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]

Last weeks votes are in and it was a resounding no to Escobar and Fields who by reckoning failed to secure a solitary vote between them. Gibbons on the other hand is one of those rare guys who gained across the board Yeses and so sails in, as does Genaro who gained a similar level of across the board affirmatives.

As tends to be the case most weeks there is always one who splits opinion and this week that honour befell Flowers who secured four out of seven possible yes votes, which even with my questionable maths skills is below the 75% required to get in first time but does see him live to fight another day by which time hopefully you philistines who said no will have learnt what the hell you are doing.

This weeks nominations will be up soon. Will apologise up front and say have not had much time this week so the bios will be ripped directly word for word from the IBHOF website.

This weeks nominees are Tommy Gibbons, George Godfrey, Young Griffo, Harry Harris and Len Harvey and if there ain't al least a couple of names in there that will have you running to boxrec or CBZ you're a better man than me.

Like his older brother Mike, Tommy Gibbons is best remembered for a fight in which he kept a champion at bay. Widely acknowledged as a stellar fighter in several weight classes, Gibbons held his own with heavyweight king Jack Dempsey and was knocked out only once in his career.

Gibbons learned to box at the YMCA in his hometown of St. Paul. He turned professional at the age of twenty and recorded knockouts in his first three fights. At the start of his career, Gibbons fought as a welterweight. As he added weight, he moved up in class until he eventually contended for the heavyweight title. Gibbons battled Hall of Famer Harry Greb four times from 1915 to 1922, losing the only one of the four bouts in which a decision was rendered. He also fought multiple bouts with George ("K.O.") Brown, Joe Herrick, George Chip, Gus Christie, Silent Martin, Billy Miske, Clay Turner, Burt Kenny, and Chuck Wiggins. Only Miske beat Gibbons, and he won on a foul.

Initially, Gibbons was famed for his speed and boxing ability. However, as he gained weight, he developed a more powerful punch. In 1921, Gibbons won 21 fights by knockouts, with ten of them coming in the first round. Although not all of the victories were against top competition, Gibbons succeeded in making enough of a name for himself to earn a shot at Dempsey's heavyweight title.

The title fight took place in Shelby, Montana. The city fathers wanted to put the town on the map by hosting a heavyweight championship bout. Jack Kearns, Dempsey's manager, agreed to have his fighter perform there if Dempsey were paid $310,000. Kearns also insisted on using his own referee, James Dougherty. Gibbons, hungry for the championship, agreed to be paid beyond expenses only if there were money left over after Dempsey's cut. Dempsey got paid, but because the fight drew only about 7,000 spectators, Gibbons received nothing. In fact, the fight was a financial disaster for Shelby and three banks failed as a result of backing the fiasco.

Born Feab Smith Williams in Mobile, Alabama on January 25, 1897, Godfrey adopted his ring name as a tribute to George (Old Chocolate) Godfrey.

He began boxing while serving in the military during WWI. After resigning from the service, he relocated to Chicago. In the “Windy City” he was taken under the tutelage of Sam Langford and Jack Blackburn and turned pro in 1919. An imposing figure, the 6'3”, 240-pound fighter was gifted with tremendous hand and foot speed. Godfrey also gained valuable experience as a sparring partner for Jack Dempsey. His fistic prowess made him extremely popular with fight fans, selling out arenas across the country such as the Olympic in Los Angeles. During his 18 year career Godfrey boxed throughout the US and across the globe including Belgium, Sweden, France and Romania. He registered wins over Jack Renault, Jim Maloney, Paolino Uzcudun, and Tiger Jack Fox among others.

The combination of his obvious skill in the ring and the color line outside of it, Godfrey was avoided throughout much of his career. Although he never challenged for the world title, he did capture the Mexican and IBU heavyweight titles. Godfrey retired in 1937 with a 97-20-3 (80 KOs) record. He died August 13, 1947

One of the greatest defensive fighters of all time, Young Griffo compiled an outstanding record while eschewing traditional training methods. Born in Australia, the illiterate Griffo got his first experience fighting while selling newspapers on the docks of Sydney. When noted Australian boxer Larry Foley saw him in a street fight, Foley added Griffo to his stable of fighters. Griffo first started boxing under the old London Prize Ring Rules in 1886.

In 1889, Griffo won an eight-round decision over Nipper Peakes to take the Australian featherweight title. The next year, he scored a fifteenth-round knockout of Torpedo Billy Murphy in Sydney to win a version of the world featherweight title. Though Griffo successfully defended this title once, he did not gain widespread acclaim as the title holder.

In 1893, Griffo journeyed to the United States and dazzled fans with his incredible ability to avoid getting hit. He used to boast that he could stand on a handkerchief and dodge punches without taking a step in any direction. Griffo fought a host of notables, usually competing as a lightweight, although he did not earn a title shot. He fought three draws with George Dixon, which could have gone Griffo's way had the rules allowed the rendering of a decision. He also lost a controversial decision to Hall of Famer Jack McAuliffe, who barely touched Griffo in ten rounds.

Griffo did not treat his boxing career seriously. Usually, he did not train at all for his fights. If legend is to believed, he often arrived in the ring drunk or hung over. Even so, he was able to win more than his share of fights while absorbing only a minimal amount of punishment. By 1900, the years of hard living had slowed Griffo, and he suffered a knockout by Joe Gans. Griffo continued to fight until 1904 and made an abortive comeback in 1911.

Exceptionally tall for a bantamweight (5ft. 7 3/4 in.), his physique belied his considerable knockout power. Nonetheless, Harris was known as "The Human Hairpin."

Born in Chicago, IL., he turned pro in 1896 and his fighting style was greatly influenced by Kid McCoy, who taught him the famed "corkscrew punch." An excellent jabber and two-handed puncher, Harris battled bantamweight champion Jimmy Barry to a controversial draw in 1899 that effectively ended Barry's career.

On March 18, 1901 in London, Harris challenged and shocked British fans while gaining a 15-round decision victory over Pedlar Palmer and the world bantamweight title. Harris' last contest was an 8th round win by foul over Tommy Murphy in 1907.

Born July 11, 1907 in Stoke Climssland, Cornwall, England. Harvey turned pro in 1920 and would go on to become one of the most decorated fighters in British boxing history.

In 1926 he was unsuccessful in his first attempt at a British championship, drawing over 20 rounds with Harry Mason for the British welterweight title. Known for his powerful left hand, right cross and uppercut, Harvey defeated Alec Ireland (KO 7) for the British middleweight belt on May 16, 1929. After six successful defenses, he dropped the title to Jock McAvoy in 1933 but bounced back to capture both the British light heavyweight and heavyweight championships with wins over Eddie Phillips and Jack Peterson respectively later that year. His win over Peterson is considered one of the finest of his career. Harvey lost a 15-round decision in a 1932 world middleweight title bid to Marcel Thil in London. In 1939 he defeated McAvoy in a bout recognized by the British Boxing Board of Control as the world light heavyweight championship.

Harvey announced his retirement from the ring on November 21, 1942 following a loss to Freddie Mills (KO by 2). In retirement he would became a physical training instructor for the Royal Air Force (RAF). Harvey's pro record reads 111-13-9 (51 KOs) and includes wins over Thil and Dave Shade and memorable bouts with formidable foes Vince Dundee and Ben Jeby among others

I will start with the more straightforward ones first I think.
Len Harvey – pretty clear no to me. I think he falls some way short despite having a few good wins over the likes of Shade, Thil and McAvoy. No real consistency at at the top level though and it was probably one of the weaker periods for the middleweights in the early 1930s when Harvey was battling for contention. Domestic success against some good domestic fighters that were also world level from middleweigh to heavyweight but well beaten by John Henry Lewis for the world light heavyweight title. I think overall hes a pretty safe no.

Harry Harris – Im at sea with this one but I really cant find a way to include him as there just isnt enough in his record or title reign to do so. Charley Rose rates Harris as the number 10 bantamweight of all time (this was made in 1968) so with some credence to that I don’t think he is really a top ten man in his division considering I was borderline with Dixon who is held much higher. I find Rose’s rankings to be beyond comprehension for the most part so the fact he barely has Harris making the top ten means I think its unlikely he is worth a spot and he seemed to fight mostly exhibitions, with few fights ten rounds or beyond.

Godfrey must be one of the dirtiest fighters in history and I cant think of any other heavyweight that was disqualified as much as he was. He makes Golota look gentlemanly. I cant include him overall as though he has some good wins, and was undoubtedly a victim of the times he just didn’t achieve enough and spent most of the peak of his career fighting leftovers. Although he was limited in terms of opportunities, and he held the coloured heavyweight title for a while, he doesn’t really separate himself from the pack of challengers to any real extent the way a Langford or a Wills did. Even without the colour line I get the impression Godfrey would be just be a challenger like several others in the era. So Im happy to vote no on him.

Tommy Gibbons I think has probably an even stronger claim than his older brother has who was voted in last week so he is an easy yes for me. Although he never won a title he racked up plenty of good wins. Some of his wins over Miske and Greb occurred when all three were pretty green but he has very good consistency over the lesser fighters most of his career. Perhaps the biggest argument against is he has the stigma of losing to the two best heavyweights he faced in Dempsey and Tunney but he has a strong light heavyweight record despite never winning a title there. Its interesting to note how he apparently developed a much bigger punch later in his career. I wonder how much of this is true. I think the No Decision era leant itself to fighters holding back in many cases due to the nature of the era Gibbons higher KO ratio pretty much starts at the time the No Decision bouts were being phased out. Its remarkable how low the KO ratios of many of the fighters of the No Decision period is and how in some cases fighters KO wins go up drastically when the period starts to end.

Now the trickiest one. Young Griffo is very difficult to decide on I think. This is as much due to the era where the great multitude of No Decision and Exhibition style matches makes it very difficult quantify achievement. He appears to be very naturally gifted with several prominent fighters and witnesses testifying to his defensiveness and elusiveness in particular. However he also seems to be lazy and regularly turned up out of shape or even drunk with the intention of just fighting to a draw. He didn’t appear to take his boxing career all that seriously for the most part, even giving up his world title. His title reign is not really satisfying and seems to have been disputed at times. Ultimately he appears to be a talented fighter but a combination of a lack of dedication and the circumstances of the era mean he misses out for me.

So in conclusion, only Gibbons joins his brother from this week for me.

Gibbons – yes
Godfrey – no
Griffo – no
Harris – no
Harvey – no

Tough group to pick from this week, manos has made some good points.

I'll stick to the order listed in Rowley's original post;

Tommy Gibbons is a clear yes for me. A genuinely great fighter with a host of stellar names on his record, and a personal favourite of mine. He boxed during a fiercely competitive era and more than held his own. With regards to manos's comment that Gibbons may suffer from losing to Dempsey and Tunney, I don't really feel that is a factor. Gibbons was, ostensibly, a LHW, I don't think that he ought to be marked down for losing to a top 10 ATG HW. Tunney said himself that he felt that the best performance he ever put on during his career came when he met and beat Gibbons. I think that the number of boxers, south of 200lbs, that could have handled Tunney that fight could be counted on one hand.

George Godfrey is a no for me. I can see why he is being considered here, but ultimately, he just didn't achieve enough. He has some good wins on his ledger and, I'm sure, would, were it not for the unenlightened attitude of the times, have, at the very least, been a top contender. However, it is all maybes and I don't think his record, or his achievements warrant a place in such esteemed company.

I'm running out of time as need to run off soon, so will wrap it up and say

Young Griffo is a yes for me

Harris and Harvey are both no's

Will justify my decisions sometime over the weekend

Gibbons - yes
Godfrey - no
Griffo - yes
Harris - no
Harvey - no

Will start with the more obvious ones and I really do not see a case for Harris, a draw with Jimmy Barry suggests there is class there but beyond that I do not see enough on the record, suppose as one of the first Jewish world champions you can make a bit of an argument from a historical perspective but its a stretch. He is a no for me.

Harvey seems about as easy a no as we have had on hyere, whenever tyhe subject of top ten Brits is debated on here I can't recall ever seeing Harvey on those lists. Given there are guys such as Buchanan who do deservedly et on those lists who we said no to in this process I am happy to knock Harvey back.

Gibbons is a yes for me will not hold falling short against great heavies like Dempsey and Tunney against him too greatly and look at his record against the excellent fighters like Chip, Greb and Miske who he matched up with more naturally and holding your own in this company and having much the better of many of them is enough for me to say yes.

As anyone who remembers I wrote a thread about Godfrey some time ago and I long argued that Godfrey is better than his record suggested and that had he been allowed to fight without shackles or on the level he could have posed a genuine threat to Dempsey but this hall is not about if buts and maybes and there are just too many dq's and plain inexplicable losses on the ledger to allow Godfrey in and the question I keep sking myself is an elite hall really a place for a guy who lost to Primo Carnera. No it isn't.

Which brings us to the one which appears likely to vex folk, myslef included this week and what to do with Young Griffo? I voted George Dixon in recently and it does appear Griffo more than held his own against Dixon, add into this most everyone felt he deserved the nod against Jack Macaulife, creditable performances against the likes of Ike Weir, Joe Gans and Walter Egerton and think I am willing to turn a blind eye to his less than stellar approach to the game and say yes to him.

Summary

Gibbons - YES
Godfrey - NO
Griffo - YES
Harris - No
Harvery NO

I suppose in Godfreys defence you could say some of his DQ losses were down to either fixes or refs shafting him. The Carnera fight in particular seems to have been one of Primos more dubious wins from the reports of the fight. He was battered for four rounds before Godfrey was DQed mysteriously in the 5th. There seems little doubt though that Godfrey was a seriously dirty fighter and engaged in bouts that were fixes or predetermined. Half of his coloured heavyweight title fights were stopped due to stalling, lack of action or foul play.

Re Gibbons beating miske - wasnt miske suffering from kidney disease at the time? and If so should it really count in gibbons favour?

ShahenshahG wrote:Re Gibbons beating miske - wasnt miske suffering from kidney disease at the time? and If so should it really count in gibbons favour?

Possibly in the later part of his career he may have been, but they fought a series of bouts some of which I think Gibbons won before Miske was diagnosed with his illness.

Gibbons appears to be the easiest: Had a baptism of fire in his early career with decisions over the likes of Miske and Greb at which time he was only around middleweight, it seems he found his punch as he rose in weight and with long streaks of wins - mainly by knock out - and the only un avenged losses being to Tunney and Dempsey who are each top 30 fighters of all time at least, he sails into the Hall.

Griffo sounds sort of similar to Sweat Pea in the sense that he was a defensive wiz, presumably courtesy of upper body movement if the handkerchief thing is true, and that this could lead to the odd dodgy decision. Although he has frustratingly numerous ND's, he also has conspicuously few losses. It's the draws on his record that help him most, as he held his own against ATG's by my standards like Dixon and Gans on more than one occasion. Although having checked boxrec he did outweigh Dixon by a fair bit.

I was leaning towards yes, when I spotted he'd defeated Mick McCarthy in four rounds. Easy yes!


With better management or a more convenient ethnicity I get the feeling Godfrey could've achieved enough to get in, but as it is he's and ifs and buts fighter. Lots of wins, few of them over reputable names. A no.


Harry Harris and Len Harvey are both no's. Harris was apparently talented, but racked up few results of note. Harvey fought in a fairly talented pack, but an exceptional one and he never rose above his peers.

Gibbons YES
Griffo YES
Godfrey NO
Harris NO
Harvey NO

Rowley and the rest, really sorry for this but I'm struggling a bit for time, so will need to leave one word answers for now. Will post my reasoning for these, as well as the write ups for the next five candidates, tomorrow evening - promise!

Gibbons - YES
Griffo - NO
Godfrey - NO
Harris - NO
Harvey - NO

I almost had a clean sweep of no's this week but after reading the posts above and another look back at his career, I'll say it's a yes to Gibbons and an apology for initially dismissing him.

For whatever reason, I've always held his brother Mike in higher regard and largely dismissed Tommy as simply the man who survived against Dempsey and who was outclassed by Tunney. Looking more closely at Tommy, it's hard to split him from his brother and he has enough good wins over the likes of Greb, Miske and other light heavy luminaries to merit inclusion.

I can't really add anything to the reasons given above for exclusing the other nominees.

So, after some good debate which picked up after a slow(ish) start, we can wave goodbye to the names of Len Harvery, Harry Harris and George Godfrey, all of whom failed to secure a single vote for their inclusion in to our Hall. Tommy Gibbons, on the other hand, joins his brother with a symmetry befitting that of a pair of brothers, with all of his votes being of the 'yes' variety.

Young Griffo, as someone always tends to, played the part of nuisance this week, giving us a wee bit of a headache; he secured fifty percent approval, so while he can't be inducted just yet, he's at least done enough to be considered for a second ballot entry at a date further down the line. On to this week's five.

Born Peter Gulotta in 1896, Pete Herman as he became known twice reigned as the world Bantamweight champion. Almost half of his bouts were 'No Decision' affairs, and he lacked a killer punch, but made up for this with what Gilbert Odd described as "a shrewd tactical brain and accurate hitting." He turned professional at just sixteen, and his early career was littered with losses and draws. However, a winning run in 1917 gave him a crack at Kid Williams for the Bantamweight title, and Herman outscored him over twenty rounds. What followed next was curious - he defended only once in the following three years, before losing the title in suspicious circumstances to Joe Lynch on points in 1920, not long before facing Flyweight legend Jimmy Wilde. To this day, rumours circulate that Herman threw the fight for fear of losing the crown to Wilde. Nevertheless, he stopped the Welshman in seventeen rounds, regained his 118 lb title via a comfortable points win in a rematch with Lynch, and then lost it for the final time to Johnny Buff in 1921. He retired soon after to run a restaurant and serve on the New Orleans State Athletic Commission, passing away in 1973. One of his rare wins inside schedule came against acknowledged Bantamweight great Johnny Coulon, no less.

Leo Houck must surely rank as one of the finest fighters of his era never to receive a world title shot. He fought from Flyweight up to Heavyweight, boxed a dozen world champions and, in particular, was a fixture in the Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight rankings from the years of the First World War until the early twenties. Despite mixing it with such a level of competition, he was stopped only twice in a career which spanned 150-odd fights, defeating sometime world title claimants such as Al McCoy, Battling Levinsky, Billy Papke, Eddie McGoorty, George Chip, Jeff Smith, Frank Klaus and Jack Dillon - unfortunately for him, the Middleweight title was in dispute during his peak, with Europe, Australia and the USA all recognizing their own champions, and he was never given the chance to make his own claim official. He became a successful trainer in later life, however, with his protegé Billy Soose picking up the NYSAC version of the title.

There are some historians, very much in the minority, who opine to this day that Peter Jackson, known as the 'Black Prince', did indeed become the Heavyweight champion of the world - Frank Slavin had knocked out Jake Kilrain in 1891 (a year before the gloved era officially got underway when James J Corbett knocked out John L Sullivan) in the first fight to use four ounce gloves, hence being recognised as the first gloved champion by some, before being knocked out by Jackson at the National Sporting Club the following year. However, to most others, Jackson is regarded as one of the finest fighters never to win the crown, in either the bare knuckle or gloved era. Born in the Virgin Islands, Jackson and his family settled in Australia and it's there that he turned professional in 1882. Initial progress was slow, but he emerged as a serious operator after knocking out another black (and therefore often avoided and swindled) fighter, the highly-rated George Godfrey, in 1888. He remained undefeated for many years afterwards, regularly colliding with fellow contenders, but the odious 'colour bar' put in place by Sullivan meant that he was never rewarded with a world title fight. He boxed a 61-round draw with future champion Corbett in 1891, and then knocked out Slavin for minimal title recognition, but from that point onwards it was largely downhill for Jackson. He retired, but made an ill-advised comeback, losing his final two fights by stoppage - one to future Heavyweight king James J Jeffries.

Joe Jeannette was a fine Heavyweight who, in the days where there are often more than one title available per division and in which black fighters are not forced out of the picture, may well have had a world title to show for his efforts. Unfortunately, the colour bar in place throughout his career meant that he was forced to pit himself against the similarly avoided and shunned black operators of his time - he fought Sam Langford, one of his great rivals, fourteen times, for instance. Jeannette also featured in one of the most remarkable Heavyweight contests of all time, with fellow black fighter Sam McVey, who he boxed four times. In their 1909 meeting in Paris, Jeannette was floored 22 times in the first 37 rounds, but showed phenomenal endurance and courage to roar back, decking McVey in the 39th for the first time. But McVey could match him for guile - although he was floored an extra 18 times after that, he still inflicted another six knockdowns on Jeannette. The fight finally ended in the 49th round when McVey, exhausted, collapsed - by which time here had been 47 knockdowns. Although frozen out of the title picture, Jeannette continued to win more than he lost and scored arguably his most notable victory when he outscored future Light-Heavyweight champion Georges Carpentier in 1914, before retiring in 1919.

James J Jeffries remains a giant in the history of the Heavyweight division - and though he would not be a big Heavyweight by modern standards (he stood at 6'2.5" and weighed around 220 lb when at his best), he was considered a physical giant in his time, too. He originally earned a living as a capable sparring partner for many leading Heavyweights, and this experience clearly stood him in good stead when he entered the professional ranks - his paid career was still only thirteen fights old when he knocked out Bob Fitzsimmons for the world title in 1899. He'd already been mixing it with the likes of Joe Choynski, Gus Ruhlin and Tom Sharkey - without tasting defeat - beforehand, all top contenders between Light-Heavyweight and Heavyweight, and he proved himself a fine champion, with seven successful defences, six of them inside the distance, including another win over Fitzsimmons and a pair of wins over former champion James J Corbett. Jeffries retired as undefeated champion in 1904, but under immense public pressure was tempted back in to the sport in 1910 to take on Jack Johnson, fresh from becoming the first black Heavyweight champion, to restore what middle America considered the 'natural order.' Flabby and visibly past his best, Jeffries was toyed with by Johnson and stopped in the fifteenth round. He never boxed again, and died in 1953.

Looks like I'll have to try and get the ball rolling for this week, then!

Herman's career is a little bit of an odd one. He has a series of terrific wins against genuinely tip top opposition, which are countered by two highly disappointing title reigns, neither of which really did his talents justice. It's also notable how his form declined at such a young age - can we really accept in to a Hall of Fame a man who did precious little after the age of twenty-five / twenty-six or so? Granted, he was a professional at a young age, but there are factors which make his claim a little more questionable than I first thought. However, it's hard to argue that he was anything other than a top operator during his pomp, even if it was short; his win over Wilde was pretty emphatic, albeit with a natural size advantage, and he had on the wood more often than not on Lynch too, a Bantam great by most yard sticks. It's wafer-thin, but remembering how elite we want our Hall to be, I'm leaning towards a very, very narrow no for Herman - but don't be surprised if I come back to change that view later this week!

Houck, likewise, isn't easy. The upside is his list of wins which I mentioned in his write up, a list which reads very handsomely indeed. The downside is that those same men also took decisions off him in return, and that when it came to the very, very tip of the ice berg (I'm talking the Grebs and Tunneys of this world), Houck usually fell short. However, should any Middleweight be penalised too greatly for losing to such outstanding fighters? Probably not, but ultimately Houck's claim to being the best 160 lb fighter in the world was no more concrete than a couple of others who haven't made it in - and I feel that giving Houck the benefit of the doubt would be a mark of inconsistency and leaning too much to 'what ifs' and 'maybes.' It's close, but he's a no, for me.

Thanks to the dedication of a certain Mr 667, it's become easy for us to eulogise over Peter Jackson's career - but it wasn't one worthy of the Hall of Fame. He failed to establish superiority over Corbett, a fighter I'm not as sold on as some others are, in what proved to be his greatest claim to fame, and while he proved a tough man to beat, many of his fights were (for reasons beyond his control, I admit) little more than exhibition level at times. His wins over Slavin and the like show that he could indeed fight, and it's tragic that he was never given the opportunity to square off against the very, very best when it mattered most, but there's way too much uncertainty surrounding Jackson to let him in. It's a no.

Jeannette, like Jackson, finds his claims impaired by skin colour as much as anything else. The results he recorded against rivals such as Langford and McVey were solid enough, and his consistency was pretty good too, considering the era he boxed in - but it is really a record which screams elite at you? I'd have to say no, and again, I think that allowing Jeannette a place here would be a masterpiece of generosity. Another thumbs down.

Jim Jeffries - now he is the easiest of this week's lot to decipher, and it almost goes without saying that he sails in. Basically took on the best available and was dominant against them, setting a high standard of what should be expected from a Heavyweight champion. Never beaten in anything like his peak years - he's deducted absolutely no points for the Johnson affair - and to this day, had a record which reads well when compared to most Heavyweight champions. An easy yes.

So it's just Jeffries for me this week, with the rest missing out by varying degrees - though I look forward to someone maybe trying to nudge me in to changing my mind on one or two of them with an interesting counter argument.

Jeffries is as easy as it gets on here. Can say all you want about his size in comparison with many of his opponents but this is the kind of caveat one can attach to most all heavyweight reigns. A more simple approach is to ask did he beat the best the era had to offer and in Jeff’s case you’re damned right he did, realise that excludes Johnson but should also not be forgotten when Jack was building up momentum and something like a groundswell of support he dumped a decision to Marvin Hart. Corbett and Fitzsimmons were both fine fighters and hall of famers themselves and Jeffries beat the pair, and but for being pressured into an ill advised comeback he had no particular desire to make would have retired unbeaten . Jeffries is the kind of fighter this exercise was started for YES, YES and YES

Jeannette is one of those guys who clearly did not get the opportunities his abilities deserved and of the fighters around at that era who probably should have been contesting the title with Johnson rather than the likes of Ketchel and Johnson I tend to rank Joe as second only to Sam Langford. However I find myself asking should a hall of fame heavyweight be coming off second best to a guy of 5ft 6 even one as fine as Langford and had Joe been given the chance he probably deserved against Johnson would he have prevailed. I find myself saying no to both of these questions and thus find myself saying no to Joe in this process.

Which brings me to the slightly more troubling question of Jackson, realise he has become something of a punchline on here but this should not in any way confuse anyone’s thinking or cloud the issue that he was genuinely an extremely talented and fine fighter. To pose a similar question I asked with Jeannette and ask myself would Peter have won the title had he been offered the chance I suspect under both the tail end of Sullivan’s reign and Corbett’s era I would have made Jackson a fairly warm favourite. Realise his record is a bit on the sparse side but he fought Corbett to a standstill whilst injured. As Chris has already said no to him and it is my genuine belief that the absolute worst fate that should befall Jackson is a second bite at the cherry I am going to give him a yes.

Houck does not really seem to fit the bill, is said about a lot of fighters during this process but he seems very much in the good category rather than the great and given I seriously doubt he is going to secure many votes during this process I see little need to go into depth hugely about my rationale behind the no.

Herman is one of those hugely frustrating guys who throws in the odd very decent win such as his to Zulu Kid and then throws in losses to guys an elite fighter has no real business losing to and perhaps fatally in Herman’s case a good number of these losses are by stoppage, am thinking on some of the other guys we have said no to in this process and am not sure Herman has really done enough to set himself apart from them so he is a no.

Summary
Jeffries YES
Jackson YES
Jeannette NO
Herman NO
Houck NO

If I don't get mine in by thursday don't wait for 'em because I'll be away for a few days. Hopefully I'll get them in though...

Nice and easy start with Jeffries as he is a definite yes. Perhaps the perfect heavyweight for his time being both incredibly durable and carrying enough power to finish an opponent off in the later rounds. Given that his title reign followed three legends of the sport in Sullivan, Corbett and Fitz and also that he was essentially learning on the job, the acclaim placed on Jeffries at the time is quite incredible and revealing. He really was seen as the invincible, all conquering hero and streets ahead of his peers. Certainly the first truly great heavyweight champion (discounting Sullivan's pre Queensberry reign) and I don't think his legacy is affected by the loss to Johnson. Jeffries against Johnson 5 years before they eventually fought is one of the great lost fights and could have gone either way.

I'll also give Jackson a yes. I'm not totally convinced that he deserves a place, but like jeff, I think the least he deserves is further consideration. It's hard to assess his record properly as we can only imagine the true extent of the restrictions that he fought under. His legend seems to be based on that epic fight with Corbett and whilst Corbett has a significant histortical standing and was a great boxer of his time, I'm not sure that's enough to merit inclusion in an elitist hall of fame. Perhaps I need to revisit Dave's excellent article on Jackson before we consider him again.

Whilst I fully sympathise with Langford in failing to land a shot at Johnson's title (I think he had a real chance against any post-Burns version of Johnson), I do have less sympathy for both Jeannette and McVey. Even if Jeanette had been granted a shot, I'm not sure he would have troubled a focussed Johnson and I do think his legacy was boosted by the fact that he was in that group with Langford and McVey (and Johnson before he got his hands on the title). Albeit, I think Jeanette was better than many of white heavyweight contempories, it was hardly a talent rich era and it's not enough to earn him a place inthe hall of fame. He's a no.

Along with a number of fighters we've reviewed recently, Houck falls into that category of fighters with a solid resume against the good fighters they faced but falling short when faced against the greats of their time. He's a no for that reason.

I really don't know with Herman. I'm leaning towards a no but some of the wins on his record are fantastic and I find it hard to discount entirely anyone with those names in their win column. I think he's worthy of further consdieration so will vote yes to give him a chance.

superflyweight wrote: I'm not totally convinced that he deserves a place, but like jeff, I think the least he deserves is further consideration.

With how few vote on the hall nowadays the old boy is in danger of making it in first time. Dave will be pleased.

The lack of voters is an issue. What about a slight change in the chronology of fighters considered? Personally have no problems with how the thread has been structured but I think a few people on here are intimidated by the fact that they know very little about the fighters under consideration or have never heard of them.

What about a trial run starting off with some relatively recent fighters and working our way back? By the time we get to pre-war stuff again, more people may have the confidence to offer opinions on the old time fighters.

Problem is super the modern have been done. Although I will concede it is a decent idea, there may be some merit to going on to the non participants section because without looking you would think that will be a decent mix of old and new as I'd like to think most everyone could comment on the likes of King or Angelo Dundee, I have no issues with us doing that if everyone agrees and things don't pick up

Nice ideas, lads. Another possible angle is that we could go back and sort through the 'moderns' who didn't make the cut first time out, but who are in line for a possible second ballot entry? A few such names (Tiger, Angott, Pedroza etc) had some really good debate surrounding them. The only problem with that idea is that it'd only tide us over for a week or two.

Is there an updated list showing who's already in the hall? Maybe an article in the main section highlighting the HoF's current status would also spark interest. It occurs to me that I haven't ever seen the list beyond the captain's original 31.

Apologies - just saw the list in the Vault. Is it worth posting a monthly article highlighting recent inductees? May spark interest.

Will be brief as have just returned from holiday but it's a yes to Gibbons and a no to everyone else.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Will be brief as have just returned from holiday but it's a yes to Gibbons and a no to everyone else.

Doesn't get a lot briefer than that, if you get chance to expand on them mate feel free because it will probably be at least a couple of days before I get this weeks nominees up, would also be interested to see your take on Jeffries who thus far has secured pretty much across the board support.

How about going through the second round of inductees? the people who didn't quite make it and are up for the second shot - I think we've got enough of a selection to set the standard for entry in the hof - so maybe we can go through some of the modern rejectees with perhaps one old timer thrown in? It might encourage people to research the one as long as they get to talk about someone they know. I don't think many people are willing to research and analyse 5 old time fighters in a sort of rushed pace and extending the time between selections will bring the thread to a halt again.

Shah

At some point in the next week will knock up a PM for all the regular voters to see how we want to proceed/breathe life into hall again and we'll go with the majority because I fully agree we need to try something

Damm sorry Jeff voted for last week not this weeks 5

Jeffries YES
Jackson NO
Jeannette NO
Herman YES
Houck NO

Will attempt to go into more depth tomorrow at some point before I return to work on tuesday, not a bad set of 5 this week as they are all fairly well known. Houck is an interesting choice as always thought of him more as a very good journeyman in the Johnson mould than a truly world class boxer. He probably deserves a bit more respect and the newspaper decisions do need a lot more looking into but on the face of it can't see any real argument for his inclusion.

No problem Ghosty, nearly in tears here thinking someone was saying no to the boilermaker!

Can see why Herman is getting such a mixed reaction but a bantamweight from the 1910's to hold wins over four great fighters in Coulon, Wilde, Lynch and Williams is mightily impressive. His second title reign can be perceived to be slightly misleading as there is a lot of speculation that his loss to Lynch wasn't quite on the level because of the threat posed by Wilde to americas supremacy of the division. So the story goes it was agreed that once Herman had signed to fight Wilde he would 'lose' his title to Lynch and win it back once he had fought Wilde to keep it in america.

Think jeanette and houck are non-divisive NO's, and i hate to see a grown man cry so better add a YES to the three of rowley for jeffries

Jackson is a little tricky. Whilst most of his wins were over sheep farmers, he did run up a very long undefeated run and the comeback defeats were when he was at a very advanced age for a fighter in those times. He's in the 'can't really say' how good he was, so whilst i have sympathy with his cause, without being sure he deserves it, its a NO.

My take on Herman. Picking up on chris' point about fighters who are washed up at 25... i think it depends on whether they've been 'found out' or whether its just volume of fights, some guys peaking earlier than others etc. For every glen johnson, there is a benitez. I suspect we've let plenty in who've done little of note after their mid 20's. Also looking at his record, with no previous knowledge of him, i'm missing these stoppage defeats you speak of rowley. I see plenty of dropped newspaper decisions fighting 3 times in a week. Looks to me like the guy who only put it all in when it mattered, and he was clearly capable of raising his game to beat the very best. However, despite all this, the general hot and cold nature of his record just leans me against him. NO.

so that's a yes for jeffries and a no for the rest

Many thanks to those who responded to my pm's asking what to do with the hall of fame. I think the best thing we can do is plough on, as someone rightly said on the PM's unless the full membership of the IBRO join up the old timers are going to be heavy weather however we do it because they tyake some research. With this in mind I think rather than look to change the nominees every week as was the previous approach we will show a bit more pragmatism and flexibility and if the nominees are an obscure bunch leave them up until we have got enough votes to make a decision which should allow the voters a bit more time to do their research.

Anyway on to last weeks nominees and by my maths only Jeffries got through sweeping the board on votes and rightly taking his place in the hall and removing the need for me to ban anyone had he not made it. Apologies to Dave but Jackson fell just short of the 50% needed to make it to another vote and the other three barely troubled the scorers.

The bios for this week will follow this post because they are pretty long, being nicked straight off the IBHOF website again.

This weeks nominees are Gorilla Jones, Rocky Kansas, Kid Kaplan, Stanely Ketchel and Johnny Kilbane:

Born in Memphis, TN on May 12, 1906. Gorilla Jones was first introduced to boxing while competing in battle royals. He turned professional in 1924 in Memphis and shortly thereafter relocated to Akron, OH.

Wins over Tommy Freeman, Bucky Lawless, and Izzy Grove propelled him to the top ten of the welterweight division. Difficulty in making weight led to sub-par performances against welterweight king Jackie Fields. After Mickey Walker vacated the middleweight crown in 1931, Jones entered a tournament to find a successor for the NBA strap. He stopped Oddone Piazza (TKO 6) to win the title and a defense over Young Terry (W12) followed before losing to Marcel Thil via controversial 11th round DQ in Paris. Jones battled back and, in 1933, beat Sammy Slaughter (KO 7) for the NBA title. Although he never defended the belt, he kept a busy pace and earned one more title bout against NY/NBA champ Freddie Steele (L 10) in 1937.

Born Rocco Tozzo on April 21, 1895 in Buffalo, NY. A former newsboy, he turned professional as Kansas in 1911 when the ring announcer mistakenly introduced him as “Rocky Kansas.”

Known as “Little Hercules,” the 5’2” Kansas was a stocky, powerful brawler with a sturdy build. One of the top lightweights of his era, he met Benny Leonard four times between 1916-1922 (ND 10, ND 12, L 15, KO by 8). Following Leonard’s retirement as champion in 1925, Buffalo’s Jimmy Goodrich ascended to the title. In front of 12,000 fans at Buffalo’s Broadway Auditorium on December 7, 1925, Kansas, in his 160th bout and 15 years into his career, defeated Goodrich to become new champion. His reign was brief, dropping the strap to Sammy Mandell in 1926. He promptly retired, but engaged in one comeback fight in 1932 (L 6) before retiring for good.

The relentless battler, who had victories over Johnny Dundee, Lew Tendler, Richie Mitchell, Charlie White and George Chaney, compiled a pro record of 64-12-7 (32 KOs), 81 ND.

Born October 15, 1901 in Kiev, Russia, Kaplan and his family emigrated to the United States when he was five years old and settled in Meriden, CT. He began boxing as a teenager at the Lenox A.C. in Meriden and turned professional in 1919. A busy fighter, he engaged in over 50 bouts in his first 4 years in the paid ranks. In 1923 he twice drew with rival Babe Herman before scoring a 10-round win over future world lightweight champ Jimmy Goodrich.

By late 1924 featherweight champion Johnny Dundee vacated his title and a tournament was arranged to determine a successor. "Kid" kayoed Angel Diaz in three stanzas, outpointed Bobby Garcia over 10-rounds and then halted Joe Lombardo in four rounds to advance to the finals. On January 2, 1925 he knocked out Danny Kramer in nine rounds at Madison Square Garden to become the new champion. His first two defenses were against the familiar Babe Herman (D15 and W15) in late 1925. Kaplan next decisioned Hall of Famer Billy Petrolle over 12 rounds in a non-title bout.

However, Kaplan's reign as champion was nearing its end. Despite standing 5ft 4 in. he was experiencing difficulty making the featherweight limit and decided to relinquish the crown to campaign as a lightweight in 1927. As a 135-pounder, he scored wins over Jackie Fields, Johnny Jadick, Billy Wallace, Joe Glick Goodrich, Battling Battalino and Sammy Mandell among others. Amongst the wins were loses to Wallace, Eddie Ran, and Hall of Famer Jimmy McLarnin. In 1933 he lost to Cocoa Kid and promptly retired from the ring with a 104-18-12D- 19 ND (25KOs) record.

Stanley Ketchel lost only twice in his first 42 matches, all fought in Montana. In 1907, he went to California, where he won matches with several well-respected fighters, and by 1908, he had achieved national prominence. His twentieth-round knockout of Jack (Twin) Sullivan earned him the vacant world middleweight title. In his first three months as champion, Ketchel decisioned Billy Papke, and knocked out Hugo Kelly and Joe Thomas. In the rematch with Papke, the challenger punched Ketchel in the head as the fighters were meeting in the center of the ring to shake hands. The referee merely chided Papke, and the fight commenced. Still dazed by the illegal punch, Ketchel never seized control of the fight and was knocked out in the twelfth round. Six weeks later, Ketchel fought Papke with a savage fury and knocked him out in the eleventh, becoming the first middleweight champion to regain a lost title.

In 1909, Ketchel fought some of the most memorable battles of his career. In a no-decision bout against light heavyweight champion Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Ketchel absorbed a solid beating for six rounds, but came back to knock O'Brien down four times in the ninth and tenth rounds. The fight would have been a knockout if O'Brien hadn't been saved by the bell. In their rematch, Ketchel demolished O'Brien in three rounds.

Feeling bold after his strong performances, Ketchel agreed to challenge Jack Johnson for the heavyweight championship. The champ far outweighed Ketchel and was at the peak of his career. For the first six rounds, Ketchel stayed out of Johnson's way. In the seventh, Ketchel caught Johnson with a stinging left to the jaw. Ketchel went on the attack in the eighth and on into the tenth round. Meanwhile, Johnson landed enough punches to bloody Ketchel's face. The moment of truth came in the twelfth round, when Ketchel pounded a right into Johnson's jaw that threw the champ off balance. To the roaring of the crowd, Johnson briefly sat down on the canvas but rose up enraged and blasted Ketchel with a right to the jaw. Ketchel, his mouth a ruin, fell and stayed down for the count.

After the loss to Johnson, Ketchel continued to rack up victories. In 1910, determined to get another shot at the championship, he went to a ranch in Conway, Missouri to train. In this remote locale, the melodrama of Ketchel's life caught up with him. He died with a bullet in his lung, shot by a jealous hired hand who claimed the handsome prizefighter tried to steal his ladyfriend

Kilbane was a good scientific boxer who could also punch. He fought Attell three times, twice in championship bouts. In 1910, he lost a decision to Attell. Two years later, on a extremely hot night in Vernon, California, Kilbane took the crown from Attell with a twenty-round decision. Kilbane scored frequently with his left jab, while Attell resorted to heeling, butting, and elbowing. After the fight, Kilbane claimed that Attell had coated his back with chloroform in an attempt to daze his opponent. Attell said it was cooling cocoa butter and, for many years, bore ill will towards Kilbane for this charge, which Kilbane often repeated.

Through five title bouts, including one in 1913, in which he fought Hall of Famer Johnny Dundee to a draw, Kilbane defended his crown until 1923.

Gorilla Jones comes first, and he seems like an easy enough no. One of the pack, and a less than great pack it was. Maybe if he'd got the chance to face Walker he would've had a chance to stand out, but he'd surely be a massive under dog in that fight. Clearly a handful of a fighter, but nothing exceptional to put him into our HoF contention.

I'm blown away by Rocky Kansa's schedule - from 1911 to 1926 he fought 169 times!! - and only 11 official losses and 15 newspaper decisions from that numbers is very impressive. Add in that he was taking on young Dundee's and old Wolgast's and winning and that shows serious class. Benny Leonard appeared to have his number, but there's obviously no shame in that. Usually it helps to judge older fighters on their title reigns, but he won his title right near the end of a long, long career in terms of numbers of fights. Kansas' losses were usually to high quality fighters, and with that schedule he's earned the odd bad one. Yes to Kansas.

Kaplan is one I'm finding difficult. Wins over the likes of Fields, Villa and Batallino (I can't remember if Battling got into to our Hall, but he got my vote if I'm not mistaken...) but losses to the greats like Mclarnin and Cocoa Kid. He was supposedly avoided by Canzoneri, no less. Based on at least one win over an opponent I've voted into our hall, combined with good consistency between winning the title and reaching the end of his career I'm leaning to a yes for Kaplan.

Ketchel's a pretty simple yes for me. Crushed most of the division. Only unavenged losses were to one of the ten greatest heavies of all time, and the other to top P4Per Sam Langford over six rounds. Really impressive victories over Philly Jack O'brien. Yes.

Kilbane actually managing to take Attel's title is impressive enough, given the powers at work that kept Attel as champion for so long, but he also held on to it for an exceptionally long amount of time and mixed it with many top names from feather to light weight, holding wins over people I'd say are good enough to enter the hall. Another Yes

So that's a NO to Gorilla Jones and a YES to the rest, although a couple were close.

I hope more than one voter is necessary to create a result, because this is too much responsibility for me.

I think the easy ons are Jones and Ketchel who are a respective no and yes for me.

Kaplan just doesnt acheive enough for me. Like alot of these old era fighters that fight so many bouts he inneviteably has some good wins in there but he has a rather brief championship tenure a featherweight thats not particularly remarkeable and when he moves up to lightweight I get the feeling he didnt really set himself apart. Perhaps unfortunate that he never got to fight for the lightweight title, and some good wins over there over Fields, the rather inconsistent Battalino and Sammy Mandell who was on the way down but ultimately I dont think he has the consistency over the kind of top challengers or enough top wins to get into an exclusive Hall of Fame.

Kansas is a tricky one. Hes mixing it with some serious names at a very young age - Freddie Welsh, Ad Wolgast, Johnny Kilbane, Benny Leonard and Lew Tendler amongst others. Have to think though that none of these guys were really at their peak then. Welsh and Wolgast were most likely finished by that point and his record against Tendler, Leonard and Kilbane is patchy. Leonard in particular was a scourge for Kansas who seemed to spend his career in his shadow. When he did atually pick up the lightweight title after Leonards initial retirement it seems to have been disputed with the Ring magazine not recognising him as the best in the division and opting to rank Sammy Mandell ahead of him. A claim that seemed justified when they did meet in the ring shortly after. It seems the elimination tournament held to determine Leonards successor was spoiled by several DQ matches. Ultimately I think Il say no to Kansas because while I dont have any issue with him being second place to someone like Leonard, Im just not sure he really establishes himself as even a clear number 2 in the division at any stage, even when he was champion briefly.

Kilbane is probably the one Im least sure of. Interesting to see him described as a puncher although I think the No Decision era makes it hard to tell with many fighters. He was so inactive in terms of defending his title but he has some very good wins and lasting longetivity even notwithstanding how infrequently he defended his title. Ive said no to Dixon and Griffo of the featherweights just because I wasnt really convinced enough but I think Kilbane has enough of a title reign and enough top wins to see him included.

Jones - no
Kansas - no
Kaplan - no
Ketchel - yes
Kilbane - yes

Feels quite relaxing to have a go from this side of the ropes, so to speak.

The easy ones seem to be Kansas, Jones and Ketchel from where I'm sitting. Jones may well be among the least distinguished middleweight belt-holders of any era; he was getting his ears boxed off by Thil, for example, when getting DQ'd and Steele ultimately had his number fairly conclusively, so it's an easy no there. Kansas was ridiculously active and that win over Tendler looks particularly good, but overall, he has the look of an upper second tier man to me - not quite what this Hall was designed to admit. A pair of easy NOs here.

Ketchel is an equally obvious YES. I've little time for the revisionism that attempts to portray Stanley as anything other than one of the leading lights of a hugely talented era. A truly great fighter, albeit a fairly psychotic individual, Stanley increasingly reminds me of Monzon in a number of ways. One of the greats, for sure.

Kid Kaplan's exploits at feather and lightweight merit more than one glance, in my opinion. Even in his last fight, he knew enough to take a fighter as good as Cocoa Kid the distance, and he would have been about 30 when handing Mandell a sound beating. I like the wins against Petrolle and Battalino as well, while the loss to McLarnin is surely no cause for shame. It's a borderline one, this; perhaps by the very strictest standards, Kaplan should miss out, but I can't help thinking that the Hall might be better for his presence. I suspect that I'm going to be in a minority here, but I'll make him a YES.

The curse of the no-decision hangs over any assessment of Johnny Kilbane, but it is still possible to pick out one or two key facts about him. One is that he at least held his own against some of the greatest names in ring history and second is that he was at the premier end of the market for longer than most fighters have ever managed in the toughest game of all. There may be some doubts about specifics, but I can't see how a possible top dozen all-time featherweight with his record doesn't make it here. For me, Kilbane is a YES.

In summary, Yes to Ketchel, Kaplan and Kilbane. No to Kansas and Jones.

He's back!!!!

Celebrate good times come on! Welcome back captain! and nice to see you here too fists, you need to take a break from the pro/anti kp lobbies?

Yeah mate haha.

I'll be looking to get stuck in to this debate once more from the next week or so onward.

Thanks again, Shah. I'll hope to play a bit more of a role on this thread in the weeks to come, and I really must update the list of our current Hall of Famers as well.

I thought i'd killed fists by giving him some bad advice on the weightlifting thread!!

Then he goes and spoils it by turning up here!!

Ha! Still going Truss...better than ever following your 100% Beefster regime..

Yes to Ketchel and Kilbane and no to the rest with Kaplan the toughest to call.

Jones, Kaplan and Kansas all worthy entrants to the official HOF but all three suffer from the same kind of inconsistency that has seen me reject other nominees.

My strategy when voting is to go for the fighters I've heard of!!!

Glad to see Pablo Escobar didn't make it..

Shows you money can't buy you everything!!

You're not Haz "friend" anymore Milky..