of the fight (Chocolate) belted the champion with everything but the timekeepers gavel. His black arms pumped with precision and they carried a sting like the tail of a wasp,” wrote Richards Vidmer in the NY Herald-Tribune. “Only towards the finish did Canzoneri come with the speed and power that he has shown in the past. He staged a desperate rally after trailing far in the rear, and won the tenth, eleventh and twelfth sessions, but these were not enough to catch up with the Kid’s early advantage and the black shadow from Havana took two of the last three rounds to hold his lead.” Had the decision went his way Kid Chocolate’s spot in history would likely be much higher. Even so it was a fine performance by “The Keed” and he deserved the nod in this first fight between the two all time greats. "
and
"Another bad decision that went against Chocolate was his 15 round decision loss to Jackie “Kid” Berg who was a weight class heavier. The NY Times reported, “A crowd of 15,000 persons saw the battle…when the verdict was announced a storm of protest went up. Many thought that the Cuban, due to his more effective punching at long range and better boxing ability was entitled to the award. Most of the experts at ringside also were of this opinion.”"

He clearly has a case for being 1-0 with Batallino, and honours even with Berg and Canzoneri. However Chris also makes the excellent point; "how much should 606v2 Hall of Fame entries hinge on speculation, maybes and what ifs?" and I'm certainly not looking to rewrite history and award wins to Kid Chocolate if he didn't get the nod, but to point out that he performed well enough that many considered him to have won against such a high level of opposition. This surely reflects just how good he is, especially considering the size disparity with Berg. This, along with his non-controversial list of wins, make him a YES for me.

James J Corbett doesn't convince me based on his pioneer status. We denied Burns entry, who was a former middleweight who became heavyweight champion and set a record number of defenses. I don't see that a 24(?) bout career in which he lost to his best opposition and has few redeeming wins is enough. His status as a pioneer is undeniable, but to me the bad outweighs the good. NO to Corbett.

Joe Choynski, a top fighter and a dangerous one by all accounts. Although he lost against the best he faced, he was generally the smaller man. He wasn't smaller than Fitzsimmons though, so even in his own size range he wasn't the best. Has some great wins along with one or two inexcusable losses, like being stopped by a 5'1 man whom he outweighed by 20 pounds. NO to Choynski.

Young Corbett. I can't put together a better argument for Corbett II then Colonial already has. No to Corbett II.

My vote on Young Corbett III has gone from yes to no over and over again as I've been reading all these arguments for and against. Ultimately I've found Manos De Piedra's point that the wins he's getting in on have big asterisks by them the most compelling, and that the big names he faced with asterisks he lost too. My knowledge on him has doubled on this thread alone and he's closer to being in than any of the other NOs, but he's still a NO.

Good stuff Captain. That's why it's thread of the year!

The quality of debate on this thread gets better and better - believe me, I'm still turning over the merits of a couple of these fellows in my mind, and will do so right the way up to Sunday.

Thanks again; it makes the effort so worthwhile.

manos de piedra wrote:Its a pretty tricky list this week. So far it seems that Young Corbett II and Choynski are out and I dont think I will buck that trend. The other 3 are all very marginal though.

James J would be a fairly easy no in almost all aspects other than the status he holds. I cant help wondering if he isnt overcredited sometimes with his influence on a sport that was changing and evolving anyway. Much of his novel style and influence seems to based around beating a pretty shopworn John L and its noticeable that he went on to basically lose to everyone relevant after. But it seems pointless to deny his reputation as a figure in the sport whether it may be overstated or not, so wht it comes down to I guess is how far one is willing to relax the standards to account for this? Unlike say Tyson for instance, who some would say is in more on reputation than accomplishment, I dont think Corbett can boast as strong a record or as good a title reign or list of acheivements so I would say to allow him in would take a fairly liberal relaxation of the standards of the Hall. I suppose ultimately with John L already in there, and the place Corbett holds in the history of the sport, I would be inclined to give a reluctant yes although couldnt really fault anyone arguing otherwise.

The next are the kind of guys that I think you can easily make an argment for that makes perfect sense, but ultimately it come down to just what standard one believes the benchmark of the Hall should be, as opposed to any dispute over the quality of the candidate. I think these guys are close but the question I tend to ask myself when I see a borderline case is "is this the kind of candidate the elite Hall is designed to filter out?". Somebody who is obviously a great boxer but for whatever reason just falls short of scaling the very highest echelon.

Kid Chocolate I think ultimately falls just short for me for similar reasons as Chris gives. Even if one discounts the very credible losses to Canzoneri and Berg as being little more than forrays into a higher weight class, I am just not convinced the rest of his record is sufficient for the elite Hall. He has the beating of guys like Feldman, Singer, Graham and Shea who were good opposition of the day but the kind that an elite Hall candidate should be beating. Bass is also a very good win and we have a hard fought 2-1 series win over La Barba and a loss to Battalino and Klick. Its close, but for ust lacks something. He established fairly consistent dominance over the contenders of the day but against the top level he guys the feeling I get is he was a bit patchy and he also didnt fight them enough comparative to the number of bouts he had I think. Im inclined to agree with Chris that its very fine margins that see him miss out but that these are the margins that can make all the difference.

I think if you were including induction purely on wins alone then Corbett III may make the cut. Most arguments for him thus far seem to be arguing for inclusion based on win column and victims which is impressive but on further reflection it does seem that many of these wins were tinted on some level and either came over an opponent who was on the slide or relatively novice. Cefarino Garcia was in no way a top class fighter whn Corbett III beat him. He was unranked and very inconsistent. So that isnt really a top level win for me. Likewise Mickey Walker was almost retired and if boxrec is correct, was forced to drop down from heavyweight/light heavyweight campaigns and shed 20lbs in a couple of months which isnt really ideal. Conn and Lesnevich hadnt really got into their best days yet and were still largely upcoming fighters when Corbett faced them. Add to that losses to contempories like Brouillard and McLarnin, lack of any real title reigns or ability to establish himself as even the clear second or third best fighter in his division and I think he too falls short for me of the highet echelon. The feeling I get is he is more a very good contender rather than elite. So despite a good list of victims Corbett III misses out for me.

Also as something of an irrelevant side point I am surprised the oringinal Young Corbett is not in the existing Hall as he seemed to be one of the standout light heavies in a very competitve light heavyweight era.

Chocolate - no
Choynski - no
Corbett - yes
Corbett II - no
Corbett III - no

I find myself agreeing almost entirely with Manos. Only bit with which I have a slight issue is the dismissal of Corbett III superior win column especially in light of the strength of his era. However I agree with Manos that adding the what if and moving fighters into different Eras may make for a fascinating discussion - it shouldn't be used to add people into the elite HOF because they weren't the elite of the era they were in. So on what did happen rather than what could/should have. Otherwise I would have killed you all because of Naz's exclusion. I often sit out some weeks, not because of a lack of interest in old timers but because Frankly I don't have a clue about some of the fighters you talk about and it would be unfair of me to sway a tight vote either way with hastily researched ideas on fighters.Here I feel a little more comfortable. The arguments have all been made and much to'ing and fro'ing as I mulled over your posts with a sheesha pipe in hand but I find myself agreeing with the well written post of Manos.

Corbett in - all others out although I am rather tempted to give both Chocolate and Corbett III a vote just to try and get them on the board for comparison - I fear I will start doing that with everyone!.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge gents, i'll retire with my pipe and wish you all a good evening.

ShahenshahG wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its a pretty tricky list this week. So far it seems that Young Corbett II and Choynski are out and I dont think I will buck that trend. The other 3 are all very marginal though.

James J would be a fairly easy no in almost all aspects other than the status he holds. I cant help wondering if he isnt overcredited sometimes with his influence on a sport that was changing and evolving anyway. Much of his novel style and influence seems to based around beating a pretty shopworn John L and its noticeable that he went on to basically lose to everyone relevant after. But it seems pointless to deny his reputation as a figure in the sport whether it may be overstated or not, so wht it comes down to I guess is how far one is willing to relax the standards to account for this? Unlike say Tyson for instance, who some would say is in more on reputation than accomplishment, I dont think Corbett can boast as strong a record or as good a title reign or list of acheivements so I would say to allow him in would take a fairly liberal relaxation of the standards of the Hall. I suppose ultimately with John L already in there, and the place Corbett holds in the history of the sport, I would be inclined to give a reluctant yes although couldnt really fault anyone arguing otherwise.

The next are the kind of guys that I think you can easily make an argment for that makes perfect sense, but ultimately it come down to just what standard one believes the benchmark of the Hall should be, as opposed to any dispute over the quality of the candidate. I think these guys are close but the question I tend to ask myself when I see a borderline case is "is this the kind of candidate the elite Hall is designed to filter out?". Somebody who is obviously a great boxer but for whatever reason just falls short of scaling the very highest echelon.

Kid Chocolate I think ultimately falls just short for me for similar reasons as Chris gives. Even if one discounts the very credible losses to Canzoneri and Berg as being little more than forrays into a higher weight class, I am just not convinced the rest of his record is sufficient for the elite Hall. He has the beating of guys like Feldman, Singer, Graham and Shea who were good opposition of the day but the kind that an elite Hall candidate should be beating. Bass is also a very good win and we have a hard fought 2-1 series win over La Barba and a loss to Battalino and Klick. Its close, but for ust lacks something. He established fairly consistent dominance over the contenders of the day but against the top level he guys the feeling I get is he was a bit patchy and he also didnt fight them enough comparative to the number of bouts he had I think. Im inclined to agree with Chris that its very fine margins that see him miss out but that these are the margins that can make all the difference.

I think if you were including induction purely on wins alone then Corbett III may make the cut. Most arguments for him thus far seem to be arguing for inclusion based on win column and victims which is impressive but on further reflection it does seem that many of these wins were tinted on some level and either came over an opponent who was on the slide or relatively novice. Cefarino Garcia was in no way a top class fighter whn Corbett III beat him. He was unranked and very inconsistent. So that isnt really a top level win for me. Likewise Mickey Walker was almost retired and if boxrec is correct, was forced to drop down from heavyweight/light heavyweight campaigns and shed 20lbs in a couple of months which isnt really ideal. Conn and Lesnevich hadnt really got into their best days yet and were still largely upcoming fighters when Corbett faced them. Add to that losses to contempories like Brouillard and McLarnin, lack of any real title reigns or ability to establish himself as even the clear second or third best fighter in his division and I think he too falls short for me of the highet echelon. The feeling I get is he is more a very good contender rather than elite. So despite a good list of victims Corbett III misses out for me.

Also as something of an irrelevant side point I am surprised the oringinal Young Corbett is not in the existing Hall as he seemed to be one of the standout light heavies in a very competitve light heavyweight era.

Chocolate - no
Choynski - no
Corbett - yes
Corbett II - no
Corbett III - no

I find myself agreeing almost entirely with Manos. Only bit with which I have a slight issue is the dismissal of Corbett III superior win column especially in light of the strength of his era. However I agree with Manos that adding the what if and moving fighters into different Eras may make for a fascinating discussion - it shouldn't be used to add people into the elite HOF because they weren't the elite of the era they were in. So on what did happen rather than what could/should have. Otherwise I would have killed you all because of Naz's exclusion. I often sit out some weeks, not because of a lack of interest in old timers but because Frankly I don't have a clue about some of the fighters you talk about and it would be unfair of me to sway a tight vote either way with hastily researched ideas on fighters.Here I feel a little more comfortable. The arguments have all been made and much to'ing and fro'ing as I mulled over your posts with a sheesha pipe in hand but I find myself agreeing with the well written post of Manos.

Corbett in - all others out although I am rather tempted to give both Chocolate and Corbett III a vote just to try and get them on the board for comparison - I fear I will start doing that with everyone!.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge gents, i'll retire with my pipe and wish you all a good evening.

Personally I wouldnt consider the era Young Corbett III fought in as particularly strong in historical terms. The champions during his career in the divisions he competed in were the likes of an ageing Fields, Vince Dundee, Fred Apostoli, Teddy Yarosz, Babe Risko, Freddie Steele, Tommy Freeman, Jimmy McLarnin in an era where the welterweight and middleweight titles were getting passed around alot. These are good fighters, but they arent the top pound for pound fighters in history by any stretch. You would have to feel a genuinely elite fighter at welterweight or middleweight might be able to put together a stronger title reign or at least capture the title on more than one occasion from that group of fighters.

Also Ive noticed in alot of cases with some of these fighters that lack titles or lasting reigns the argument is put forward that in the modern era they would have won plenty more titles. I reject this argument overall and think its becoming a little bit of an excuse. I think we all appreciate that with more titles and divisions around now its common sense that figters find it easier to pick up titles. But that in itself has never been any sort of garauntee of HoF status so I see it being more or less irrelevant if Young Corbett III could have a better title reign now. Its still not going to garauntee him entry by any means. Not to mention its purely hypothetical anyway.

I thought that some of you might not know about the latest inductions into the Canastota Hall of Fame. In the modern category, Thomas Hearns got the expected nod; he was accompanied by the contrasting figures of Cocoa Kid and Mark "Too Sharp Johnson". The old-timers were represented by Newsboy Brown, Leo Houck and Jake Kilrain, while the observers and non-participants included Freddie Roach, Michael Katz, Al Bernstein, Rip Valenti and, rather extraordinarily, Michael Buffer. One pioneer this year - James Wharton. All will get their chance at being voted on by 606 judges in due course.

For now, we shall stick with our appointed course. Last week, debate was first-class again. There was no doubt in people's minds about Joe Choynski and Young Corbett II, both of whom were passed over by all judges and disappear from our slate in perpetuity. There was plenty of doubt about the other three, with the odd abstention appearing on some people's voting cards. In the end, James J.Corbett received a positive vote share of more than 85%, albeit slightly grudgingly cast in some instances. He enters our Hall of Fame as a result. Both our other candidates had their supporters and their detractors; Kid Chocolate finished with a positive vote in excess of 69%, while Young Corbett III managed an even 50%. Both fall short of automatic election to our Hall, but will be eligible for a second ballot at some point towards the end of next year.

In recognition of the fact that the Festive Season is upon us, with all its attendant responsibilities and obligations, I intend to postpone the next analysis of five candidates until early January. People have much less time to pay their normal visits to the site, and I have less to do my customary level of research, so we shall look at Messrs Coulon, Criqui, Darcy, Delaney and the Nonpareil in the New Year.

I shall no doubt contribute the odd word elsewhere between now and Xmas, but for now, it's a huge thank you and season's greetings from this thread to all contributors to, and readers of it. It's been a lot of fun so far, and I expect more of the same in 2012.

Thank heavens for that Captain, off the top of my head i'd only have been able to give a fair appraisal of Dempsey, gives me time to research the other four in the depth required.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Thank heavens for that Captain, off the top of my head i'd only have been able to give a fair appraisal of Dempsey, gives me time to research the other four in the depth required.

Likewise, some serious time on CBZ was going to be in order.

Captain, many thanks for your continued hard work and effort on this thread, it truly is appreciated by all.

Season's greetings to yourself and your family, and look forward to its continuation in 2012.

To be quite honest Jeff, i've never even heard of Darcy whereas Coulon I know only by name and Criqui i'd only heard of thanks to the discussion on Brown last week. My god this doesn't get any easier.

Happy Christmas Captain!

I'll be glad for the research time. Criqui and Dempsey I felt I could do some justice to - but the others? I'd be doomed without a little time!

Mm, I'd be OK on Darcy and Dempsey but I'm really glad for the time we've got.

Merriness all round!

Where is the illustrious leader of the hall of fame?

As an occasional visitor to the esteemed Boxing threads who has kindly been tolerated by Windy and others in the past, can I respectfully ask if Angelo Dundee is in your Hall of Fame.

If not, I believe he is certainly worthy of consideration as the tributes to his passing overnight show. A man with intelligence, nous and many other attributes both within and outside the world of boxing.

Neither Dundee nor his most fervent supporter would claim he was the greatest. For me, that undoubtedly was and will always be Muhammad Ali. However, Dundee played a hugely significant role in ensuring that is the case. I have a sense now that Dundee has gone on ahead to loyally as ever check that everything is as it should be for The Champ when he arrives.

Apologies if this has already been covered in your Hall and my tribute here is misplaced.

Guildford, am not sure what the position is on non participants, in the proper hall of fame the inductees are broken up in terms of modern, old timers and I believe non participants where the likes of journalists, trainers and Sylvester Stallone have been inducted, our original plan was to work through the inductees and sort the wheat from the chaff, the modern guys are done, the old timers are just under way and I would assume the non participants will be next.

Would fully expect Dundee to be considered then, and whilst it is not for me to speak for everyone who takes part or second guess them I'd be gobsmacked if he did not sail through.

Thanks for the response, Jeff.

The Captain's opening article above talks about your Hall being open to all including trainers which particularly made me think of Angelo Dundee.

On the Cricket Hall of Fame, we're currently working our way through the ICC List. That's just cricketers but we plan to open our Hall up for others to be nominated later in the year. All good fun even if a bit exasperating at times - some of the younger posters seem well aware of the current fourth choice keeper for Bangladesh but have hardly heard of Barry Richards! Guess I would have been wearing similar shoes forty years ago!

Great job being done there by your boxing buddy Fists - and no, you can't have him back.

Was tempted to offer my two bobs worth to the cricket HOF but when Fists informed me Boycs had not made the cut I started sulking. If Fiery Fred suffers a similar fate I may not be held responsible for my actions

Fiery fred = trueman? or flintoff?

ShahenshahG wrote:Fiery fred = trueman? or flintoff?

Not even in jest Shah